Simple Foster's Tern

[Mikko Viljamaa]

Greetings BirdPhotographers,

After months of lurking and weeks of pondering if I dare to send in my first photo (what if you guys slay it... or even worse, what if some of the big dogs whose names I only dare to whisper when the exposure times are minutes find something wrong from it...) I have come to conclusion that I can't take this anymore. Here goes ... "enter"...

OK I was kidding. The reason why I picked this rather ordinary picture as my first photo is that to me personally it proves, how it always pays off to go out with a camera. Even when the sky looks boring gray and the light is not the best possible.
　
Cheers,

Mikko
　
Picture Info;
Canon EOSMK3 + 500/4 + 1.4 TC
AE 5.6
1/1500, Partial Metering, +1/2
ISO 200
Handheld
Very little post processing done

My post work flow is simple; I'm doing everything needed with Canon's DDP except adding the copyright text, which I do with Gimp. And I have never calibrated my monitor so hopefully the bird is not too dark / pale on you monitors.

[WIlliam Maroldo]

Nice composition and wing position and viewing angle very good, though missing a good view on the tern's eye. The image is bit underexposed, and given the lighting IS0 200 is way too low. I would be interested on what lighting you would consider best possible, because in my opinion you already have it here. Soft low contrast light, not needing excessively high ISOs (above 1600), and gives the ability to capture the full range of luminosity of the sensor, among other things, makes this light, generally referred to as light overcast, close to ideal. Exposing to the right (on the histogram) works very well under theses conditions, clipped highlights are easily managed, and exposure on the whole is easy. Post-processing usually requires a contrast boost (no big deal), and corrected the exposure from a slightly washed out looking image (from exposing to the right) to normal. This has the added advantage of avoiding noise at higher ISOs, since the dark parts of the image, where noise shows up, have been left out of the image by exposing to the right.regards~Bill

[Lance Peters]

Hi Mikko - Big warm welcome to BPN , Don't hesitate to jump right in and leave comments on other peoples images, no better or faster way to improve your own skills, all we ask is that you say what it is you like or dont like about the image.
Nice first post.
Agree with Williams points - It is a little under exposed - Make sure you have your over exposure warnings turned on in camera and make use of your histogram on the camera's LCD display - You wont to be exposing the subject correctly (Not flashing warnings) and let the rest fall were it may - doesn't matter if the sky area is flashing (It often will be)

Love the Wings and pose in General - just wish the eye was a little more visible.
Any Noise reduction on this at all??

[Mikko Viljamaa]

Thanks for the comments guys. I personally love the light and the simplicity of the colors (hence the Simple Foster's Tern). I merely meant that some people wish that there would have been a blue sky behind the bird. Bird is maybe little dark also on my monitor. For the future reference I added a second attempt which should be little lighter.

Bill - I'm not sure if I understand what you mean by ISO 200 being too low?

Lance - no noise reduction done.


Mikko

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks for the comments guys. I personally love the light and the simplicity of the colors (hence the Simple Foster's Tern). I merely meant that some people wish that there would have been a blue sky behind the bird. Bird is maybe little dark also on my monitor. For the future reference I added a second attempt which should be little lighter. Bill - I'm not sure if I understand what you mean by ISO 200 being too low? Lance - no noise reduction done. Mikko

Howdy Mikko, Welcome and thanks a ton for your membership support. Yes to way too dark. With a MIII and a white bird and a white sky you will usually be close to +2 full stops... You need to check the histogram and see data in the fifth box.... On cloudy days most of us work at least at ISO 400 which would give a bit more d-o-f and possibly prevent you from being too scared of adding the needed light.

For the repost I opened the image up (lightened it) by pulling up the curve. I tried a bit of Eye Doctor work but there were not many pixels to work with.

On the plus side the image is sharp and the framing is nice.

[WIlliam Maroldo]

Mikko: As Arthur Morris pointed out +2 full stops seems about right, and in order to achieve this increasing the ISO would supply this-- your other option would be decreasing the shutter speed, not a good idea in flight captures and I think your shutter speed here is appropriate, though a bit faster will produce more consistent results. If your aperture wasn't already wide open, you could have increased the size of the aperture to get more light(decrease the fstop number). One more reason why increasing ISO is important is it allows a greater DOF. Especially in flight captures, a greater DOF allows the entire bird to be in focus as well as compensating for small AF acquistion errors that often occur with a rapidly moving subject. regards~Bill

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks for the expansion Bill. Well done.

