Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Roseate Spoonbill, second attempt

  1. #1
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Tampa, Florida, United States
    Posts
    58
    Threads
    29
    Thank You Posts

    Default Roseate Spoonbill, second attempt

    Attached Images Attached Images
     
    Canon Rebel xti
    Canon 100-400mm 5.6L is USM
    Canon 1.4x teleconverter
    560mm max focal length
    ISO 800
    F13
    1/4000 sec
    Manual Exposure

    I used the tips I received from Bill and Julie in the Eager to Learn forum and went back and tried to film the Spoonie again. I think their tips worked particularly shooting at faster film speeds and improving the HA.
    Jay

  2. #2
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Sugar Land, Texas USA
    Posts
    1,819
    Threads
    480
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Jay; certainly a remarkable improvement! You nailed the exposure, and although the light is high contrast, the sun must have been pretty low on the horizon and at your back, exactly what was needed.
    The spoonbill is too tight in the frame, and although you can't see the feet it is a good idea to leave space for them anyway. In other words you clipped the "virtual feet" and need to include space as if you could actually see them. I'm not sure why this works, but it does!!

    Now about ISO. The general rule is to use as low an ISO as possible (down to ISO 200) while maintaining proper shutter-speed and aperture. The higher the ISO, the more digital noise becomes a problem. Generally, as in this image, noise effects the background more than anything else. There are perfectly adequate methods in dealing with this in post-processing. Nonetheless, avoiding post processing solutions saves time, and ISO 400 might have worked better and the 1/4000 sec SS dropped a bit since it is overkill. 1/1600-1/2000 sec, I would guess, would produce the same results.
    regards~Bill



    regards~Bill
    Last edited by WIlliam Maroldo; 11-20-2010 at 01:23 PM.

  3. #3
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Illinois USA
    Posts
    414
    Threads
    39
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Good improvements in relation to the first. I second William's comments about the tightness. You should also consider running some noise reduction on the background. You could have have dropped a stop with the aperture/ or even the shutter speed and then gone down to ISO 400, which would have given better noise performance on the rebel.

    Nice that you have such nice birds close by to go and practice on.

  4. #4
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Costa Rica
    Posts
    4,547
    Threads
    253
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    F/13? I don't think you need a lot of depth of field for this image. May be 5.6 or 6.3? by doing this you can also gain some shutter speed. Nice bird and pose, details on flank are very nice.

  5. #5
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Tampa, Florida, United States
    Posts
    58
    Threads
    29
    Thank You Posts

    Default Roseate Spoonbill 3rd attempt

    Attached Images Attached Images
     
    Canon Rebel xti
    Canon 100-400mm 5.6L is USM
    ISO 400
    F8
    1/4000 sec
    Manual Exposure

    The following was taken about 2 frames before my previous post I had not added the 1.4 Teleconverter at this point.
    So the virtual feet are shown here as I am technically 160mm farther standing at the same spot. at F8 i do not have much noise although the BG in the upper right is not that great. There were weeds that I was trying to blemish out.
    So do you think this is a better choice in terms of subject positioning and technical settings than the first?

  6. #6
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Sugar Land, Texas USA
    Posts
    1,819
    Threads
    480
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Hi Jay; this is better choice for a number of reasons, including the subject being less tight in the frame, and having the virtual feet un-clipped. The biggest improvement, to me at least, is you not using the tele-converter, and a noticeable increase in image quality. F8, as opposed to F13, is a better choice as well, which allows a burring of the background more the first image.
    You did really well, now what you need to try is capturing one of these guys on a cloudy or overcast day! regards~Bill

  7. #7
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Tampa, Florida, United States
    Posts
    58
    Threads
    29
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Thanks Bill. So you think I should lose the telconverter all together, huh?

  8. #8
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Sugar Land, Texas USA
    Posts
    1,819
    Threads
    480
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Jay; no, I don't think you should lose it. There will be situations when you absolutely need it for a particular shot, when there is no other option. It is like the way I look at ISO 1600, I would rather not, but there are times I have no choice. I realize that image quality will take a hit, not only because of digital noise (having to resort to noise reduction always reduces detail), but a reduction in dynamic range. Nonetheless, if I use a lower ISO, I need to drop the shutter-speed, which very often cause a much a more serious image degredation problem.
    One more thing, if you ever get a hold of something like a 300mm F2.8, you may hardly ever shoot without it.
    regards~Bill

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Web Analytics