R.G. Loc: Scotland

I'll just have to keep hoping for a less-than-$800 camera like that. I notice that the Niko D5500 is ISO-invariant. That may be my next upgrade (when I'm feeling rich....).

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Given that every image is the result of a three-way trade-off of the two factors of exposure and choice of ISO, it seems that a critical approach to discussing the choices of trade-offs of those three factors in the case of any particular posted image ought be based on some inadequacy of image quality that might been avoided with different choices.

The posted image of a downy woodpecker demonstrates a fully captured DR that is well-focused with well-managed tonal spectrum to accomplish excellent dark detail as well as excellent highlight detail. To suggest that other choices and trade-offs might have have been employed to attain the same image quality is much akin to two mathematicians arguing about which particular multiplier and multiplicand ought be used to attain the same accurate product.

With knowledge of one's camera's raw-accessible DR there is no risk of blown highlights with ETTR (or EBTR.). There is not, contrary to one critic's comment, "overexposure" in this technically well-accomplished image.

It appears that reasonable choices of shutter duration, aperture, and ISO were made in the case of this posted image. Highlight detail? Excellent. Shadow/dark detail? Excellent! Noise? No problem!

Exposure decisions can always be argued (sometimes even to instructional benefit if a malexposed image is available as the object of discussion). But, there being evidence of naught but excellent achieved quality in the posted image, no possible benefit can be gained, or object lesson learned by pretending a problem existed when, in fact, it didn't.

Shakespeare had a title that applies well to this discussion. Howziit go again?... "Much Ado....."

Dave

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

I am not going enter into another pointless round of ETTR/EBTR argument with you.

Nevertheless, the Sunny 16 rule is always a reasonable starting point for exposure estimation. In this case, my suggested ISO 250, 1/500@f/11 is a useful starting point. While I can't speak for Minnesota, South Dakota or Alaska, the rule works pretty well in Florida and this scene is obviously in broad daylight. You might make a case for a little more exposure far north of Florida in the winter but Sunny 16 leaves room for highlights with high reflectance like white bird feathers.

Because I knew that egret feathers are extraordinarily reflective and since I wanted to maintain their detail and texture in broad daylight, I made an exposure that was actually more than 2 stops below the Sunny 16 rule - ISO 200 and 1/2000 @f/11 (Sunny 16 recommended 1/400). As it turned out, I overdid it by about 1.5 stops and had to back that out in post processing (I also lowered the white point significantly) but you will see in that image that I retained the detail and texture in the brightest feathers. You will also see that I did not make much of an effort to recover the shadow information. The background was actually in deep shade behind the egret which was in full sunlight. There is no discernible noise in the shadows because I was operating close to base ISO anyhow.

By using ISO 1600 Nightski was about 2-2/3 stops above the Sunny 16 recommendation. The evidence that she overexposed portions of the image is very clear. There is no detail or texture in the brightest feathers. As I remarked, this did not irretrievably harm the image, but it was clearly not the correct exposure.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

I've been following this discussion with interest. There are really two different issues here.

(1) what was the best way of taking this picture given sufficient time?

(2) what was a good way of taking this picture under actual circumstances?

I don't want to become involved in (1)

From my own experience, I know that small birds are much more excitable than birds of prey, or even of water fowl. If I understand correctly, settings used by the OP were those used in the previous picture taken. I will sometimes glance at settings if I anticipate taking another picture soon, to make sure that they are still appropriate, but only sometimes. Once you see a small bird, my experience is that you must take a picture immediately, because the opportunity may flee; my experience is that a good image in the camera is better than a perfect image not taken {I have way too many of those}.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

You are right to be skeptical. There are more important considerations than the "perfect" exposure in cases like this. For example, getting the focus and composition right and freezing movement are certainly more important. There are a host of other considerations that trump exposure.

The first rule for digital exposure is "don't blow the highlights". There are lots of ways to go about this and Sunny 16 is a good place to start. It should be your initial "reality check" consideration. The good news is that low ISO in daylight normally provides you with reasonable aperture and shutter speed. If you are going to miss it you are better off with underexposure. The link I provided in my previous post illustrates this.

The other bit of good news is that, underexposure does not lead to a disaster if you have a modern camera with decent performance. If the primary subject gets reasonable exposure it will probably not be a problem for the surrounding area (background) to be dark or underexposed.

Another thing to keep in mind is that blown highlights are not a mortal sin. Nightski's image is a good example.