Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Photo Critique Section
Downy Woodpecker
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
Mar 18, 2017 14:09:00   #
Nightski
 
1600 ISO
F/11
1/500 sec


(Download)

Reply
Mar 18, 2017 17:22:36   #
R.G. Loc: Scotland
 
Was the woodpecker quite far away? I get the impression that as a very general rule, if you want small subjects to fill the frame you have to use high f-stops to get sufficient depth of field, and that's true whether the subjects are close (as in macro) or far away (as in telephoto). With the telephoto stuff, the fact that the subject (the focus point) is a long way off should help with the DOF, but the long focal length (the amount of zoom) negates that advantage and you're back to having to use a high f-stop. So it all comes down to how much of the frame you want your small subjects to fill. (It's been a quiet night ).

Reply
Mar 18, 2017 20:27:47   #
Nightski
 
R.G. wrote:
Was the woodpecker quite far away? I get the impression that as a very general rule, if you want small subjects to fill the frame you have to use high f-stops to get sufficient depth of field, and that's true whether the subjects are close (as in macro) or far away (as in telephoto). With the telephoto stuff, the fact that the subject (the focus point) is a long way off should help with the DOF, but the long focal length (the amount of zoom) negates that advantage and you're back to having to use a high f-stop. So it all comes down to how much of the frame you want your small subjects to fill. (It's been a quiet night ).
Was the woodpecker quite far away? I get the impr... (show quote)


I was about as close as you're going to get to a woodpecker and I did just about fill the frame. It's great if you can close down your aperture, but it's rare that you have enough light to do that, keep your ISO low, and keep the shutter speed up. This bird was still, but I am always hoping I'll get that take off shot to capture their wings spread, so often I have the shutter speed up as high as I can. If I get a chance at more than one shot of the bird I will often stop down to get more DOF. It is the rare occasion when I get the f/stop up to F/11 or higher, but it does happen. The trick to high ISO's is to get plenty of light without blowing highlights. I will even blow a minuscule amount of highlight to avoid shadows with high ISO. I once got a woodpecker at 6400 ISO that was virtually noise free. That is because I had exposed to the right enough to avoid shadows. That is where noise occurs and it is especially destructive in small birds. It ruins the tiny details.

Reply
 
 
Mar 19, 2017 04:18:34   #
R.G. Loc: Scotland
 
None of my comments were a criticism of your shot, BTW. The DOF is perfect and includes the bird and the branch that it's sitting on but it leaves the background soft. It just occurred to me that the DOF/f-stop problem is universal to small subjects, whether they're close or distant. Some people seem happy to have parts of their main subject soft because of a shallow DOF, but that never looks right to me. I see it with flower shots all the time, and I think the idea is it's supposed to be a tasteful, deliberate use of shallow DOF, but to me it always looks like a mistake or a compromise.

I agree with what you're saying about ETTR to avoid shadows at high ISOs. However, unless you have a very well-trained eye for light levels, it's very easy to end up with blown highlights. I got wary of using centre weighted metering because it was so easy to underestimate how bright the highlights were compared to the rest of the scene. Even on a cloudy day when the overall light levels seem to be low, the sky can be relatively much brighter than the rest of the scene, and with centre-weighted metering, if the centre of the frame isn't bright your camera will lift the exposure, which can very easily result in blown highlights in the clouds. Your MO sounds perfect for somebody who has a well-trained eye, but for somebody who doesn't there'll be a bit of a learning curve involved.

Personally I'm happy to go with the safe, lazy way, which is to use matrix metering and occasionally over-expose slightly if there are no obvious extreme highlights. If I can use exposure bracketing the threat of blown highlights is greatly reduced and I'm quite happy to use positive exposure compensation as a default setting.

Reply
Mar 19, 2017 06:33:21   #
gwong1 Loc: Tampa, FL
 
Sandra, With permission, I would like to do some minor edits and post. I have an adult female hanging around, but not able to get a good image, they are always moving, so far the male is non-existent. Nice shot. Gary

Reply
Mar 19, 2017 08:37:11   #
Nightski
 
gwong1 wrote:
Sandra, With permission, I would like to do some minor edits and post. I have an adult female hanging around, but not able to get a good image, they are always moving, so far the male is non-existent. Nice shot. Gary


please don't be offended Gary, but I would rather not have other people editing my shots. Suggestions are welcome. Hang in there. I've been stalking this area for a couple of years. It's good to sit ... watch ... experiment with different setting combinations while you wait. Birds have habits. You will get to know them. You are also not the only thing they are scared of. Their behavior is often affected by other predators present that you are not aware of. If you watch you will start to see the other forces at work in their world.

Reply
Mar 19, 2017 08:39:10   #
Nightski
 
Ps ... I go with my cat and my dog. They wait quietly with me while I shoot. It's amazing how the birds have accepted their presence.

Reply
 
 
Mar 19, 2017 08:44:23   #
AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!
 
