Red Fox
These Red Foxes are common in my mountain area but with every other property having a barking dog they keep their distance. This is a large crop. Photographed from the car with the sun getting low in the sky.
Canon 40D, Canon 400 f4 DO IS, ISO 500, f5, 1/3200, exp. comp. +1/3
All c & c very welcome.
Nice light and eye contact on this one Nancy with a good POV. He/she looks in good condition judging by the coat & tail, certainly not suffering from anything.
Personally I would like to see a little less room on the rhs and more to the left for him/her to walk into, plus I might add a fraction more USM just on the face, but you have done well from a large crop. Certainly would have dropped the ISO based on the SS, not sure why 500? Not sure how it works on the 40D, but would advise you keep to 'true' ISO's rather than the mid ones, just a personal POV :)
TFS
Steve
Post Production: It’s ALL about what you do with the tools and not, which brand of tool you use.
Nancy - beautiful warm light, nice detail in the fur and great eye contact. I agree with Steve that I'd like more room to the lhs than the rhs. I might also crop a little off the bottom, to just above the white flowers/grass in the lower left. Too bad he was just over the rise rather than on top of it so no feet. Overall though, an image I'd be happy to have.
TFS,
Rachel
I can easily change any of the dimensions on the crop. I too was wondering if there was too much on the bottom. About the settings, I was really looking for deer and fawns to photograph and was set up for the darker woods. I was just driving a short distance through a meadow and saw this fox running away. I stopped the car, raised my camera and he paused just this one moment and looked at me. As Artie has said, better to get the image with whatever settings you have than miss the entire thing :). I also have wondered about those "mid" ISO values, such as 500. Are they a problem?
Like the low angle and the light hitting the eyes. Could use just a little sharpening.
To my understanding Nancy what happens is ISO 200 is a real ISO, but ISO 250 is an over exposed 200 and 320 is an under exposed 400 and so on and so on, We know that over exposing is good for IQ as in exposing to the right but under exposure is bad for IQ, So in reality ISO 320 can give a grainier image than 400. Food for thought when choosing what ISO to use?I also have wondered about those "mid" ISO values, such as 500. Are they a problem?
Post Production: It’s ALL about what you do with the tools and not, which brand of tool you use.
Hi STeve, do you know of any good literature about the mid iso question? I know Artie recently posted that he wondered about the truth of these rumours. Personally, I would have expected the sensor to have a certain base sensitivity (say iso 200 for Nikon) and that anything above that is just incremental amplification of the signal, which would perhaps be more logical for the manufacturers to use these mid iso steps in their high level bodies.
Sadly no Geoff, I would leave it with more people in the know like Artie as it starts to get out of my 'comfort zone'. :D
Post Production: It’s ALL about what you do with the tools and not, which brand of tool you use.
Off topic but on the Native ISO issue, see the following.
Dr. Emil Martinec, research physicist at University of Chicago has a good analysis at http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/...ise/index.html and more specifically at http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/.../noise-p2.html.
I quote from http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/.../noise-p2.html, "Lower end Canon models do not perform analog amplification for the intermediate ISO's, rather the intermediate ISO's are implemented by a multiplication of the raw data in software after quantization, and there is only a single stage amplification in hardware; strictly speaking, they do not have intermediate ISO amplification."
Also see http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...d-derived-ISOs.
The general consensus seems to be stick to whole 1-stop ISO settings from ISO 100 up and not use the intermediate settings due to the issue above.
Gotta love eye contact and that tail
TFS
Thanks Robert,
Although I haven't the time to read Dr Martinec's studies in full detail right now, the second one did reveal that Nikon does seem to use a linear amplification and thus shouldn't suffer at mid isos. Also, from the figure for the Canon 1D, the drawbacks of mid iso appears to be negligible above around iso 1600. Another interpretation of your quoted statement from the article could be that lower end Canons handle mid iso better, as they do not perform extra amplification of the signal, but instead adjust exposure in the raw data, exactly as so many of us do in PP anyway.
This data so far makes me pleased to have one perceived advantage with Nikon, although I do tend to choose full iso stops anyway out of a kind of OCD compulsion I suppose.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
