Astroscope + DSLR = Gallery! (1 Viewer)

[JGobeil]

Dan,

Nice set on Flickr I must say. I notice you even managed to get a great photo of a Bittern.

Hi Tord,

Dan's photo is indeed quite nice.

If you come to Quebec, I should be able to show you some Bitterns. They are not common but a careful observer will see them quite often. They are difficult to find because they stay motionless and are extremely well camouflaged, as shown is this photo taken with a Canon 100-400mm. Ours is the American Bittern so it may be different the ones you have in your end of the world.

We also have the Least Bittern, which is much smaller and more difficult to see. The second photo is a substantial crop taken with a Canon 300mm and 1.4X TC - a real camouflage expert. The last one is a lucky shot... extreme crop as it shows. o

Regards
Jules

 

[DanC.Licks]

We also have Little Bittern. Only seen one once on a hot day, a long way away, and only because he seems to have an injured wing. We know they are around, but other than this guy, we have never seen one.


200% crop.

 

[Tord]

While waiting for my E-M5 to come back from the workshop I put the E5 and TS102 700mm scope combination to a field test.

The setup is a beast, with the scope at 5-6kg and the E5 adding another kg at the very rear end I had some concerns about the stability and stress but the scope focuser is designed for heavy loads. On the RH2 Lensmaster gimbal head the setup is surprisingly easy to handle. (I need to share pictures of the setup).

I was surprised how well the E5 optical viewfinder performed when focusing.

The Grey Wagtail (a rarity here) and the Siskin are shot at ISO 800 in rainy conditions. The Willow Warbler is shot in very late evening sunlight, ISO 400.

 

[DanC.Licks]

Robin in the shade. ISO 800, 1/30 second (honest!).

Had better luck with this guy. Very windy, but bright so I could go to 1/1000 at ISO 400.

Both without TN.

 

[DanC.Licks]

But I must admit, BiFs can be really hard with a scope! I must have taken over 200 shots of these flying nut transporters the last two trips to Hungary, and there wasn't a single one that was really bang on sharp. This time I tried without the TN.






It was quite hazy though, so it might not have even been possible to get anything really sharp.

 

[JGobeil]

Robin in the shade. ISO 800, 1/30 second (honest!).
View attachment 468402
Had better luck with this guy. Very windy, but bright so I could go to 1/1000 at ISO 400.
View attachment 468403
Both without TN.

Hey, you got a nice Bittern !

 

[JGobeil]

But I must admit, BiFs can be really hard with a scope! I must have taken over 200 shots of these flying nut transporters the last two trips to Hungary, and there wasn't a single one that was really bang on sharp. This time I tried without the TN.
View attachment 468404

View attachment 468405

View attachment 468406

It was quite hazy though, so it might not have even been possible to get anything really sharp.

I would be pleased with those. Great shots and great bird. We don't have those here.

 

[DanC.Licks]

A 747 taking off just before sunset...

 

[DanC.Licks]

Ah, the Bittern! He FINALLY, after seeing him at least 15 times, decided not to fly off in a huff, but posed very nicely. Of course, you can be sure he was certain we couldn't see him. We passed the place where he normally hangs out at a snails pace in the car, and there he was. At one point he was less than two meters away. I parked the car on a tiny bridge about 10 meters away where I had a not bad view, and I was able to sneak out of the car and get in the back where I had the scope set up to shoot out the back window. Must have taken 30 or so shots. It was very windy, and at one point the wind parted the branches of a big tree and bingo, there he was lit up like he was on stage! Finally he got bored with us and crawled back into the reeds. Made the whole trip worth while!

 

[Tord]

Had better luck with this guy. Very windy, but bright so I could go to 1/1000 at ISO 400.
View attachment 468403

Superb capture of the Bittern.

 

[Tord]

But I must admit, BiFs can be really hard with a scope! I must have taken over 200 shots of these flying nut transporters the last two trips to Hungary, and there wasn't a single one that was really bang on sharp. This time I tried without the TN.
View attachment 468404

View attachment 468405

View attachment 468406

It was quite hazy though, so it might not have even been possible to get anything really sharp.

There is a slight blur but the compositions and action are excellent.

 

[DanC.Licks]

Thanks Tord.
It is my belief that any action shot should have at least one point of real sharpness, specifically, the eye of a bird, to offset the movement in the wings etc. If the eye (face) is blurred or if there is no detail in it, the picture is "dead".
I had it a little easier on 468405 because the bird let me focus on him while he was sitting still. I fared much worse trying to pick them out of the air in mid flight. 468406 is pretty much on but suffers a little from too much air, being nearly a 100% crop, and (I think) not being perfectly in focus. I tried to make it a little sharper:



Met a guy on Sunday who got a mint (one month old!) Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS USM for €4000!!! Puts it to good use:
http://www.focus-pannonia.at/

 

[Tord]

Dan,

True the picture suffers from a slight front OOF and what looks like some motion blur L/R but it is still a nice picture. When we assess our bird pictures I think there are a number of elements to consider, not only sharpness.

