Need some help: This is cropped from a photo shot with a Canon 7D, 55-250 lens, shutter 1/500, aperture 5.6, focal length 250. How could I have gotten more detail on the feathers and...

nat Loc: Martha's Vineyard, MA

This is cropped from a photo shot with a Canon 7D, 55-250 lens, shutter 1/500, aperture 5.6, focal length 250. How could I have gotten more detail on the feathers and sharper focus on the whole head? I also have a 70-200 f/2.8 and a 24-105. Would either of these lenses be better? This bird was pretty close and I have lots of opportunities to get it better. Would appreciate suggestions.

JR1 Loc: Tavistock, Devon, UK

But the shorter lengths would not have allowed such a crop especially the 105, you would need longer not shorter

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/55-250mm-is.htm

Personally I use Sigma 120-400 or longer

Personally I see NOTHING to complain about here with this shot

nat Loc: Martha's Vineyard, MA

JR1 wrote:

But the shorter lengths would not have allowed such a crop especially the 105, you would need longer not shorter

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/55-250mm-is.htm

Personally I use Sigma 120-400 or longer

Personally I see NOTHING to complain about here with this shot

Thanks. I suspected a longer lens would be best, but I wanted to confirm. I'll check out that website.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Nat,
This is where you need to do a little experimenting. Your 70-200 is a better piece of glass than the 55-250 so I would say right off that you'd get a sharper image. I would also say that the whites are right on the verge of being blown out. Try bracketing some shots, or fooling around with exposure a bit. I feel that if you'd have under exposed this white gull you'd have more detail. Also, sometimes there's nothing you can do about the lighting when it comes to capturing nature. Direct light is not the best on white birds but you have to take what you can get.

JR1 Loc: Tavistock, Devon, UK

Well you know from being here the Sigmas 120-400 and 150-500 are the ones most use, I have both and I would not be without..

I use the 120-400 on my Canon and 150-500 on the Nikons

nat Loc: Martha's Vineyard, MA

jeep_daddy wrote:

Nat, br This is where you need to do a little expe... (show quote)

Thanks. I will definitely take my 70-200 next time. Wondering if i stop down to f/8 is that will give me more depth in the feathers. There are plenty of gulls here, so all I need is a fairly warm day, a stool to sit on, and maybe a sandwich!

Bmac Loc: Long Island, NY

nat wrote:

Thanks. I will definitely take my 70-200 next time. Wondering if i stop down to f/8 is that will give me more depth in the feathers. There are plenty of gulls here, so all I need is a fairly warm day, a stool to sit on, and maybe a sandwich!

That's what I would do, decrease your aperture size for more depth of field.

Here is a calculator so you can see how changing certain factors relates to DOF. http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

nat Loc: Martha's Vineyard, MA

Bmac wrote:

That's what I would do, decrease your aperture size for more depth of field.

Here is a calculator so you can see how changing certain factors relates to DOF. http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Thank you, Bmac. By the way, is that you in a space capsule or a crowded subway?

Bmac Loc: Long Island, NY

nat wrote:

Thank you, Bmac. By the way, is that you in a space capsule or a crowded subway?

Subways aren't that clean, unless you're in Montreal. :|

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

nat wrote:

Thanks. I will definitely take my 70-200 next time. Wondering if i stop down to f/8 is that will give me more depth in the feathers. There are plenty of gulls here, so all I need is a fairly warm day, a stool to sit on, and maybe a sandwich!

It can't hurt to try. It costs nothing to take a lot of pictures and compare them. Personally I like shooting with less DOF for a creamier background but a lot of people shoot wildlife anywhere from f/4 to f/8 depending on the light and DOF they are looking for.

nat Loc: Martha's Vineyard, MA

I'm interested in capturing feather structure and patterns (while they're still on the bird, not lying on the ground).

Bmac Loc: Long Island, NY

jeep_daddy wrote:

It can't hurt to try. It costs nothing to take a lot of pictures and compare them. Personally I like shooting with less DOF for a creamier background but a lot of people shoot wildlife anywhere from f/4 to f/8 depending on the light and DOF they are looking for.

Keep in mind though, that with long focal lengths and depending on the distance from the subject, you can still have a creamier background and get the entire head of the bird in sharp focus by using a smaller aperture. I think anyway. :-D

nat Loc: Martha's Vineyard, MA

jeep_daddy wrote:

It can't hurt to try. It costs nothing to take a lot of pictures and compare them. Personally I like shooting with less DOF for a creamier background but a lot of people shoot wildlife anywhere from f/4 to f/8 depending on the light and DOF they are looking for.

So, how DID you get that shot of your distal femur fracture? If you'd like, you can also tell us how you got the fracture in the first place; hopefully, not for photographic purposes!

tainkc Loc: Kansas City

I bet the details are there. Forget about the lens issue for one moment. Try bringing the whites down and the highlights down just a bit in pp play with the shadows and the darks and then raise or lower the exposure a little. You should be able to bring out the detail in the feathers and end up with the exposure looking about the same as this photo only with greater detail.

nat Loc: Martha's Vineyard, MA

Good suggestion. I'll try that.