[Mikko Viljamaa]

Thank you again for the comments. You gentlemen have already showed me what a wise move it was from my side to join this commune and post my first photo. :)

It seems that I have totally missed two important things; 1) What's the relationship between ISO and stops? Doesn't stops work the same way no matter what ISO I use and 2) what's the relationship between ISO and DOF? Apparently I have missed this one totally.

Aperture was wide open already.


Thanks,

Mikko

[Arthur Morris]

Thank you again for the comments. You gentlemen have already showed me what a wise move it was from my side to join this commune and post my first photo. :) It seems that I have totally missed two important things; 1) What's the relationship between ISO and stops? Doesn't stops work the same way no matter what ISO I use and 2) what's the relationship between ISO and DOF? Apparently I have missed this one totally. Aperture was wide open already. Thanks, Mikko

Hi Again Mikko, First off I would strongly suggest that if you get on line and order the ABP/ABP II Bundle if you want to learn digital nature photography quickly :) When you raise the ISO one stop (say from 200 to 400), you have either one more stop of light available. You can use that to raise your shutter speed one stop or use a one stop smaller aperture to gain one stop of d-o-f. (Those principles are detailed in the original ABP). Your ISO stops are as follows: 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200, etc. Stops always work the same way but only if you understand them :) As for your second question, using a higher ISO let's you use a smaller aperture (and thus getting more d-o-f) while keeping the same shutter speed.

In the case of this image you could have gone to ISO 800, kept the shutter speed at 1/1500 sec., and worked at f/11 instead of f/5.6. (I would not have recommended that, it is just an exampe.) And those who understand the relationship of stops would realize that the (under-) exposure would have still been a problem :)

[Julie Kenward]

Welcome, Mikko...you got your money's worth on this image! Great explanations by everyone and be sure to check out the informational forums for even more help.

I agree with the need for more light and a higher ISO but I have to say that the wingspread on this bird is beautiful - especially the way the tail fans at the bottom. You've got him nicely positioned in the frame with just the right amount of white space around. I would have loved to have seen more eye but in this case I think the pose works as is.

Keep 'em coming and don't be afraid to ask questions! Let 'em rip...that's why we're here!

[Mikko Viljamaa]

Thanks Arthur. I understand now what you were trying to say. Your point was that increasing ISO gives me an opportunity to for example use smaller aperture, which obviously would increase my DOF (if I would decide to do so). I misunderstood the original message and for a moment I thought that I had missed something fundamental.

And what comes to your ABP's; ABP1 is already well-thumbed as is :o and at the moment I'm about a quarter thru your ABP2 - wondering how on earth have you ever been able to use so high ISO's with old MK2, when photographing those Bald Eagles in Alaska. I see noise in my photos (with MK3) already at ISO 800 level. Then again this might be the backlash I'm suffering when I don't seem to find time to learn Photoshop (& noise reduction) and I'm instead stuck with Canon's own DDP.

Again, thanks for you time.

Mikko

[Arthur Morris]

It's good that you are studying! As for ISO, it is what it is. See Bulletin #338 for some recent high ISO comments.... Basically, use it when you need it. BTW, 1/2000 at f/5.6 at +1/2 stop at ISO 400 translates--if my math is correct, to +2 stops in the same light as you had at 1/1500 sec. at ISO 400 at f/5.6. And the fact is with a MIII the correct exposure might have been as much as +3 stops.... So hopefully you are starting to see the need for the higher ISOs. On my last bear trip ISO 800 was the norm....

[Mikko Viljamaa]

Hi,

I thought that I'll give this guy another change now when I have learned the basics from PS. I used separate layers to dodge/burn the black cap and make the eye more visible. Also used some noise reduction and USM together with smart sharpening.


Mikko

[Arthur Morris]

Better but it may be a bit too bright. Be careful also not to over-do the eye highlight :)

[Julie Kenward]

As Artie said it is right on the edge of being too bright but...I like it! I really feel like it brings out an ethereal quality to the bird. It might not be everyone's preference but I think you did a beautiful job here, Mikko!