• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Is this a pretty normal unedited photo? (1 Viewer)

CCRII

Well-known member
Just trying to learn and I noticed a lot of people edit there photos but it is kind of unclear how much editing goes on. Just wondering if this a good start or not?

The first image is the uedited original titled EmpidOrig, only thing done to it was resized for the restrictions of the forum, changed res to 100dpi, and saved as jpeg.

The second is the bird cropped at 100%, changed res to 100dpi, and saved as jpeg.

Some exif info:

f/8, 1/640th sec, ISO 200, 400mm

Equipment:
Canon 30D with EF100-400mm Zoom IS USM along with Lexar Platinum 80x Compact flash card.

Shot was handheld.

Thanks.
 

Attachments

  • EpidOrig.jpg
    EpidOrig.jpg
    83.4 KB · Views: 279
  • Empid.jpg
    Empid.jpg
    88.8 KB · Views: 378
Last edited:
How far were You from the Bird? ... The crop is a little blurred to be honest,
John,

I am not sure as I am not great at judging distances, but it was about 20-30feet I guess.

So I guess it is not normal then for a cropped image to look like this.

Oh and some other information I was using AI Servo AF, spot metering mode, 0 exposure compensation.

Maybe I was not holding it steady enough? Or perhaps I should have tried to go for a higher fstop? I am really trying to get a sharp image and it just is not happening. Can you tell me what I am doing wrong?
 
Last edited:
You are getting there, CCRII. Things that would have improved the shot:

1: Step a few paces to either side, probably right to avoid problems with that stick in the background. (Not always possible, of course.)
2: ISO 400 to double your shutter speed.
3: f/6.7 increases shutter speed a little more, and blurs that stick a tiny bit more. On the other hand, the bird's head is already a bit behind the point of optimum focus, so best to take a few shots with different settings, pick the best one.
4: 1/2 a stop of exposure compensation as you are against the light. This will make the background a little too light (who cares?) and expose the bird a little better (though it's pretty close as-is).
5: Try to aim the centre focus point a tiny bit higher, to get closer to the bird's head. (If you can do this without losing focus altogether - you have to walk a fine line.)

Taken together, those steps should all work together to turn a reasonable shot into a pretty good shot. To go the next step - a really good shot you need to apply Bird Photography Rule One: get closer to the bird!

Overal, nice work: you are heading in a good direction!
 
In any bird photography shutter speed really is the most important thing to consider as you have not only your movement to control but also the bird and whatever it's sitting on or flying in.

Even on the 20D ISO 400 is very good with little noise and what there is can easily be removed with noise filtration software. I use ISO400 as standard. Even ISO800 can be used if it's dull or the subject is in shadow.

Aperture should be at it's lowest number - f5,6 is pretty good though with this lens I usually like to stop down to f6,3. If tripod mouinted then f8 is preferred.

By using f8 you've already lost half your potential shutter speed and by using ISO200 over using ISO400 you've halved it again. In other words this shot could have been taken at 1/2000 at f6,3 and I dare say it would have been pin sharp.

The 100-400mm is a hefty lens to hand hold so it can be difficult to keep steady for long when pointing upwards for bird photos.

Looking at the photo - nothing is truely sharp - which it should be with this lens and I've no doubt would have been if the camera had been held really steady. If hand holding for photos at 400mm then 1/400 is the minimum you should be considering even when using IS and have a good hand holding technique - which just comes with practice. You can go lower once you've perfected your hand holding technique but it will still be hit and miss. I was amazed how much my results improved when I started using a monopod - even with that I always try to find a tree of fence to lean against for extra stability.

Exposure of the bird looks pretty good. Normally for photos agains tthe sky I'd be considering -EV compensation, but here the bird is fairly light coloured anyway and if anything with the sun so well on it I'd have added slight +EV to darken it and add a little more detail.

This shot is taken in similar circumstances though a little closer and using the 400mm prime - but results should be comparable in terms of detail captured. It's simply cropped and resized. ISO200, 1/2500, f5,6 with no EV adjustment. Also taken hand held - high shutter speed really does make a difference.

One trick though for processing is not to crop quite so closely as more sharpening can be added. Quite often a reject can be turned into a keeper.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_4695b.JPG
    IMG_4695b.JPG
    165.3 KB · Views: 216
Thank-you very much! All very helpful tips that I will be trying to put into practice. This is probably my 4th time out with useable light.

I was concentrating on faster shutter speeds and using ISO 400 originally but I noticed that my results were blurry still, then I got the book The birdwatchers guide to digital photography by David Tripling and got the advice to try to keep the iso between 200-100. I noticed a lot of the photos on here use f/8 and I thought I read somewhere that the higher the f number usually the sharper the results. I think may have misread this or misinterpreted.

I find it next to impossible to get close to a bird with a tripod. I have been using a stalking technique where you never look at the bird and point your lens at the bird all the while when the bird goes about it's normal activity you approach a little closer, then try to take a shot and keep going like this. I can get within 20 feet without a tripod.
 