• Technique/Sharpness, as you write. Preferrebly head/eyes or some other important focal point e.g. claws holding prey or some interesting detail in the feathering.
• technique/Light. Poor light, harsh sun, difficult light angle, incorrect exposure against background, deep shadows etc will never result in an enjoyable picture, regardless how sharp it is.
• Posture: Portraits, profile view, eye contact etc. No matter how technically perfect, a bird flying away or looking away is not an attractive motif. Same if there are disturbing elements that are hiding or blurring critical parts of the picture.
• Environment. Clean background, (sometimes) foreground, or elements you would expect to see in the natural environment play a role.
• Action, seize the moment. Not required, but will make a picture even more exciting. Motion, food, interaction, behavior etc.
• Composition. There are many tastes, I think the basic photo composition rules apply to a large extent.
• Technique/lab: The final touch, cropping, sharpening, toning/shadows/highlights, color balance, noise etc can be improved in the digital lab but there is a limit.

When all converge, you have a cracker.

 

[JGobeil]

Dan,

True the picture suffers from a slight front OOF and what looks like some motion blur L/R but it is still a nice picture. When we assess our bird pictures I think there are a number of elements to consider, not only sharpness.

• Technique/Sharpness, as you write. Preferrebly head/eyes or some other important focal point e.g. claws holding prey or some interesting detail in the feathering.
• technique/Light. Poor light, harsh sun, difficult light angle, incorrect exposure against background, deep shadows etc will never result in an enjoyable picture, regardless how sharp it is.
• Posture: Portraits, profile view, eye contact etc. No matter how technically perfect, a bird flying away or looking away is not an attractive motif. Same if there are disturbing elements that are hiding or blurring critical parts of the picture.
• Environment. Clean background, (sometimes) foreground, or elements you would expect to see in the natural environment play a role.
• Action, seize the moment. Not required, but will make a picture even more exciting. Motion, food, interaction, behavior etc.
• Composition. There are many tastes, I think the basic photo composition rules apply to a large extent.
• Technique/lab: The final touch, cropping, sharpening, toning/shadows/highlights, color balance, noise etc can be improved in the digital lab but there is a limit.

When all converge, you have a cracker.

Agreed ! This is a good list. I would add these 2: IMAGE and STORY. You touch those 2 criteria with your Action and Composition elements but I like to be more specific.

The IMAGE is everything. If I have a nice artistic image that I can show to non photographers and make them say "Wow ! This is nice." I know I have a winner. When I have such a photo, I'm willing to forget technical weaknesses (to a point ) and I don't hesitate to show it on my Web site.

Also, I like a photo to tell a STORY. It is not always possible but I try to photograph the bird in its environment, doing what it does best, showing the characteristics of its species. I really hate those technically perfect stereotype photos of a bird on portable perch, with a creamy blurry background, a small white dot on the eye showing a flash was used and all plumage or background defects photoshopped. To me, these photos are cold, without soul or personnality.

If you look at the work of the great photographers, Image and Story is what make them rise above the rest. Of course, I am not a great photographer and I don't think I will ever be one - but I'm working hard towards that goal.

Regards
Jules

 

[Tord]

Agreed ! This is a good list. I would add these 2: IMAGE and STORY. You touch those 2 criteria with your Action and Composition elements but I like to be more specific.

The IMAGE is everything. If I have a nice artistic image that I can show to non photographers and make them say "Wow ! This is nice." I know I have a winner. When I have such a photo, I'm willing to forget technical weaknesses (to a point ) and I don't hesitate to show it on my Web site.

Also, I like a photo to tell a STORY. It is not always possible but I try to photograph the bird in its environment, doing what it does best, showing the characteristics of its species. I really hate those technically perfect stereotype photos of a bird on portable perch, with a creamy blurry background, a small white dot on the eye showing a flash was used and all plumage or background defects photoshopped. To me, these photos are cold, without soul or personnality.

If you look at the work of the great photographers, Image and Story is what make them rise above the rest. Of course, I am not a great photographer and I don't think I will ever be one - but I'm working hard towards that goal.

