This topic interests me, as well. I have heard that Lightroom is very good at helping to organize photos. Is it appreciably better than PSE 11, in that regard? I have been using PSE 11 for a while, and I guess I'm satisfied with it, but I'd seriously consider moving to LR, if it was that much better. I shoot in raw, and use Adobe's DNG converter to convert it to DNG. Then I use what I guess is a stripped down version of Camera Raw to some amount of editing on the dng file. Anything further, I have to do in PSE 11.

You suggested that the slave does not have to have HSS. I don't believe that is strictly true. The slave has to be HSS capable, even if the HSS feature can only be accessed in slave mode, as opposed to being used alone.

Here is a similar example, though not using HSS. I have two Speedlites: a 600EX-R and a 430EX-II. The 430EX-II is multi-flash capable, but that capability cannot be accessed when the 430EX-II is being used alone. The multi-flash capability can only be accessed when the 430EX-II is being used as a slave to a master that has that feature. The 600EX-R has that feature, and it can direct the 430EX-II to use that feature, but only because the 430EX-II has it, in the first place.

Yes, it will, provided the cord is good. The cords sold on that page are good enough. (No connection with that company.)

I use HSS with this setup, all the time. I frequently shoot hummingbirds with a two flash setup. The master is off camera, on a stand, using the 10 meter cord. The slave is on a stand. I make sure that the sensor for the slave is pointing in the general direction of the master -- line of sight, and all that. Because hummingbird shots require such fast shutter speeds, HSS is crucial.

Ten meters sounds like an very long cord, but you'd be surprised how much of that length gets eaten up by going from the ground to the camera, and from the ground to the master flash.

One way to get the flash off camera, and still have full TTL capability, is to get a long TTL cord. I use a 10 meter cord, and I get full capability. (Look here: http://ocfgear.com/) If the speedlight you attach to that long cord is capable of acting as a master, it will still act be able to act as a master, on the cord. I frequently set up two Speedlites this way.

What autofocus mode are you using, and what lens?

In the C.FnII:Autofocus section, what are your first and second image priority settings? You might want to make sure that each one is set at "Focus.

Same section -- what is your tracking sensitivity?

Good info. Thanks a lot.

Thanks.

I had to come to the conclusion that I was trying to get the lens to go beyond its limits, at those distances. That is not to say that there is not much more I can learn about capturing images of these beautiful birds, in flight. Every outing is a learning experience.

I did acquire a new lens of much better quality. It is capable of capturing much sharper pictures, though I still have much to learn. I think these shots turned out quite a bit better than previous efforts, especially given the distance.

Depth of field isn't an issue, when the hawks are involved, as I only seem to find them in the sky -- never perched. Given that, it seems that I'd best be served with the smallest aperture I can get away with, as long as I don't have to raise the ISO setting to ridiculous levels. Do y'all have any rules of thumb, such as never use an aperture larger than "x" when the bird is in flight, or stay below an ISO setting of "y"?

Thanks for your help.

I love that waterfall shot. Did you use a neutral density filter, or just a long shutter speed (or both)? Very sharp detail.

That shot is absolutely beautiful!

Yes, indeed, I have tried shooting a still subject at near that distance. The shots still are not as sharp as I would like. A deer, for instance, will frequently stand still while the camera is up at my eye. If the deer is at or near that distance, the focus will be soft. (I always shoot still subjects with One Shot focus, and moving subjects with AI Servo.)

In the case of the birds I'm trying to shoot, panning isn't an issue. The birds are WAY up there, so their movement, relative to me, is rather slight. It is actually quite easy to keep the faraway bird in the single focus point.

I have come to the conclusion that objects at that distance are beyond the capacity of that lens. I tried a different lens, today, and the results were significantly different. It was a much higher quality lens.

I forgot to mention that I shoot in raw mode.

I am starting to think that shots at that distance are just too much for that lens. That lens is capable of giving me sharp pictures when my subject is at a moderate distance, but at far distances, it just isn't cutting it.

I took several shots of the moon, some months back. The camera was on a tripod, and I used manual focus, to get it as sharp as I possibly could. Even at that, the detail was a bit on the disappointing side.

I love red tailed hawks, and I am constantly trying to capture good images. However, the hawks are tricky birds. They all seem to be in league against me. Frequently, while hiking, I'll come across one flying above me, but at a nice, reasonable range. Of course, when this happens, my camera is still in my backpack. By the time I take the camera out (easy access side flap, so this doesn't take long) that bird has climbed quite a bit. (The only time red tailed hawks stay close is when I am playing golf, and don't have a camera with me.)

So, getting a good, sharp picture of a hawk is problematic. The camera is a Canon 70D, and the lens is an EF 70-300mm1:4-5.6 IS USM. I use spot metering, IS mode 2 (when I turn IS off, the results are never good), continuous autofocus, with a single focus point. I experiment with different aperture settings, shutter speeds, and ISO settings.

Here is a shot with f/9, 1/1250 sec., ISO-400. Is this as sharp as my lens is capable of getting, at these distances? I can't seem to convince the birds to fly closer, so I'm wondering if a 400mm lens would make enough of a difference.

Thank you, all.

When I mentioned "creating my own lighting environment," I was actually referring to creating my own ambient light environment for the particular shot, rather than relying on the ambient light that is present. For instance, in the hummingbird picture, the sky was nowhere near as dark as it appears. The shutter speed, for that shot, was 1/4000 second, so very little in the way of ambient light was getting in. All the light was provided by two Speedlites.

Here is an example of what I mean by "creating my own lighting environment." I was trying to create the illusion of moonlight shining on this vase. The picture was actually taken in the middle of the afternoon, in a bright room.

Hello, from the Bay Area.

Back in the film days, I had an interest in photography, but I could never really develop that interest. The cost of film made experimentation too expensive, but experimentation is the only way I learn.

A couple of years ago, I retired, and I took that opportunity to pursue my interest in photography. The digital realm removes the roadblocks to experimentation and discovery, and I am hooked.

I love photographing wildlife -- when I can find it. Birds offer a special challenge. I'm also very interested in flash photography, and creating my own lighting environment.

Just a few examples of my interests.

Hummingbird taken in late evening.


Bobcat, taken in Sunol Wilderness Regional Park.


Honeybee in the back yard.