Working on Birds

[shots worth sharing]

<p>I've been working on bird photography lately--mostly taking the A*400mm out on a monopod and one or another TC. While I think I'm making some progress, I'm just not getting the detail I'd like--I'd give the best of my shots a B-. </p>

<p>There are several challenges: one is excessive cropping: I'm doing my best to get close but still end up cropping fairly drastically--50% or more. Another issue is noise: even in pretty good light, I end up shooting at higher iso than I'd like (the TCs are a factor, of course.) I guess another factor may be stabilization: I'm still in the process of getting comfortable with handling the 400mm on a monopod but I'm taking multiple shots when I get the opportunity and even the best are lacking in detail. </p>

<p>Finally, there's my crude pp: I've been spending a lot of time experimenting with different approaches and may be learning some tricks and refining my touch but the real trick, of course, is to get shots that don't need a lot of tweaking to look good. </p>

<p>I'm a little frustrated but I'll keep at it.</p>

 

[shots worth sharing]

<p>Downy Woodpecker: SMC 1000mm, + 2x-L TC. Crop: 7.7 of 14.5MP</p><div></div>

[shots worth sharing]

<p>Chickadee : A*400mm + 2x-L TC. Crop: 7.7 of 14.5MP</p><div></div>

[shots worth sharing]

<p>Red Tail Hawk: A*400mm + 2x-L TC. Crop: 7.7 of 14.5MP<br /> A unique opportunity: this is probably as close (40 feet?) as I will l ever get to a wild hawk but I didn't quite nail the focus and a fair amount of pp was required. not surprisingly, I only got one shot.</p><div></div>

[shots worth sharing]

<p>Black Vulture: SMC 1000mm, + 2x-L TC. Crop: 4.7 of 14.5MP</p><div></div>

[bkpix]

<p>Dave:<br>

Nice birds!<br>

My only suggestion is that you might consider a tripod instead of the monopod. Camera shake is a big problem with long lens work, even with SR and short exposure times.<br>

Bob</p>

<p><em><br /></em></p>

[shots worth sharing]

<p>Thanks, Bob. I do use a tripod and sometimes use it when shooting the 400mm (always with the 1000mm.) Recently, I've been trying the monopod: birds can be scarce at this time of year so mobility is a plus. I'll try taking the tripod out this spring, though. </p>

[laur1]

<p>I like the hawk photo.<br>

What is that thing above the vulture's head?</p>

[hagar]

<p>Pretty good results Dave, especially with the high iso. That hawk looks pretty good. Maybe the solution is to work on being more stealthy :-) </p>

[michael_elenko]

<p>Howdy Dave,<br>

That black vulture looks pretty cool. A good winter exercise is to learn the cloning tool in Photoshop.</p>

<p>I have a like/hate relationship with my monopod. I find that I only use it with my long lenses for shooting sports because they have mostly horizontal (left/right) planes of action. When I need to use the Bigma for vertical subjects like birds, I use the tripod with the ballhead. Sometimes I squeeze the three legs together and treat it like a monopod which helps mobility some. Got those foam pipe insulators on the legs?</p>

<p>ME</p>

[bob-c]

<p>Dave, they all look pretty good to me. My first thought was why the monopod but you answered that. I agree with with Michael, I only use my monopod for sports. I think shooting birds is about as difficult as it gets. I find it very frustrating. But really, I think you have done a great job with these.</p>

[shots worth sharing]

<p>Thanks for the comments.<br>

@ Laurentiu: That smudgy thing in the vulture shot is an oof branch, made strange by my inept defringing. </p>

<p>@ ME: You're right: if I'm going to do birds, I need to learn how to address that sort of thing because it's a recurring issue. I can clone isolated things but, since the branch crosses in front of the bird's face, its beyond my current competence. I'm thinking I'd really need to use layers to do it right and that's something I haven't figured out--perhaps <em>that's</em> my winter project. And, yes, the fixed 'landscape' orientation of the monopod<em> is</em> a limitation--the hawk shot being a case in point. </p>

