Friday afternoon on the jetty. Canon 800mm f/5.6L IS lens with the 1.4X II TC and the EOS-1D Mark III. ISO 500. Evaluative metering at zero: 1/250 sec. at f/8.
I approached by hiding behind some big boulders before showing myself....
Don't be shy; all comments welcome. For info on jetty photography and related safety concerns, see the recent blog posts at www.birdsasart-Blog.com
BIRDS AS ART Blog: great info and lessons, lots of images with our legendary BAA educational Captions; we will not sell you junk. 30+ years of long lens experience/e-mail with gear questions.
BIRDS AS ART Online Store: we will not sell you junk. 35 years of long lens experience. Please e-mail with gear questions.
Check out the new SONY e-Guide and videos that I did with Patrick Sparkman here. Ten percent discount for BPN members,
Hi Arthur, (sorry... as you may know I'm new here, and I don't feel comfortable calling you Artie yet. )
I also don't have any experience shooting the kind of equipment you're using... so forgive my lack of knowledge.
You don't say how far away you were, and I have a hard time imagining hand-holding that much focal length even with IS. I just wonder why you chose this tight crop portrait? The image seems a bit soft so close up, and might work better with the whole bird presented smaller in the frame, no?
These have to be one of the hardest of ducks to photograph ,just like eagles for the exposure ,so easy to blow the whites out.Beautiful portrait of a most handsome of all ducks,Super bright eye ,but perhaps just missing a little detail on that white cheek?
This is a very nice portrait. The details are there but need to be extracted with some more PS work.
Here is a repost with some trimming off the top to balance the composition, some levels and S/H to open it a bit, slight boost in colours and more sharpening too.
Artie, Excellent portrait. Very nice capture. I think Ofer's repost looks a bit too light. I hope you enjoyed your stay and that the Harlequins and Purple Sandpipers will beckon you back again.:) You are a very kind man and it was a pleasure and honor to finally meet you in person.
Thanks Ofer for the excellent repost. When I processed the image last night after a quick supper in the motel room, I had been up since 3:11am without a nap and was struggling to stay awake. :)
And thanks Denise for your kind words. It was nice meeting you too.
BIRDS AS ART Blog: great info and lessons, lots of images with our legendary BAA educational Captions; we will not sell you junk. 30+ years of long lens experience/e-mail with gear questions.
BIRDS AS ART Online Store: we will not sell you junk. 35 years of long lens experience. Please e-mail with gear questions.
Check out the new SONY e-Guide and videos that I did with Patrick Sparkman here. Ten percent discount for BPN members,
Nobody asked. I was about 20 feet. It is quite difficult to get close to these ducks; you need to know your way around the birds to do it....
I have a hard time imagining hand-holding that much focal length even with IS.
Easy enough to imagine but impossible to do at that shutter speed. I always use the Mongoose M3.5B atop a Gitzo 3530 LS tripod with my 800.
I just wonder why you chose this tight crop portrait?
To show the amazing details and colors of the plumage.
The image seems a bit soft so close up.
The image is more than sharp enough.
And might work better with the whole bird presented smaller in the frame, no?
No, not at all, not for what I wanted to show. And the way that the bird was sitting on the rock an image of the whole bird would not have been at all pleasing. I know because I checked it out in the viewfinder before making my final close approach. Are you saying that folks should always photograph the whole bird???
BIRDS AS ART Blog: great info and lessons, lots of images with our legendary BAA educational Captions; we will not sell you junk. 30+ years of long lens experience/e-mail with gear questions.
BIRDS AS ART Online Store: we will not sell you junk. 35 years of long lens experience. Please e-mail with gear questions.
Check out the new SONY e-Guide and videos that I did with Patrick Sparkman here. Ten percent discount for BPN members,
I have been watching birds for long but i can still be impressed what nature can create. I like the close up here becouse as you mentioned shows the details very well. Beautiful bird well framed. TFS
Sorry again, my posted reply was intended more for my own understanding and education than to question your technique or choices of composition. I think I must have worded it poorly. No offense please.
