Largest owl in the world Eurasian eagle owl flight

[RAM MALLYA]

I was taking a full frame of this bird and it suddenly took off .

Shutter speed 1/640
Aperture F/4
ISO 400
Lens 600MM L IS USM
Camera body 1D Mark II N
Tripod mounted
C&C welcome

[Desmond Chan]

I personally would sharpen the eyes a bit more to begin with.

Never seen these owls before and so thank you for sharing !!

[bhavya joshi]

nice captured Ram.. one of my favorite bird.. due to his biggest wings in owl species ..
and just time has beat you.. I really enjoy.. TFS.

[Joe Senzatimore]

Right place , right time. Good for you. Fine image. Great timing on your part.

[Ofer Levy]

Beautiful bird and nice light. Looks pretty soft. IMO there is almost no chance to get this kind of shot is such low shutter speed.

[Ken Canning]

Unique image, thanks for sharing it! Agree with earlier comment about shutter speed, ISO 400 seems too low for this shot. Check upper right corner for what looks like a processing artifact (drak vertical line)

[Dave Leroy]

It looks like you had some lovely light as well.

It is tough sometimes when we are ready with one type of camera settings and circumstances change so fast.

I hope you were able to get some stills of the big owl.

Thanks for sharing.

Dave

[Per-Gunnar Ostby]

great capture and light - well done indeed

[arash_hazeghi]

super light and pose but unfortunately the bird is too soft to make this a keeper.

[Troy Lim]

super light and pose but unfortunately the bird is too soft to make this a keeper.

Agree with Arash here. Too bad you were not prepared for flight shot.

[Craig Brelsford]

This shot is instructive in two ways. First, it gets across the hugeness of this owl. The tips of the wings may be overly soft, but they still show the amazing wingspan of the eagle owl. Second, this shot shows how difficult it can be to respond to a changing situation. I'm only wondering why the ISO would have been set at 400 in any circumstances, considering the low light.

[Roger Clark]

Hello Ram,

The image is definitely a keeper! A bird taking off is one of the most difficult situations for a camera to record as the bird is accelerating and the AF system is trying to project a constant velocity, so it tends to lag. This is especially true of the consumer bodies and the older 1DII (I have one too). So considering that, nicely done. If there is a slight blurring due to the slow shutter speed it can be improved with Richardson-Lucy image deconvolution. In case you are interested, the 1DIV would respond much better in this situation.

Nice exposure and the blurred wing tips show the motion. I would crop a little off the top and darken the bright band in the background above the bird.

Roger

[Dan Avelon]

Fabulous light but I agree it's very soft.

Roger I am amazed you call this a keeper, maybe your standards are different... image is quite soft and lacking in details. Can you cure this image using your Richardson-Lucy method so all of us can learn? Maybe a before after comparison? I am not sure a 1D4 would do any better with such a low shutter speed...

[Roger Clark]

Fabulous light but I agree it's very soft.

Roger I am amazed you call this a keeper, maybe your standards are different... image is quite soft and lacking in details. Can you cure this image using your Richardson-Lucy method so all of us can learn? Maybe a before after comparison? I am not sure a 1D4 would do any better with such a low shutter speed...

Dan,
It will certainly depend on the full size original, but from what I see posted here, I believe it will do a good job.

See this thread:
Important Sharpening Information!

http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...read.php/18534

Roger

[Dan Avelon]

Dan,
It will certainly depend on the full size original, but from what I see posted here, I believe it will do a good job.

See this thread:
Important Sharpening Information!

http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...read.php/18534

Roger

Thanks Roger, but if you look at that example the bird did not have any motion blur, it was just not sharpened adequately, in that case even a standard unsharp mask works just fine. I am interested to see if there any possible way to recover the blurry detail due to motion blur...can you try it on Ram's photo?

[Roger Clark]

Thanks Roger, but if you look at that example the bird did not have any motion blur, it was just not sharpened adequately, in that case even a standard unsharp mask works just fine. I am interested to see if there any possible way to recover the blurry detail due to motion blur...can you try it on Ram's photo?

Dan,
Do you mean the wing tips? I wouldn't change the wing tips, as the blur of the wings says the wings are moving very fast. It gives the image motion.

A small motion blur can be fixed with image deconvolution. One needs to feed the algorithm a good model of the blur. The catchlight in the eye often works as a good model. If the catchlight is oval, for example due to motion blur, Richardson-Lucy deconvolution can fix it (of course with added noise--there is no free lunch).

Roger

[Dan Avelon]

Dan,
Do you mean the wing tips? I wouldn't change the wing tips, as the blur of the wings says the wings are moving very fast. It gives the image motion.

A small motion blur can be fixed with image deconvolution. One needs to feed the algorithm a good model of the blur. The catchlight in the eye often works as a good model. If the catchlight is oval, for example due to motion blur, Richardson-Lucy deconvolution can fix it (of course with added noise--there is no free lunch).

Roger

hum... I wasn't talking about wing tips. I don't mind the slight blur on the tips of course.

I was talking about the blurry head and body which others pointed out too.

So can you feed in the blur model and show us how it will look like? It would be of great help because I have some blurry shots I wish were sharp

[RAM MALLYA]

Thanks everybody for your comments and hey Roger i would like to know how to reduce the blurs

[Roger Clark]

Thanks everybody for your comments and hey Roger i would like to know how to reduce the blurs

Ram,

send me via email (to rnclark at my server clarkvision.com) and I'll run it through my Richardson-Lucy program and send you back the result. A jpeg of say 1500 to 2000 pixels would be fine. The full size would be fine too if you wish. I'll ;et you know what i did and you can post a new image here if you wish.

Roger