American Robin

[Bruce Miller]

These guys are probably the most seen bird around here, but for some reason, I don't get many good pictures of them. This guy landed on this lemb in front of me. I like the pose, but I'm not sure it the HA is a little off or not?

Please let me know if you this this photo works or not?

Shot with Canon 40D+100-400, on Gitzo using a Jobu Design Gimbal head. sitting in Chair Blind

f7.1, 1/1000, ISO 500, 310mm (496 in 35)



Thanks for looking!
Bruce

[Julie Kenward]

Bruce, it looks great to me. The head turned down and looking at you would have been even stronger but this is still very nice and perfectly acceptable. The beak is definitely turned towards your camera and there's good eye contact - those are two very important things.

One thing to keep in mind is that your light is coming from the right and landing on the back of the bird - and that's putting the breast and back leg in almost total shadow. It's a good "grab" image but getting that sun behind you so the bird was evenly lit would be an improvement so keep that in mind when you're out the next time. Position yourself and the light source and then let the birds come to you. Still - a nice image!

[Bruce Miller]

Thanks Julie. I will have to move my blind or the feeder setup. I was a little concerned about the shadow on the breast. I had a flash on my camera, but it did not fire on this frame. I've also been looking into using off camera flash.

Bruce

[Bruce Miller]

This might just be my monitor, but this picture seems a little washed out. So I re-did it and tried to pull out the blacks some and boosted the contrast. Is this better ?

[Paul Guris]

I think the re-post makes the green behind the bird's head stick out a bit too much. I like the change everywhere else in the image, though.

[Rachel Hollander]

Bruce - I prefer the OP. In addition to the green mentioned by Paul, there's a bit of a halo in the repost. Curious as to what the experts say about ISO 500, we've had some discussions in the Wildlife Forum that it is better to stick to traditional ISOs such as 100, 200, 400, 800 etc.

TFS,
Rachel

[Paul Guris]

Curious as to what the experts say about ISO 500, we've had some discussions in the Wildlife Forum that it is better to stick to traditional ISOs such as 100, 200, 400, 800 etc.

FYI, I recently attended a Nikon photography class and I asked the instructor about this. He said that it he had never seen an issue with "non-traditional" ISO levels. Just one opinion, but it is a very experienced opinion.

[Bruce Miller]

Bruce - I prefer the OP. In addition to the green mentioned by Paul, there's a bit of a halo in the repost. Curious as to what the experts say about ISO 500, we've had some discussions in the Wildlife Forum that it is better to stick to traditional ISOs such as 100, 200, 400, 800 etc.

TFS,
Rachel

Thanks Rachel. I don't know where that Halo comes from, but I see it too. I did not sharpen it.
Bruce

[Sid Garige]

FYI, I recently attended a Nikon photography class and I asked the instructor about this. He said that it he had never seen an issue with "non-traditional" ISO levels. Just one opinion, but it is a very experienced opinion.

Paul and Rachel,

Little bit I know from my previous research(non professional of course)
ISO value is related to amount of amplification performed on the signal from the photosite (basic element of our camera sensors). Lower the ISO less amplification and higher the ISO more amplification. More amplification results in more noise. IMO there is no concept of non-traditional ISO and traditional ISO. Maintaining lower ISO will yield better results.