I was wishing for more fine detail in your originally posted image and am surprised to see how much Ofer's repost grants that wish. In my own (admittedly limited) experience, when close detail is not achieved in distant shots, I've found pleasing results can often still be had by composing with the bird smaller in the frame. Sure I know this is not always possible, and I didn't know how distant you were here... that's why I asked.
I certainly did not mean to say that folks should always photograph the whole bird, or necessarily include the whole bird in a composition even when it is all within the original frame. We make portraits quite often too... I have posted several portrait comps in secondary replies to some of my own posts here.
I've got a lot yet to learn about avian photography, and probably about tempering candor with gentleness also. But I'm learning... that's why I'm here. :)
Congrats on capturing the Harlequin and thanks for taking the time to answer my questions.
This does not make any sense to me; "When close detail is not achieved in distant shots, I've found pleasing results can often still be had by composing with the bird smaller in the frame."
It would seem that when you are not getting close detail in images taken at a distance that you mover farther away to get more detail (with the bird then smaller in the frame....) As I said, that makes zero sense to me.
BIRDS AS ART Blog: great info and lessons, lots of images with our legendary BAA educational Captions; we will not sell you junk. 30+ years of long lens experience/e-mail with gear questions.
BIRDS AS ART Online Store: we will not sell you junk. 35 years of long lens experience. Please e-mail with gear questions.
Check out the new SONY e-Guide and videos that I did with Patrick Sparkman here. Ten percent discount for BPN members,
The shot really does a nice job showing off how wonderful his plumage markings are Artie. I like the sweet blue bg too. Ofer's is better but went too far on the lightening I feel, so my vote is for a repost thats takes the exposure maybe to 2/3 or so of what he posted. All in all a sweet shot Artie. Nice stealth technique ya got there too.
Barneget is a fun place for sure. Whever I have been there it seemed there were always between 25-50 harleys on the rocks going along the length of the jetty. The waves in high winds can crash into the rocks so hard a person risks being washed off them. And you can slip if your not paying attention. Going with a friend or two is a good idea. I wear old neoprene waders so I can sprawl out and not get cut or tear up my clothes by the barnacles. Course the waders get trashed so don't use good ones--use the ones that have started to leak and that repairs are not worlking for anymore.
Thanks all and Paul. The trick is to visit on low tide afternoons with west winds. Then the jetty is dry as can be with little to no wave action.
Here is a JPEG created from my lightened master file.
BIRDS AS ART Blog: great info and lessons, lots of images with our legendary BAA educational Captions; we will not sell you junk. 30+ years of long lens experience/e-mail with gear questions.
BIRDS AS ART Online Store: we will not sell you junk. 35 years of long lens experience. Please e-mail with gear questions.
Check out the new SONY e-Guide and videos that I did with Patrick Sparkman here. Ten percent discount for BPN members,
BIRDS AS ART Blog: great info and lessons, lots of images with our legendary BAA educational Captions; we will not sell you junk. 30+ years of long lens experience/e-mail with gear questions.
BIRDS AS ART Online Store: we will not sell you junk. 35 years of long lens experience. Please e-mail with gear questions.
Check out the new SONY e-Guide and videos that I did with Patrick Sparkman here. Ten percent discount for BPN members,
This does not make any sense to me; "When close detail is not achieved in distant shots, I've found pleasing results can often still be had by composing with the bird smaller in the frame."
It would seem that when you are not getting close detail in images taken at a distance that you mover farther away to get more detail (with the bird then smaller in the frame....) As I said, that makes zero sense to me.
Again, I guess I didn't state this clearly... I meant composing in post, not in-camera.
The image below taken at @25ft in low light with long lens and slow shutter (1/200) lacks the fine detail to be composed as a close portrait. But I feel it presents much more acceptably with the full bird smaller in the frame.
I assumed you had captured the whole bird but chose to crop for a portrait, and I thot a similar choice might be a good alternative.