<p>@ Haig: Yeah, I have to work on stealth: getting close <em>is</em> the name of the game (and the less I have to rely on TCs, the less noise I'll have to deal with.) I think shooting from a blind with a tripod may really be the key. I don't think it's my cup of tea, (for the same reason I much prefer fly fishing to 'chuck & wait' bait fishing) but I think the results will be worth it. I'll give it a try once the weather warms up and the birds get more territorial. I'll see if I can get by with the 400mm on the lighter tripod, btw: the big one with the gimbal head is certainly <em>required</em> for the 1000mm but tromping around with a cannon ball <em>and</em> a telephone pole sounds like real work :~0 </p>

<p> </p>

[bkpix]

<p>Dave,<br>

On getting close: Another useful bird technique, in the right circumstances, is a car blind. Many birds on wildlife refuges are habituated to cars and will allow you to be quite near. Use a bean bag (or bulky sweater) on the window ledge for support.<br>

Helps, too, if you have a second person to drive for you.</p>

<p>Bob</p>

[Tony Evans]

<p>Dave,<br>

Your bird shots are fantastic! I am remiss for not mentioning your Bluebird and Sparrow from last week. They have that painterly quality and remind me of the paintings by the foremost bird painter of our time, Raymond Ching. Look at his work and see the similarity. These latest maintain that standard and extend it.</p>

[shots worth sharing]

<p>That's a good point, Bob--I did get some nice heron shots from the car in Canada last year. I'll keep that in mind.</p>

<p>And thanks, Tony! I understand what you mean--there <em>is</em> a painterly look to some of my bird (and other) photos. I don't consciously work for it--I think it's just an expression of my aesthetic that emerges in PP. I'm a little ambivalent about it though: it comes in handy when dealing with somewhat-less-than-great captures like these examples but I don't want that inclination to overpower a really great capture (if/when I get one ;~)</p>

[stemked]

<p>Hi Dave.<br>

With the coming of Digital I moved into doing a lot of bird photography myself. There are a lot of challanges that are specific to chasing impossibly small and shy animals that move at warp speed. But there are also a few things that are common to all photography that we tend to forget when chasing these critters:<br>

1) Good photography is often about good lighting. We tend to shoot birds under brighter light because they move fast. The problem though is that harsh light as with all animals isn't usually the best time to photograph animals. It can be even worse when you have a lot of reflection off leaves and deep shadows under leaves (not an issue with the shots you have). Several of the images I see the main issue is the harsh lighting. <br>

2) IMHO a tripod and shutter release will always give you a sharper image than a tripod, but then you loose out on setup time. Personally anything over 300mm I use a tripod, but that's me.<br>

3) Be mindful of composition issues; remember your rule of thirds-even when you are chasing those impossibly small, warp 10 animals.<br>

And have a lot of fun doing it!</p>

<p>Cheers,</p>

<p>Doug</p>

[jaophotography]

<p>Dave, I've been working on birds too without much success. Although, the first thing I would do if you haven't already is to check the sharpness of the 2x converter, and then maybe the lens. Actually I would try to refrain from using a teleconverter because of the reduction of light. I read somewhere that a 1.4x TC takes off one stop, (ex. 2.8 becomes f/4) and a 2x TC takes off 2 stops (2.8 becomes f/5.6). If you're already starting out at f/4 or 5.6, that really takes away the light in a hurry! This could be the reason for the high ISO's.</p>

<p>So, the only solution then, is to get closer to the birds and/or to crop down like you are already doing. For getting close, you have to be in a place where the birds are. For example, woods, bushes, and small trees. Then start putting out bird seed, and set your blind up among the bushes about 15 feet away and wait for the birds to come. For blinds, look up hunting blinds on e bay or at some hunting store; they really have some interesting stuff for camouflage! IF you use the blind, a tripod would probably be the easiest way to stabilize the camera and lens.<br>

