What U lookin' at?

[Chris Baker]

Took this last Nov, Estero Beach FL. 3 of these were busy feeding, I got as comfortable as I could in the mud and clicked away. They got closer, 1.4 removed and they got closer, don't you just love Florida birds. This is full frame, as you can see from the S/S I could have improved the DOF by stopping down but as it's that close with the 500 I don't think it would have made that much difference, but I'll wait to be corrected. Shame the whole of the bill isn't lit, shadow might be from me!!

ISO 400, F4, 1/6400, 500m & 1D mk4 on tripod, darkened slightly in ACR.

[Jon Saperia]

I like the pose and the beautiful texture of the feathers on the head. There is a lack of detail in the white feathers even though there do not appear to be any values above 230. Have you already taken this down a bit? I struggle with this too.

I would want a bit more DOF and clearly you had the light for this. I know lots of images have parts OOF, but in this particular image I would want the legs in focus which means perhaps f8/f9.

/jon

[John Chardine]

Hi Chris- A really beautiful image. Sharp where it needs to be and I really like the pose and head angle. The eye contact is great. You did well with the exposure considering it was pretty harsh and I can see detail in the blacks and whites. Is the bill tip in shadow or is that the natural tonality towards the tip? Nice water and BG too. Overall a very pleasing image.

[annmpacheco]

Love the POV and nice detail as well. Sure the legs in focus would have been awesome, but this sure is pretty. TFS

[Kerry Perkins]

Hi Chris, nice capture with good exposure and nice sharp eye. You are correct about the DOF, would have been difficult to get a significant amount at close distance with the 500mm. The only real issue I see is the shadow on the bill, which does detract a bit IMO. Well done.

[Chris Baker]

Thanks for your comments Folks. Jon, I may have reduced the whites somewhat with the recovery slider, there were no blinkies on the raw and having read a thread somewhere here on whites, apparently quite often there will be no details even with values below 250. If I remember correctly it's down to the texture of the feathers and the reflected light. I too would have liked the legs to be in focus but in this case with the bird pointing more or less straight at me I would have needed a smaller lens. At 10 feet the DOF with a 500 and a 1.3 crop factor your DOF is less than half an inch, going from F4 to F8 doubles the DOF but when you're doubling cock all you still end up with cock all and it wouldn't have been enough to get the legs in focus. The Bill, the bill, I wish. It may well be natural tonality on this particular individual as i have 3 or 4 others taken in different lighting situations and the bill is the same. Initially I thought the bill maybe slightly bent away from the light but I have a pic taken out in the open with no chance of a shadow and the bill is still darker towards the tip, go figure.

[Michael Gerald-Yamasaki]

Chris,

Hmm, at 1/6400th you did have some room to stop down... I'd guess the legs at least would have been in focus at f/8, if not the tail. Looking at the water it was a pretty close deal.

What is in focus looks great... particularly the eye & beak.

Cheers,

-Michael-

[Jon Saperia]

I would suggest that with that much light even if f8 did nothing f16 probably would and there was enough light. Check any DOF calculator. It is a matter of taste - the image as it stands is very nice.
/jon

[Chris Baker]

Yeah, I hadn't noticed the water, close call as you say, and at F16 as Jon suggests it may have worked. What might have been eh. Thanks ALL for your comments, much appreciated.