Be sure, I do not mean to compare your image with this one, or your equipment with our humble camera. I just want to clarify my intended point, because I don't want it to seem senseless to you or anyone reading this thread. Like most here, I try to correlate my settings, experiences, and results with the best images I see posted, so that I can learn to take better photos. And when I offer a comment, it is always with the hope to be helpful.
Btw, your repost looks better to me and not too light, but I do prefer the contrast and crop presented by Ofer. I think the fine feather detail in the white areas may just defy capture at any distance without some angled light perhaps.
This does not make any sense to me; "When close detail is not achieved in distant shots, I've found pleasing results can often still be had by composing with the bird smaller in the frame." It would seem that when you are not getting close detail in images taken at a distance that you mover farther away to get more detail (with the bird then smaller in the frame....) As I said, that makes zero sense to me.
Again, I guess I didn't state this clearly...
Yes, you need to write more carefully and consider the words that you put out for folks to consider and try to understand.
I meant composing in post, not in-camera.
All that you needed to say was that when you made a large crop that fine detail was lost.
The image below taken at @25ft in low light with long lens and slow shutter (1/200) lacks the fine detail to be composed as a close portrait. But I feel it presents much more acceptably with the full bird smaller in the frame.
Here is a basic premise that you need to understand: any time you crop, image quality is compromised. And when you do a large crop, image quality is greatly compromised as it was above in the first image. That said the image on the left has been processed darker than the image on the right.
I assumed you had captured the whole bird but chose to crop for a portrait, and I thot a similar choice might be a good alternative.
My definition of a "portrait" is obviously different from yours. A similar choice of what?????????
Be sure, I do not mean to compare your image with this one, or your equipment with our humble camera.
Please do share; what humble camera and lens did you use to create the image aboce?
I just want to clarify my intended point, because I don't want it to seem senseless to you or anyone reading this thread. Like most here, I try to correlate my settings, experiences, and results with the best images I see posted, so that I can learn to take better photos. And when I offer a comment, it is always with the hope to be helpful.
In order to be helpful, folks need to be able to understand what you write and you can help toward that end by writing what you mean.
Btw, your repost looks better to me and not too light, but I do prefer the contrast and crop presented by Ofer.
I agree that I like the look of Ofer's repost better than my repost.
BIRDS AS ART Blog: great info and lessons, lots of images with our legendary BAA educational Captions; we will not sell you junk. 30+ years of long lens experience/e-mail with gear questions.
BIRDS AS ART Online Store: we will not sell you junk. 35 years of long lens experience. Please e-mail with gear questions.
Check out the new SONY e-Guide and videos that I did with Patrick Sparkman here. Ten percent discount for BPN members,
Artie--here I added a tad of contrast at the lower half of of the curves scale using Ofer's repost as the base shot--everything of 125 value or lighter was kept the same. I like Ofers rendition as it shows the detail off and looks nice and bright, but I know from recollection that these guys are not that bright--or it just didn't look right to my eye at any rate if you will. You might want to brush back the water on a mask to retain it's tone as presented in Ofers post since that was showing to be a sweet blue IMO.
Thanks Paul for yet another great repost. You really brightened that mahogany red. I gotta go back and re-do this one. I was shaking when I peeked my lens over the rock that I hid behind on my approach.
BIRDS AS ART Blog: great info and lessons, lots of images with our legendary BAA educational Captions; we will not sell you junk. 30+ years of long lens experience/e-mail with gear questions.
BIRDS AS ART Online Store: we will not sell you junk. 35 years of long lens experience. Please e-mail with gear questions.
Check out the new SONY e-Guide and videos that I did with Patrick Sparkman here. Ten percent discount for BPN members,
I guess I didn't state this clearly... I meant composing in post, not in-camera. All that you needed to say was that when you made a large crop that fine detail was lost. Hmmmm... Well.... I didn't feel confident to say that. I did not know how large a crop was made, and I'm unsure how much perceived detail (if any) would be lost to whatever crop was made when using high-end gear. My observation was simply that the image seemed to lack the fine detail for the close-up view presented, and so I only tried to suggest that a wider view might work better.