As for processing, if you are shooting in RAW, and have photoshop cs(#), in ACR, use the default settings and open the picture. Try an adjustment layer of curves and set the black point [input 30, output 15], and the white point [input 215, output 255]. Adjust the different points until you see something you like. Then on the background layer, sharpen a little with unsharp mask and it should look pretty good.<br>

For an example, here's a shot I took this past spring. It was early morning and the lighting was still soft but bright. The bird was looking at me until I told it to turn it's head to the right! Sadly the camera focused on the back of its head and made the beak go out of focus.<br>

Pentax K10d, Tamron 75-300mm @ 200mm, 1/250_s , f/5.6, ISO 200, hand-held.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[shots worth sharing]

<p>Well, you certainly had a better rapport with your vulture than I had with mine, Jon ;~)--nice photo! I really appreciate the advice. I'm afraid your pp advice is pretty far over my head but your commentary on the shooting side of things makes a lot of sense.</p>

 

[r.t. dowling]

<p>Considering the length of the lenses, the TCs, the high ISOs, and the amount of cropping you're doing, I am amazed at just how sharp those shots are. After reading your intro, I was expecting them to be a lot fuzzier than they are. You're getting image quality that simply would not have been possible in the film days. ISO 4000?! There was a time when ISO <em><strong>200</strong> </em> film had much worse grain than what you're seeing in your ISO 4000 shots!</p>

[jaophotography]

<p>Actually, I took that in the Everglades. There were so many of those vultures that it was hard to walk along the path. That one jumped up on the railing and I don't know if it was coensidence or the bird actually understood, but it turned its head when I told it to!<br>

R. T.'s right. Look back at some older film photography books and most the wildlife was shot on 200 speed film. I kind of wonder how they took all those pictures. Even with the sigma 70-200mm 2.8 and at 1600 iso, sometimes the shutter speeds are down around 1/30, or 1/60 later in the evening. Makes me wonder about the Nikon D700 and it's 25,600 ISO!<br>

Good luck<br>

-Jon</p>

[shots worth sharing]

<p>Sorry I overlooked your post earlier, Doug. Good point about the light: in fact, I did get another chance at that hawk at mid-day but the contrasts were so harsh that the shots were trash. I've tended to favor bright light at my back for bird work--and, fortunately, that often coincides with prime times for bird activity--but some of my better shots have been in the softer light of early morning or late afternoon. </p>

<p>I've gotten away from using the shutter release in the past year or so--even with the 1000mm--but, now that I have a sturdier tripod, I'll have to try it again (at least in situations where the target is likely to stay put. ;~) </p>

[debashish]

<p >Re. " Yeah, I have to work on stealth: getting close is the name of the game" </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Breaking the outline of the human figure by wearing a knee-length cloak with holes cut in it for the lens and separately for the eyes may be less cumbersome than a hide. Of course one has to guard against about tripping and falling. The picture of the woodpecker with the 1000mm and the 2x converter is very impressive for me because I did handle the 1000mm several decades ago and I remember how heavy it was. At that time the view through an MX was astonishly bright for me because I was much younger and my reference standard at that time was an Exakta VX with a Novoflex 250mm follow focus which worked occasionally!</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Though I never used a tripod with an MX and an SMCP-M 400mm f5.6 and took many interesting pictures, a tripod does help for static birds, despite its awkward handling. And I haven't really done much with the 400mm and DSLRs. I do notice, however, that focussing has become much more problematic than with the film MX which, despite having a brighter viewfinder than the DSLRs, was not in the outstanding category in any case. Age is also against me. The cameras with the finest viewfinders for wildlife which I handled myself were the Leicaflex SL, the Canon F1, the Nikon F2AS and the Nikon F3.</p><div></div>

[shots worth sharing]

<blockquote>Of course one has to guard against about tripping and falling.</blockquote>

<p>LOL, you must have heard about my reputation as a klutz, DC! ;~) Believe me I try to be very careful while I lug that lens around. But your suggestion is a good one-perhaps a camo parka. Viewfinder improvements are always welcome (but, since my first SLR was a Pentax Auto 110, I'm in heaven with my K20D.)</p>