I second Ian's advice.

Your book is probably out of date. Modern cameras can, as Ian says, handle 400 and even 800 ISO quite happily. Now that I've switched from a 20D to the latest 1D III, I seem to be settling on 800 ISO as my "standard" setting - it's so clean at 800 that there doesn't seem to be any point in "only" using 400. With the 20Ds, however, and also the 400D, 400 was a better choice if the light allowed.

F/8 gives you more depth of field and will help cover up small focus errors, and with a less than perfect lens will give you a sharper picture. A top quality lens, however, often produces its best results wide open, r almost wide open. With the 100-400 I like f/6.7 the best, though I often go to f/5.6 or f/8; almost never any higher than that. The big Canon prime I shoot wide open if I can.

Sounds to me as though your approach technique is pretty good. I don't stalk, I wander. Keep relaxed: the bird can tell the difference between a tense human "stalking" and a relaxed, sleepy-looking human "just happening" to wander a little closer at a time.

4th time out, half-decent results already. You are doing fine. Stick at it!
 
Even on the 20D ISO 400 is very good with little noise and what there is can easily be removed with noise filtration software. I use ISO400 as standard. Even ISO800 can be used if it's dull or the subject is in shadow.

Modern cameras can, as Ian says, handle 400 and even 800 ISO quite happily. Now that I've switched from a 20D to the latest 1D III, I seem to be settling on 800 ISO as my "standard" setting - it's so clean at 800 that there doesn't seem to be any point in "only" using 400. With the 20Ds, however, and also the 400D, 400 was a better choice if the light allowed.

Hello CCRII,

you've just received some sound and wise advice here from these experienced birders ... put it into practice and you'll soon see the results!

No need to add more here, I'd just like to underline the usefulness of experimenting with you camera settings - you already have a very good kit capable of excellent results - but try to understand the limits of your equipment in order to exploit it thoroughly.

When it's the case I mainly use the lowest ISO possible (ISO 200 as a standard), but I enjoy good light for two-thirds of the year, so much depends on your average shooting conditions. But remember: don't be afraid to pump up your ISO whenever the need arises - although it's true that a lower ISO provides a picture with finer grain, in many cases a faster speed is often better than more noise (which can be removed later during PP with decent results).

Here are a few examples taken with a 20D to show its noise handling capability (and your 30D must be quite similar); shots were taken at ISO 100, 400 and 800 (I have a few more taken at ISO 1600, but a different subject) - same PP levels applied (light sharpening and very light noise removal).

PS If it's true what they say, I just can't imagine life with a Mark III - wow! ;)

Cheers,

Max
 

Attachments

  • KF_ISO100_resize.jpg
    KF_ISO100_resize.jpg
    53.6 KB · Views: 157
  • KF_ISO400_resize.jpg
    KF_ISO400_resize.jpg
    31.6 KB · Views: 149
  • KF_ISO800_resize.jpg
    KF_ISO800_resize.jpg
    51.1 KB · Views: 157
Last edited:
Brilliant advice from Everyone ... The best advice out of all that great Info
in my Book is to get closer to the Bird ... Setting's you can play with all Day
and greatly improve the picture ... But only when your in "The" range of the
subject your shooting ... 20-30 Foot is quite far away for a Small Bird ...
10-15 is the range i'd like with a 100-400 on little Bird's ... Bigger Bird's are
about i'd say 15 to 30 foot ... That's just a rough estimate ... That's what
i alway's do when using 400mm, Good luck and the advice given is top
stuff,
Good Shot's Max aswell,
Take care,
John,
 
Sounds to me as though your approach technique is pretty good. I don't stalk, I wander. Keep relaxed: the bird can tell the difference between a tense human "stalking" and a relaxed, sleepy-looking human "just happening" to wander a little closer at a time.

4th time out, half-decent results already. You are doing fine. Stick at it!

Good one! Very ingenious! This made me laugh pretty hard. Lol! Yes I guess I am a nerd. :-O
 
I noticed today that it was impossible to focus on the eye of the bird as it would just not focus this way it wanted to focus into the foresty background clutter behind the bird and then when I brought the focus down to the body of the bird or the branch, boom in focus. Is that normal? I also had a situation where the focus kept focusing, then going out of focus back and forth it caused me to miss a incredible opportunity with a black and white warbler in the forest. I had the ISO at 400, f6.3 (won't let me do 6.7 for some reason), 1/250th shutter speed was showing. Spot metering. AF Servo.

Thanks.
 
Hello CCRII,

you've just received some sound and wise advice here from these experienced birders ... put it into practice and you'll soon see the results!

No need to add more here, I'd just like to underline the usefulness of experimenting with you camera settings - you already have a very good kit capable of excellent results - but try to understand the limits of your equipment in order to exploit it thoroughly.

