Chickadee
I'm thinking that I'll brighten the eye here and work on the white balance a little. I'm curious about what other thoughts you might have. I was thinking that the tree in the BG is diffuse enough to leave in. I might brighten the bottom snow bank layer just slightly to make it stand out more clearly.
Canon 7D
EF 400mm f5.6L
f5.6
ISO 1600 +4/3EV
Aperture Priority
Resulting shutter 1/1000-sec.
Dusk light in the shade
RAW conversion, crop, contrast and brightness with DxO's Optics Pro 6.1
Hi David - I am travelling at the moment - so dont have access to a proper colour balanced screen, the blacks look like they are a little blocked and possibly a bit of a blue colour cast (Dont take this as gospel) lets see what others say on a good display.
The eye looks a little soft and as per your comment could do with lightening a little, i would also add a tad of sharpening to the bird only.
Like to composition and the pose, removing the tree/branch that is OOF in the BG would kick it up a notch.
a little fill flash might have been a possible option.
Hope you repost if you make any changes :)
Keep em coming :)
I agree with both your thoughts. Clearly the white balance is too far to the blue side (not surprising in shade at dusk), and seeing the bird's eye would make a huge difference. I like the composition very much, with the tips of the twigs facing opposite to the bird. Perhaps the background tree might be cloned out. It's just a bit distracting, even though it's been softened considerably by being so far from the plane of focus.
Bill
I would have preferred a little more DOF on a small subject. Using a fill flash could have accomplished more DOF and also brought out the eye, as others have suggested. I would also clone out the OOF branch behind the bird and also the twig on the right, it's distracting having it come out his side. Nice pose and the perch offers a nice contrast. Just a little clean up and you've got a winner.
That's high ISO IMO, I have a 7D and do not go there, maybe it's me. I shot white balance "AWB" 98% of the time. Use to add a little warm to some pictures but with whites must be careful not to create a cast. The exposure techs are fine, might go back and reprocess WB, brighten eye and evict branches coming from top of head and clean up LRHC spot if your ethics allows, love the composition/pose and mood - well done.
Last edited by Jeff Cashdollar; 12-30-2009 at 09:26 AM.
Thanks to everyone. I WILL repost, but it may be a on the holiday before I can make some time.
Jeff, do you see any harm done by the ISO 1600, or are you suggesting that I stay away from that on general principal? Here it is at 100%, if that helps:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dcstep/...7622588354979/
Thanks again,
Dave
Dave, great question, the 7D was suppose to deliver higher ISO speeds, I still do not exceed 400 as a general, but that's just me!
There is an interesting article in the Ed Forum by Artie on ISO. His favorite MIII ISO is 400 and in bright sun he might drop to 320 or so; but he mentions exceptions as well - hence, often the answer is "it depends"
On balance, ISO is a critical part of the exposure calculation, but I tend to set it and forget it most of the time (there are exceptions / e.g., conditions change fast) and find other ways to get around limitations. I use flash, play with shutter/aperture/tripod, I shot in morning and evening light, soft but adequate and I put my efforts into image quality and image detail - hope this helps - just my field techniques.
Last edited by Jeff Cashdollar; 12-30-2009 at 10:09 AM.
Chickadees are neat little birds. I get a lot of these at my feeders. They're quick and fidgity and can be difficult to get a shot of. Looking at your techs you could've dropped down to iso 500 at around 1/500 which should be fine for the lens you're using... though I'm not sure the image isn't a bit underexposed... maybe 600 @ 1/500 would've been done the trick. Snow can really mess with a camera's metering system. Anyway, the lower iso would probably result in less noise. Personally I try to stay below iso 800 if possible, but will certainly go higher if needed. White balance is way too cool... very blue. Really need to be able to see the eye. With some more work in post, possibly starting at the RAW conversion and working forward, his image could clean-up really nicely.
Keep shooting and posting. Practice and taking helpful critique is the key to getting better at any kind of photography.
Thanks Jeff for the great feedback. I'm just trying to see how others work, so your sharing your concepts is very useful. I find myself out at dawn and dusk, shooting fast moving subjects in available light. I'll put a BetterBeemer on my Wish List and will start trying it in the coming weeks. I've found that, regarding noise, in low light, the 7D does pretty darn good up to ISO 1600 and my 5D2 is about the same quality up to ISO 3200. I watch the light and work with ISO, taking the 5D2 down to ISO 50 when the light allows and the 7D down to ISO 200, using aperture priority and ISO to get the shutter speed that I need for the situation.Originally Posted by Jeff Cashdollar
Here with the chickadee, he was flitting about a bunch and I thought that I had a chance at an interesting flight photo, so I kept the SS fairly high. I did get an image or two of him bulleting around, but this perched image was my favorite of the series.
