Pileated Woodpecker

[Bob Miller]

Nikon D-300
200-500 mm at 500mm
1/1250 sec at f6.3
ISO 1250

Comments welcome!

[Dave Mills]

Hi Bob, always wanted an opportunity at one of these. The lighting is OK but I would have preferred a better HA.
Would also have preferred to seeing the rest of the tail. Is this a large crop since the image has quite a bit of noise. I would try some NR on it. Finally I would crop at least a third of the tree from the left...

[Jeff Cashdollar]

Bob, what a nice find, David hit the high points. The IQ is suffering, maybe a touch of NR or smaller crop. I like the composition planning,..1/3 tree, 1/3 bird and 1/3 sky just too much tree - it is a tad out of balance IMO.

[Mark Young]

Bob, what a nice find, David hit the high points. The IQ is suffering, maybe a touch of NR or smaller crop. I like the composition planning,..1/3 tree, 1/3 bird and 1/3 sky just too much tree - it is a tad out of balance IMO.

Sorry for asking a dumb question, I'm still learning all about good photographic technique, but usually if you were applying the rule of thirds to an image, you'ld leave extra space in front of the bird and very little behind, but because this one is presented the way it is, it's better to have a touch more space behind the bird than in front of it?

[Alfred Forns]

Hi Mark In this instance you don't want extra room up front since you are showing the bark of the tree and overpowers the bird. Would crop just over half way into the tree, behind might leave a tad more room but not thinking of ration as you normally would ... more room up front less behind !!

[Mark Young]

Thanks for clearing that up Alfred. I spend most of my time lying in mud/dirt/water or on a reef somewhere so I don't usually run into this problem. ;)

[Lance Peters]

Hi - major points covered above - IQ has suffered due to the crop.
200-500??? Assume thats 200-400 unless you are the proud owner of the Sigma 200-500 Beast!!
Keep em coming :)