When it's the case I mainly use the lowest ISO possible (ISO 200 as a standard), but I enjoy good light for two-thirds of the year, so much depends on your average shooting conditions. But remember: don't be afraid to pump up your ISO whenever the need arises - although it's true that a lower ISO provides a picture with finer grain, in many cases a faster speed is often better than more noise (which can be removed later during PP with decent results).

Here are a few examples taken with a 20D to show its noise handling capability (and your 30D must be quite similar); shots were taken at ISO 100, 400 and 800 (I have a few more taken at ISO 1600, but a different subject) - same PP levels applied (light sharpening and very light noise removal).

PS If it's true what they say, I just can't imagine life with a Mark III - wow! ;)

Cheers,

Max

I would love to see the 100% versions of these if possible as that is what I have been dealing with and there is quite a bit of noise in my pictures at 400 and above. I have tried the noise option in photoshop CS3 but does not do much if anything at all.

Thanks.
 
For noise, the answer is Neat Image - http://neatimage.com from memory.

You can set Canon cameras starting with the 30D and newer (from memory) to use either 1/2 stop or 1/3 stop aperture increments - so if you are using 1/3 stop you get f/5.6 - f/6.3 - f/7.1 - f/8 and so on, where if you use half stop increments you get f/5.6 - f/6.7 - f/8. The 1/6th of a stop difference between f/6.3 and f/6.7 is neither here nor there.

I usually use the 1/2 stop increments simply because I think it would be conceited to think that my poor eye is smart enough to guess stuff down to 1/3rd of a stop, so the 1/2 stop increments are near enough for my use, and save a bit of extra time scrolling wheels.

Focus zones actually take up more room than the little squares on the viewfinder indicate. If you can't get a good focus on the head, you must make do with the body, or (if you can) move closer to the bird. The focus system hunts back and forward when it can almost get a firm lockup, but not quite. Again, helping it by getting a few paces closer is a good idea, if you can.
 
If you can't get locked on the eye, then try going for the feet as they're pretty much in the same plain as the eye - if that isn't possible then you have to use the body.
 
For noise, the answer is Neat Image - http://neatimage.com from memory.

You can set Canon cameras starting with the 30D and newer (from memory) to use either 1/2 stop or 1/3 stop aperture increments - so if you are using 1/3 stop you get f/5.6 - f/6.3 - f/7.1 - f/8 and so on, where if you use half stop increments you get f/5.6 - f/6.7 - f/8. The 1/6th of a stop difference between f/6.3 and f/6.7 is neither here nor there.

I usually use the 1/2 stop increments simply because I think it would be conceited to think that my poor eye is smart enough to guess stuff down to 1/3rd of a stop, so the 1/2 stop increments are near enough for my use, and save a bit of extra time scrolling wheels.

Focus zones actually take up more room than the little squares on the viewfinder indicate. If you can't get a good focus on the head, you must make do with the body, or (if you can) move closer to the bird. The focus system hunts back and forward when it can almost get a firm lockup, but not quite. Again, helping it by getting a few paces closer is a good idea, if you can.

As always thanks for the continued help! Very clear and concise! I found a public feeding station that I am going to go back to tomorrow and see if I cannot get some feeder birds practice in.
 
Man I cannot get a brake! I was finally able to get close to this Kingbird and it looks like I have a sharp untouched picture, except the composition is extremely poor with the barb wire in front of the birds head. However what do you think besides that? :-O
 

Attachments

  • EasternKingbird.jpg
    EasternKingbird.jpg
    88.3 KB · Views: 175
Last edited:
I have noticed many, many birds will let me get close but as soon as I lift my lens it might as well be a shot gun. :/

I think I am going to have to employ one of those mobile blind things.
 
Yep! That's the sort of results you're looking for. A shame about the wire in front of the head else it would have been a very good detailed capture.

As regards approaching birds, I find that if you approach them slowly with the camera already held up in front of you, not to the eye, just in front so you only have a few inches to move it, the birds aren't bothered so much.
 
Man I cannot get a brake! I was finally able to get close to this Kingbird and it looks like I have a sharp untouched picture, except the composition is extremely poor with the barb wire in front of the birds head. However what do you think besides that? :-O

The shot looks good apart from the wire! I reckon that with a bit of time and effort you could clone it out fairly well. I've had a quick go (was to lazy to remove the shadow) and it looks ok, though it would work much better on the full size original image.
 

Attachments

  • wireless.jpg
    wireless.jpg
    66.5 KB · Views: 168
The shot looks good apart from the wire! I reckon that with a bit of time and effort you could clone it out fairly well. I've had a quick go (was to lazy to remove the shadow) and it looks ok, though it would work much better on the full size original image.

Yeah I thought about cloning it but did not think the work would be believable. Well I am going to go back and try and get a better shot.

Thanks for the advice and help!
 
Warning! This thread is more than 17 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top