Also, slightly off topic but related to ISO performance, with my wider lenses I have selected f4L lenses for compactness and sharpness, rather than f2.8, f1.8, etc. After receiving my 5D2, I was amazed at its high-ISO performance and went crazy taking interior shots without flash, seeing very little noise. Frankly, at first, I was using the Automatic setting and the camera was selecting ISO 3200. Once I went to aperture priority, I did likewise. I know that others might not adopt this approach, but I do think that it's a valid way to view the fast-camera vs. fast-lens paradyme. The game is vastly different from in my old film days.
I agree, Artie likes the 70-200 f/4 for that reason it is lighter and the sharpness is killer too.
The 5D is full sensor correct?
The ISO thing is interesting, I spoke with a technical person at Hunts (where I purchased my 7D) and he was telling me that with the higher meg/pixels the noise was not that high per pixel count on the 7D. I guess it is a rise over the run thing. It seems fair to consider the pixel density if a camera offers more pixels at a given ISO rating - anyway, my head is starting to hurt, good conversation, keep em coming.
Yes, the 5D2 is full frame sensor and the 70-200 f/4 may be the best lens that I own. It's incredibly sharp. The 400 f/5.6L is close, but its lack of IS sets it back a little.
When I preview my 7D images prior to NR in DxO's Optics Pro, so long as the image is not underexposed, the noise is quite low and it's easy for the OP's default setting to handle the noise. If I really try to push things, like at pre-dawn and post-dusk, then I usually pay the piper, with too much noise to overcome.
Dave
I'm not familar with Hunts, but I've spent a lot of time in camera shops over the years. My general impression is most of these guys think in terms of shooting people and/or landscapes. As a professional wedding photographer I can tell you that most cameras are more forgiving noise wise when shooting large subjects like people. You avoid the tight crops and in general get the image in the viewfinder very near what the final image will be. Crop an image... "digital zoom"... and you're going to magnify the effects of noise on the image. Shoot a noisey "getting ready" or "reception" shot, convert it to B&W and call it "artistic." ;) Try to present a noisey avian image and folks aren't likely to buy into the "artsy" thing.
I don't own a 7D, but it is one of two bodies I'm giving serious consideration to for this spring. It seems to be an awesome camera for those wedding shooters that prefer the 1.6 crop body, for sports shooters, photojournalists and even for location portrait photography. My decision is being effected by, a) how the release of the MKIV will effect the price of lightly used MKIIIs, b) how wedding bookings look for 2010. Since I love avian photography and prefer to purchase a tool that will benefit my business plus work well for my passion, I'm very interested in seeing examples from this body, and hearing reports concerning high iso performance.
Good discussion gentlmen. Thanks.
Hi David,
I like the capture. A few points to consider, your little guy needs more light around the eye. You need to lighten it up and selective sharpen it. I see a blue color cast on the overall image. You also need to eliminate the out of focus vertical branch in the background, which catches the viewer's eye. Might consider cropping 1/4 from the top of the frame, to place more focus on the subject and to eliminate some of the negative space. Looking forward to your next one Sir...:cool:
Here's a repost, with the following changes:
Resulting in:
- Reprocessed from RAW to tiff in DxO's Optics pro adjusting white balance & brightness
- DxO adds NR and geometric corrections, which I left at their defaults
- Highlight in eye
- Brighten eye around highlight
- Clone out tree
- Sharpen using unsharp mask (seemed to have little impact)
- Crop some empty space off the top
I have mixed emotions. I clearly like the white balance and improvements to the eye. Cloning out the tree DEMANDED that some white space be removed at the top. BTW, cloning around feathers, even at 200%, particularly when there's snow in the feathers.
As I go back and forth between the images, I sometimes miss the environmental element of the image with the diffuse tree in the BG. Other times, I look at and like the perch and pose and the total emphasis on the bird.
What do you guys think now?
Dave
Thats more like it David...100 percent better...:D:cool:
Dave, the WB is a 100% improvement IMO. The catchlight in the eye needs some work, you are on the right track. I like clean BG's when the habitat is not controlling, you make the final decisions here, you were there.
Last edited by Jeff Cashdollar; 12-30-2009 at 10:12 PM.
I agree.
I looked at the old vs. new on the HDTV and it's not even close. Looking at it on my 24" monitor I was probably too caught up in the imperfections of my cloning around feathers, etc., seen as I worked at 200%. Blown up big on the HDTV and viewing from a normal distance, the impact is way more powerful.
Thanks to all. Further comments still welcome.
Dave
Thanks Jeff.
What did you have in mind about the catchlight? Is it too bright (I cloned the white of the sky, but wondered if I should tone it down), too large, too small, in the wrong place, or what?
Dave
Posting Permissions