The image below taken at @25ft in low light with long lens and slow shutter (1/200) lacks the fine detail to be composed as a close portrait. But I feel it presents much more acceptably with the full bird smaller in the frame. [image deleted - see above] Here is a basic premise that you need to understand: any time you crop, image quality is compromised. And when you do a large crop, image quality is greatly compromised as it was above in the first image... I believe I do understand this concept, but please correct me if I'm wrong: The closer to the sensor's pixel level (100% scale) that one crops or presents any part of an image, the more any lack of IQ in the image captured will be visible in the final output. If my understanding is correct tho, IQ is not degraded by cropping... rather, perceived IQ is improved by downscaling and resampling whichever group of pixels is selected when saving an image for presentation at a smaller size. And it is because fewer original pixels are resampled in this process when you do a large crop, that results in what we see as degraded quality. Is this not true? The image quality of my cropped (portrait) image above is not significantly degraded, that pretty much is the quality captured by the camera seen at near full scale... (embarrassing as that may be). Had more original pixels and/or higher quality ones been captured, that crop would have presented with better IQ even at that scale. Not having any experience with the MkIII, I'm still quite sure that whatever IQ is captured with it holds up vastly better at any given crop or scale of view, and generally less IQ and detail will be lost in resampling its images down to the output sizes normally presented on the web.
That said the image on the left has been processed darker than the image on the right. Actually, the image on the left has not been processed at all... save for a bit of NR applied to the BG only, to spare me even further embarassment. There was no point in trying to process the image at that scale; this crop was posted only to help me try to illustrate what I apparently didn't say clearly (or correctly) in my earlier comments. The image on the right is my finished effort after processing it. (I should say, both these images have actually been scaled down another 50%, for insertion into this post)
I assumed you had captured the whole bird but chose to crop for a portrait, and I thot a similar choice might be a good alternative. My definition of a "portrait" is obviously different from yours. A similar choice of what????????? Again I must apologize for my any misuse of accepted photographic terminology. I meant of course, a closeup partial view of the bird's head and torso. I would refer to any such image as a portrait whether originally shot close enuf to only capture these parts, or one cropped to include only these parts in the finished frame. I thot perhaps you had a choice to crop wider to include the whole bird, and was suggesting only that. You've subsequently explained why you chose to frame the shot as presented and I understand that now.
Be sure, I do not mean to compare your image with this one, or your equipment with our humble camera. Please do share; what humble camera and lens did you use to create the image aboce? I shoot with a Canon S3-IS, often with a Sony 1.7xTC attached. This is the first camera we've owned with manual controls and we've only been shooting for about 2 years now. It is indeed a very humble kit compared to the gear used by most folks here, and I often do feel hesitant to share either our photos or the little understanding of digital photography that we've gained thus far using it. But I feel we have learned a lot by doing so, and we do greatly appreciate the patience, help, and encouragement we've gotten from more experienced photographers online.
Again, apologies for any frustration caused by my inexperience, awkward statements, or misuse of terminology. It might be best if I refrain from offering any further comments on others' work here for now. I do wish to be a good citizen in this forum and sure feel that we have already benefitted from some of the critiques offered on our posted photos thus far. But, I'm not sure I can or should try to offer any insight to others here at this point. As I said earlier, I know I’ve got a lot to learn.
Hi Kenn, Thanks for responding. Your gear certainly qualifies as humble but I have seen several very nice images that you have created with it which just goes to prove my point.
The very last thing that I would want is for you to quit commenting. All that I am asking is that you be careful with language and do your best to communicate clearly.
Enjoy the holidays and the bluebirds. (Do they stay around for the winter?)
BIRDS AS ART Blog: great info and lessons, lots of images with our legendary BAA educational Captions; we will not sell you junk. 30+ years of long lens experience/e-mail with gear questions.
BIRDS AS ART Online Store: we will not sell you junk. 35 years of long lens experience. Please e-mail with gear questions.
Check out the new SONY e-Guide and videos that I did with Patrick Sparkman here. Ten percent discount for BPN members,
Even Luckier at Barnegat?
Reply With Quote
