MK3L1185 Acorn Woodpecker on oak trunk.CR2
01/27/10 12:33:37 PM
EOS-1D Mark III
Manual Exposure
Evaluative Metering
1/200, f/8.0, ISO 800
EF500mm f/4L IS USM +2.0x
External E-TTL @ -1/3 comp, w/Flash Extender
Cropped to 25% of original
Contrast/brightness adjustments with Viveza 2.0 in CS4
Wimberly II head on a Gitzo 3541LS Systematic Tripod
I'm enjoying the challenges of photographing a group of Acorn Woodpeckers that has granaries in an Oregon White Oak grove near my home. They stay high in the tangled branches of the 60-80 ft trees, so short of hiring a cherry picker, the vertical camera angle is almost always high, the distances are challenging, and the intervening visual obstructions are maddening. I'm experimenting with using the 2x and 1.4x TC's singly and stacked, trying to strike the best IQ compromise. So far, I'm getting lower IQ than I'd wish for, but while I work on that, I'm accumulating a good record of the birds' activities and habitat.
The dilemma is whether it is better to opt for higher lens speed (bare 500mm or with 1.4x) followed with greater PP cropping, or to use the slower TC combinations (500mm+2.0x, or 2.0+1.4x stacked TC's) with less need for PP cropping. With the first option, I gain shutter speed, but my desired image covers fewer pixels on the sensor and loses IQ with the cropping. With the second option, I get better pixel coverage (requiring less crop) of my subject, but lose some IQ by introducing additional optical elements and reducing shutter speed. The bottom line is which combination is most likely to produce the most usable image? I'd appreciate hearing others thoughts on this.
-- Craig
I'm not an expert Craig, but I think I would try the 500 and 1.4 and then crop. Did you do much sharpening of the bird? I worked on the pic and your resolution was 240. Usually you should set to 72 and then select your pixels. I sharpened the edges and sharpened for the web using Photokit, and thought it looked reasonably sharp. Maybe it is in your PP'ing?
Last edited by Jackie Schuknecht; 02-03-2010 at 07:59 PM.
Nice improvement on the sharpness, Jackie! Craig, I only own the 1.4TC and rarely use it so I'm not going to be any help on that main question for you. I do like the head angle on this bird and also how you managed to capture the irridescence of his feathers. I would crop in tighter, here, cutting off that slice on the right where you see sky in the upper right corner (URC) and then taking some off the bottom - trying to get the head or eye more in the ROT's position. If you have any other tree at the top of the frame you should be able to re-crop and get it just right.
My 2 cents only, I do not stack TC's and only use the 1.4. The loss of IQ and technique needed to produce fine detail with TC combinations is very difficult for me. Hence, I use the 1.4 or 2.0 at best, then use best technique and utilize hides, tree-stands other creative solutions to get close to subject. Cropping is alright, just not beyond 70% of the original image IMO. In some cases if I cannot get close enough for a quality shot I have to pass.
I think going with a 2X would be the way for me, a couple of reasons. Less crop and angle to the bird will not be as steep. Stacking is also an option but only use it with enough light. I posted one in birds with stack converters that was very sharp.
For seeing what you can do with the converters just set up a target in good light then compare. I find images can be made with either converter and of high quality. Lots of the softness can be done to the low shutter speed resulting from converters so using a good tripod technique is a must.
Thank you all for your helpful comments and suggestions.
Jackie, I like the results of the additional sharpening in your repost - perks up the image nicely! I don't know what the resolution values you gave represent, could you elaborate? I tend to be conservative with sharpening to avoid intensifying the visibility of noise, but the image responded well to your treatment.
Jules, I left the URC sliver of sky for a bit of perspective, but I have to agree that it's really just a distraction. I also agree that I didn't show enough tree below the bird, which would have better approximated the ROT. I have plenty of tree above and below to work with, so adjusting the crop is easy, and it does look better.
Al, thank you for the reminder that I need to post a dollar bill on the garage door and re-check my gear, calibrations and tripod techniques. This time of year when sun breaks are rare, it's too tempting to head for the field instead of using the valuable sun time to shoot dollar bills. But I don't like coming back from the field with underachieving images either!
All the best,
Craig
Last edited by Craig Markham; 02-05-2010 at 02:17 AM.
Craig when you downsize an image you should put in 72 (down from 240 for resolution), and then this will make the image tiny so you have to figure out your proper pixel dimensions. 1024 is the widest for width, and 800 for height, then select bicubic shaper and downsize. ( I use Photoshop CS4). Once this is done the pic generally needs sharpening for Web presentation. I use Photokit which Al recommended to me, and I don't think I've produced a halo yet.
I also gave your pic some Capture Sharpening in PK as well.
Thank you, Jackie. I just tried, in DPP, varying the dpi of an image, as you suggested, while simultaneously reducing an image to BPN scale. I found no visible difference in the resulting exported JPG images. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that by resizing a 3888x2592 (pixel) image to 1000x---, the output dpi automatically changes, and that determines the maximum print or screen image size, depending on the pixel pitch of the output device. Unless I don't understand the meaning of dpi (and that's possible, despite my having researched it), dpi is meaningless until the image is sent to physical device such as a screen or printer. Someone please straighten me out on this, if I've got it wrong.
That explanation is consistent with my statement above (that dpi is only meaningful in relation to a physical output device), but adds that 72 or 96 dpi are the resolutions of most monitors. For example, a 1024 wide x 800 high image file will appear on a 72 dpi screen as an image that's 1024/72 x 800/72 = approx 14" x 11", which fits many of the screen areas in use today.
Last edited by Craig Markham; 02-06-2010 at 11:19 AM.
Reason: added information
I tried my hand at counterfeiting :eek: the corner of a $2 bill today as a means to compare the various 500mm+TC combinations. I've posted my results on the Photo Equipment forum:
Hopefully that discussion throws a little more light on the subject of optimal use of TC's, but I don't think the 500mm will ever be the lens of choice for fake bills:D.
Last edited by Craig Markham; 02-06-2010 at 11:23 AM.
Acorn Woodpecker on oak trunk