Nice shot, Sandra. I think the focusing is really good and the background is nice. I did look at some things that sort of niggled at me, trying to see if they were deal-breakers or not. One was the short twig that's just out of focus. A second was the change in colour of the backgrounds. The darker section to the right has a distinctive shape and comes quite close to the bird's tail. The third was the swoop of a branch in the background that comes down behind his head. After studying this for some time, I think that the dark background is the only one that would bother me, and it's not a deal-breaker. It is what it is. I wouldn't know how to correct it, because I'm not that good at PP. I'm sure some would. But as I said, it's not a deal-breaker for me. If this had been mine, I would have been so happy to get the bird in focus, I wouldn't care about anything else! Well done.

Reply
Mar 19, 2017 10:13:08   #
Toby
 
I might clone out the small twig behind him, otherwise I like everything else. Great capture. I would not have done anything different.

Reply
Mar 19, 2017 14:00:08   #
Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)
 
Nightski wrote:
1600 ISO
F/11
1/500 sec


Hi, Sandra,
Nice job.
I had wondered, as did Toby, about advising cloning out that twig behind the bird.....
but...
in spite of its small size the significance of that wee twig is enhanced by its contrast and well-defined buds so that it, in cooperation with the branch on which the downy is pearched, provide approximately equal divergencies from the perfect diagonal occupied by the wee feathered beastie.
I'd thus keep that little twig.

Dave

Reply
Mar 19, 2017 23:31:40   #
Nightski
 
AzPicLady wrote:
Nice shot, Sandra. I think the focusing is really good and the background is nice. I did look at some things that sort of niggled at me, trying to see if they were deal-breakers or not. One was the short twig that's just out of focus. A second was the change in colour of the backgrounds. The darker section to the right has a distinctive shape and comes quite close to the bird's tail. The third was the swoop of a branch in the background that comes down behind his head. After studying this for some time, I think that the dark background is the only one that would bother me, and it's not a deal-breaker. It is what it is. I wouldn't know how to correct it, because I'm not that good at PP. I'm sure some would. But as I said, it's not a deal-breaker for me. If this had been mine, I would have been so happy to get the bird in focus, I wouldn't care about anything else! Well done.
Nice shot, Sandra. I think the focusing is really... (show quote)


You've made an excellent point. The dark part in the background is a tree trunk, but I know that because I was there. I don't know if you've ever listened to Kathleen Clemmons speak. She is dead set against split backgrounds like that because in her mind they are a distraction. Of course she is a flower photographer and so she has time to move around until her background suits her. I think I may remove that tree and make it all blue sky. I think you are right about that. It really is unnecessary to the photos. I kind of like the little twig. I will see how I feel with the tree trunk removed.

Oh ... link to Kathleen Clemmons. I am in awe of that lady. http://kathleenclemonsphotography.com

Reply
 
 
Mar 20, 2017 05:20:05   #
gwong1 Loc: Tampa, FL
 
Not offended, that is why I asked permission. One thing I would do is to crop tighter, removing some of the distracting background elements. One suggestion is to place the birds eye on the left third vertical. Gary
Nightski wrote:
please don't be offended Gary, but I would rather not have other people editing my shots. Suggestions are welcome. Hang in there. I've been stalking this area for a couple of years. It's good to sit ... watch ... experiment with different setting combinations while you wait. Birds have habits. You will get to know them. You are also not the only thing they are scared of. Their behavior is often affected by other predators present that you are not aware of. If you watch you will start to see the other forces at work in their world.
please don't be offended Gary, but I would rather ... (show quote)

Reply
Mar 20, 2017 10:16:56   #
AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!
 
Nightski wrote:
You've made an excellent point. The dark part in the background is a tree trunk, but I know that because I was there. I don't know if you've ever listened to Kathleen Clemmons speak. She is dead set against split backgrounds like that because in her mind they are a distraction. Of course she is a flower photographer and so she has time to move around until her background suits her. I think I may remove that tree and make it all blue sky. I think you are right about that. It really is unnecessary to the photos. I kind of like the little twig. I will see how I feel with the tree trunk removed.

Oh ... link to Kathleen Clemmons. I am in awe of that lady. http://kathleenclemonsphotography.com
You've made an excellent point. The dark part in t... (show quote)


Thanks for the link. Her work is beautiful. Wish I lived near so I could maybe take one of her classes.

Reply
Mar 20, 2017 13:00:48   #
Nightski
 
AzPicLady wrote:
Thanks for the link. Her work is beautiful. Wish I lived near so I could maybe take one of her classes.


You can buy her classes at Creative Live. Watch for a sale. You can sometimes get them pretty cheap. http://www.creativelive.com/instructor/kathleen-clemons

Reply
Mar 20, 2017 21:05:07   #
winterrose Loc: Kyneton, Victoria, Australia
 
Question: given that you required f11 for DOF, you set a high ISO in order to permit a high shutter speed to freeze movement then you chose to ETTR (set a slower shutter speed) which is overexposure, to ward off noise. Isn't that kinda defeating the purpose? Why not just use a lower ISO in the first place?

Cheers, Rob.

Reply
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Photo Critique Section
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.