Regards
Jules

Jules,
As a living example of what you describe. I was fortunate to attend a seminar arranged by the Malmö photographic association (targeting amateurs) where the quite renowned Brutus Östling was invited to perform a presentation and lecture. It lasted 1.5 hours, the audience was very broad with few interested in birds or bird photography. Still he managed to capture the interest of the audience, presenting and illustrating what makes a good picture based on elements picked from this list (and his own personal view). Mostly bird pictures, but also wildlife in general and portraits of human.

 

[JGobeil]

Jules,
As a living example of what you describe. I was fortunate to attend a seminar arranged by the Malmö photographic association (targeting amateurs) where the quite renowned Brutus Östling was invited to perform a presentation and lecture. It lasted 1.5 hours, the audience was very broad with few interested in birds or bird photography. Still he managed to capture the interest of the audience, presenting and illustrating what makes a good picture based on elements picked from this list (and his own personal view). Mostly bird pictures, but also wildlife in general and portraits of human.

Absolutely ! Look at the work of Henri Cartier-Bresson, probably the greatest photographer in history. Not much technical virtiuality in his photos - everything was about IMAGE.

Of course, there is nothing wrong in combining IMAGE and TECHNIQUE. :t:

 

[DanC.Licks]

Sometimes I take a picture of a bird simply for documentation. It is there and is interesting. But that is different from trying to take a "nice" picture of a bird. For me, a nice picture is one that would appeal to someone not even interested in birds. That is naturally what I would prefer to do, (as I myself am not SO interested in birds per se; I just like photographing them) but it isn't always possible. There are many factors that determine what is a nice picture, and they are constantly changing with every shot.
Case in point:
468405 is a not SO bad picture of a Jay, but it is not a nice picture as the background ruins any graphic qualities the bird has. So how about...?

I know, it is "cheating", but....

H. C.-B. was indeed a great photographer, as was A.A. But I would not say he was not a technical virtuoso. He knew exactly what he was doing, in and out of the darkroom. Different priorities, different format.... apples and oranges again. Everybody now talks about what a huge difference there is between crop sensors and full frame. Ha! A FF sensor area is roughly 2.3x the size of a Nikon crop sensor. A.A.'s format was 597x the size of H.C.-B.'s! Fun in numbers!

 

[JGobeil]

Sometimes I take a picture of a bird simply for documentation. It is there and is interesting. But that is different from trying to take a "nice" picture of a bird. For me, a nice picture is one that would appeal to someone not even interested in birds. That is naturally what I would prefer to do, (as I myself am not SO interested in birds per se; I just like photographing them) but it isn't always possible. There are many factors that determine what is a nice picture, and they are constantly changing with every shot.
Case in point:
468405 is a not SO bad picture of a Jay, but it is not a nice picture as the background ruins any graphic qualities the bird has. So how about...?
View attachment 468577
I know, it is "cheating", but....

H. C.-B. was indeed a great photographer, as was A.A. But I would not say he was not a technical virtuoso. He knew exactly what he was doing, in and out of the darkroom. Different priorities, different format.... apples and oranges again. Everybody now talks about what a huge difference there is between crop sensors and full frame. Ha! A FF sensor area is roughly 2.3x the size of a Nikon crop sensor. A.A.'s format was 597x the size of H.C.-B.'s! Fun in numbers!

Dan,

I agree that HCB knew what he was doing in the darkroom as were all good photographers of that era but I don't think it was his main criteria to judge a photo. Of course, it is now impossible to ask him !

Your Jays, even if not perfect, do tell a story and are very nice images with their open wings. I would be proud of those pictures.

Regards
Jules

 

[DanC.Licks]

Thanks, Jules.
H. C.-B. was my hero and inspiration back LOOOONG ago when I was a professional photo-journalist, back in the days when an M3 with a 50mm or a 35mm Sumicron was the best thing that anyone could imagine, until the Leicaflex came along. (Unfortunately I sold my M3s but I still have my Leicaflex SL!)
A.A.'s work was always a joy to behold, really awe inspiring, but I was never a big format guy. I held both in very high esteem, the one for the reality, the message, the other for the purely graphic beauty of his work.

 

[JGobeil]

Thanks, Jules.
H. C.-B. was my hero and inspiration back LOOOONG ago when I was a professional photo-journalist, back in the days when an M3 with a 50mm or a 35mm Sumicron was the best thing that anyone could imagine, until the Leicaflex came along. (Unfortunately I sold my M3s but I still have my Leicaflex SL!)
A.A.'s work was always a joy to behold, really awe inspiring, but I was never a big format guy. I held both in very high esteem, the one for the reality, the message, the other for the purely graphic beauty of his work.

Scolars say that AA was a darkroom genius. I don't know about that, but I know he was a nature landscapes photography genius. I have visited Yosemite and his photos are as beautiful as the park. His work inspires me a lot.

Regards
Jules