Osprey at the beach

[Ben Harris]

Last week I spent three days at the beach. Not really to do any serious photography but to relax. Anyhow, I'd seen this guy far off in the distance a few times and could only see that it was a bird of prey and not a seagull.

The second day I was walking back from taking a swim and he (she?) was hunting in the saltwater pond near the road. This was the only shot that I liked, and it's got issues. Mainly a boring-as-**** background and a subject that loses sharpness due to noise. Too bad about the motion blur on the far wing tip. Really too bad about the ISO 800. :(



D60 | 70-300 VR
300mm | f/13 | 1/500 | ISO 800 | Ap | +1 EV

[Lance Peters]

Hi Ben - some people really strive to get clean BG'S - does it make it boring - just because its the sky??
Does look a little soft and a little noisy - Might have traded some of the DOF for some more SS.
Slight colour cast perphaps.

Like the outstretched wings - keep em coming ;)

[Dave Mills]

Hi Ben, I wouldn't consider a blue sky boring...simply a backround. The motion blur doesn't bother me either but the overall light angle could be greatly improved.
Finally, whenever you do a very large crop there is a good chance of loosing detail.....

[Alfred Forns]

Hi Ben ... its a she !!!

btw the image a shot is underexposed with will bring more noise Remember you are shooting the shaded side of the bird ... needed even more than plus one !! One problem with these is blowing the head when you compensate enough for the wings !!! ... would also suggest not stopping down as much .. I do most wide open or stop one down if I can !!!

[Desmond Chan]

. .. I do most wide open or stop one down if I can !!!

Would there be a concern of not enough DOF as in from wing tip to wing tip? That's what I've found and so I've been experimenting with not shooting wide open all the time. No?

Oh, yes, the photo... I like the wing position. I would neutralize the white more though. As for a clean background...try posting one that isn't and see how many "the background is distracting though" comments you get ;):D

[Ben Harris]

Hi guys. Thanks for the comments.

The exposure comp is wrong because I had been shooting something else and didn't change it back when I threw my camera in the bag. I've been experimenting quite a bit with ISO 800 to see exactly how far I can push it, and the results are generally good if I don't have the EV set wrong.

This shot was taken more for ID than anything else. I couldn't tell what I was looking at. (And even then I mis-identified it as a Rough Legged Hawk, which made no sense)

This is approx a 75% crop. Never saw her get any closer. For a snapshot (because that's what it is), I liked it. There was no time to set up, no time to take a second shot.

Would there be a concern of not enough DOF as in from wing tip to wing tip?

She was probably 200 yards away. Even at 5.6 I don't think I would have had a problem with DoF.

[Desmond Chan]

...She was probably 200 yards away. Even at 5.6 I don't think I would have had a problem with DoF.

Understood. But I was not referring to your specific case; I was referring to general situations. I had a blue heron flight shot months ago and one comment I got said more dof would be better cuz the other wing was not sharp.