Roseate Spoonbill

[Jay Bernstein]

Canon Rebel xti
Canon 100-400mm 5.6L is USM
Canon 1.4x teleconverter
560mm max focal length
ISO 100
F16
1/400 sec
Manual Exposure
I have been trying for months to capture a Spoonbill, traveling all over Pinellas County FL.
This morning, 3 landed in a water runoff/pond, next to a street 2 blocks from my house. I spent a long time filming them. Everytime I tried to approach from different angles they would move off maintaining a distance. So I added my telconverter and was able to get the attached.
I tried to increase my DOF to get detail. Do I give up quality when I use a teleconverter?
comments welcomed!

[WIlliam Maroldo]

Hi Jay. Considering the overhead lighting you did pretty well. As usually is the case, a lower viewing angle would have helped. Although increasing DOF will get more of the subject in focus, it doesn't necessarily get you more detail. I think too slow a shutter-speed is detail's biggest enemy.
A misconception I once had was that ISO 100 will get you more detail as well. The problem is that using such a low ISO usually requires giving up shutter-speed if you want to keep a specific DOF. Granted, ISO 100 does have advantages, but rarely in avian photography. ISO 400, and higher, is much more useful.
If you are not using a top tier lens, teleconverters can have a negative effect on image quality, especially 2X, but the biggest problem is that AF will not work if the lens is not fast enough, and you will have to resort to manual focusing. You will lose at least a stop with a 1.4x, and manual focusing with the dimmer light is hit or miss, and with me at least mainly miss. regards~Bill

[Jay Bernstein]

Bill, One more question. This was a really bright morning. Would you have still chosen to use ISO 400 and then compensated with the shutter speedand stayed at F16? do you think the image would have improved?
Jay

[WIlliam Maroldo]

Hi Jay. Personally I would shoot at 1/1250-1/1600sec at 400mm if I was hand holding the camera- remembering that image stabilization or a tripod only compensates for camera movement, and not subject movement. F16 is probably overkill, and precludes a blury background which cuts down on the background itself from being a distraction. Now if you were real close, you might actually need F16, since the closer you
are, the smaller the DOF a particulat Fstop will acheive.
If it was a really bright morning, no clouds, I wouldn't go out to take pictures, but thats just me.

The greatest increase in image quality has to do with the light; the soft low contrast light of overcast or cloudy days creates evenly exposed and much more pleasing to view images, without the distraction of harsh shadows. High contrast direct sunlight often has a luminosity range that is beyond the range of camera sensors, requiring the need to choose to either expose for the darks or light parts of an image, or shoot HDRs. There are methods to hide shadows behind the subject, i.e. have the sun behind the photographer, but with plummage that is both dark and light proper exposure in camera often is impossible, and though post-processing solutions can at least be attempted, tthey are not always successful either. The bottom line is that under the soft low contrast light that I consider to be the best, the light intensity is considerably less, which in turn requires use of high ISOs (800-1600). Pushing exposure (exposing to the right on the camera histogram) is an excellent tool in avoiding noise at such ISOs, and exposure is then corrected in post-processing.

regards~Bill

[EricRivera]

Hi Jay. Personally I would shoot at 1/1250-1/1600sec at 400mm if I was hand holding the camera- remembering that image stabilization or a tripod only compensates for camera movement, and not subject movement. F16 is probably overkill, and precludes a blury background which cuts down on the background itself from being a distraction. Now if you were real close, you might actually need F16, since the closer you
are, the smaller the DOF a particulat Fstop will acheive.
If it was a really bright morning, no clouds, I wouldn't go out to take pictures, but thats just me.

The greatest increase in image quality has to do with the light; the soft low contrast light of overcast or cloudy days creates evenly exposed and much more pleasing to view images, without the distraction of harsh shadows. High contrast direct sunlight often has a luminosity range that is beyond the range of camera sensors, requiring the need to choose to either expose for the darks or light parts of an image, or shoot HDRs. There are methods to hide shadows behind the subject, i.e. have the sun behind the photographer, but with plummage that is both dark and light proper exposure in camera often is impossible, and though post-processing solutions can at least be attempted, tthey are not always successful either. The bottom line is that under the soft low contrast light that I consider to be the best, the light intensity is considerably less, which in turn requires use of high ISOs (800-1600). Pushing exposure (exposing to the right on the camera histogram) is an excellent tool in avoiding noise at such ISOs, and exposure is then corrected in post-processing.

regards~Bill

WOW, great information for me to consider in the future William:cool:

[Jay Bernstein]

Thanks Bill, this is very helpful. I am going back to the same spot and trying this to see the different results.
Thanks again for your help.
Jay

[Julie Kenward]

Bill, you really did a great job of explaining all that. I rarely use my 1.4 tc because I also find it just doesn't help with anything but focal length. It's never as sharp, never as detailed as I would want it to be so I have learned that if my 400mm doesn't do it, I don't create the image.

From a post-processing standpoint I find the image to be very dark. I opened a levels adjustment and pushed the midtone slider all the way up to 1.48 and that took out some of the darkness.

From a compositional standpoint I see a couple of things I'd watch for next time. First, as Bill mentioned, try to get a little lower and look him in the eye. The HA is good and the ripples of water where he just drank are excellent. That gives the viewer a feeling of "implied motion" and our mind can make the connection between what just happened and what got caught on film. This "implied motion" always makes us feel like the bird is, indeed, a living thing and creates a more dramatic image IMO.

The things I wouldn't want in the image are the circle on the surface of the water directly to his right and the light streak in the water running parallel to the left side of the camera frame. Both are light colored and both are pulling my eye from that beautiful bird. Try to study the BG and move so you get the best angle on the bird first and then the best BG second. Clone what you can and even use a vignette if need be to darken lighter objects so the viewer's eye wants to settle on the bird.

Congrats on the capture - it sounds like your roseate is my GBH. Can't wait to see your next round of roseates!