Introduced species

[John Chardine]

The Common (Ring-necked) Pheasant was introduced into North America in the mid-1800s. They are native to central Asia. Pheasants are quite common in this area of the Maritime provinces, and here in New Brunswick they are not hunted. This does not make them tame however, and at the first sight of you they usually scamper off. This male was under my feeder as I shot through an open window in the back room. Even so, you have to be absolutely still and quiet or the jig is up.

The +0.3 exposure compensation was not enough and I had to run some NR on the bird itself (Topaz DeNoise). I should have used manual exposure mode or at least +2/3 or +1. The light BG caused the bird to be underexposed. I cropped to about 30% of original size to render a portrait. Sharpening was done with Topaz InFocus and a little Smart sharpen in Ps.

Comments welcome.

Date: 28 March, 2011, 14:15h
Model: Canon EOS-1D Mark IV
Lens: EF500mm f/4L IS USM @ 500 mm
Program: Aperture Priority
ISO 800, 1/1250s, f/5.6
Exp. comp.: +0.3

[Kerry Perkins]

John, killer colors and feather detail in this one! I have also discovered the "trick" of using a little bit of sharpening in Topaz (Detail or InFocus), and then following up with a bit of sharpening in PS. The combination of the two works really well! I think you could crop a little off the top, it would help minimize the bright part of the bg and, to my eye, would be a little stronger composition. Very nice!

[Steven Kersting]

Amazing detail!....you must have been VERY close to this bird.. (is it wild?)

Only critique is I think it would benefit from cropping in left upper corner so eye is dead center upper 1/3 line (keeping with current composition)

[Allen Hirsch]

That's amazing detail and sharpness for an underexposed image cropped that much - terrific pp skills.

Love the colors of this portrait, too.

[John Chardine]

Thanks guys. I'll play with the crop. Yes it's a wild bird, and as mentioned, they are in fact very wild = very skittish. I was quite far away from the bird. This is a pretty heavy crop. The 1DIV is pretty amazing in this regard. The actual crop size was 14% of the original (2275/15980) so I was way off on my crop "guestimate" of 33%.

[annmpacheco]

Well thats a very strong image!!! What vivid colors and details. Love the eye. terrific TFS

[Julie Kenward]

Super image John - and considering the crop size the fair testament to the 1DIV. Those colors jump right off the page. Did you print this by any chance? I bet it's absolutely gorgeous!

[Steven Kersting]

When you said you were "quite far away", I was quite disappointed... I couldn't get this clarity from my camera/lens (Nikon D3/Sigma 300-800) at distance (75 meters)

Then I pulled the exif; just over 7.5 meters. I feel better now...

[Rachel Hollander]

John - great color and detail. Agree with the others about crop suggestions. Amazing such a large crop with almost no loss of IQ.

TFS,
Rachel

[John Chardine]

Thanks Rachel. The 1DIV as I understand it is at or close to the current "sweet spot" for the trade-off between sensor site size/density and noise. A sensor with bigger sensor sites would produce less noise but also less detail, one with smaller sites, more noise but also more detail. In between there is a good compromise between detail and noise. Here's a really good technical write-up on the subject by our very own Roger Clark:

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/...mance.summary/

In focal-length limited situations like photographing small objects at a distance, one of the biggest factors determining image quality is how many sensor sites you can lay over the subject. This is accomplished by using an adequate telephoto lens or good field skills in getting closer to your subject, or a bit of both. Digital zooming (=cropping) in post-processing is a last option and often doesn't work if you don't get the techs right to begin with. It just amplifies all the bad aspects of an image. For me it is a last resort and I would rather get it right in the camera rather than resorting to post-processing. However, sometimes needs must!

[Stan Cunningham]

For some one that uses post processing as a last resort, I'm sure amazed by all your efforts, with both yours and all of us you help.
I'm curious why you say a larger sensor would produce less detail. Every time I see a 5D mark II or DS III I'm pretty amazed with the IQ.

[John Chardine]

Hi Stan- Thanks.

I think the confusion is between sensor and sensor-site or "pixel". A sensor like that in the 5DII has 5616 x 3744 = about 21 million sensor-sites (21 mp). The if you know the sensor size (FF in the case of the 5DII) you can work out the sensor-site size or density.

The original 5D and the Nikon D3s for example have full frame 12mp sensors so the sensor-sites or pixels are big (over 8 microns). Because they are big you won't lay as many over a subject compared to say the Nikon D3x which has the same sized sensor but twice the number of sensor-sites (they are half the size of the D3s and double the density).