| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/28/2011 03:35:57 PM · #1 |
My problem with Bird photography is twofold. Firstly I just can't seem to get the hang of what the right exposure is. Either it's too blurry or not bright enough. And when I do seem to get it right(at least the way I want it) I have too much noise in Raw. I really don't want details ruined with noise reduction because that kills the point of taking a nice detailed close up.
The problem also is the birds around my house aren't very colourful either(exhibit A). So it's either black and brown and not something too vivid that stands out and makes it easier. And I also want to know if there's something I'm doing wrong with my raw conversation although I think I'm only mucking up the exposure bit.
Exhibit A
  
Thanks!
Message edited by author 2011-02-28 15:44:57. |
|
|
|
02/28/2011 03:57:30 PM · #2 |
Photographing a bird in flight against a bright sky (blue or overcast) is a difficult task. To expose the sky correctly, you will underexpose the bird most of the time. The tendency is to underexpose the entire scene, which will exacerbate noise problems as one tries to recover shadows in post processing. Frankly, your camera should be able to use ISO 800 or ISO 1200 and not experience unmanageable noise, if you expose correctly for the shadows. But, back to my original point, if you expose for the shadows, you're going to lose the highlights.
The best solution is to place yourself in better lighting situations. The 1.5 hours after sunrise are ALWAYS best for bird photography. Move your feet to place the rising sun at your back, with you between the bird(s) and the sun. You will look like a silhouetted rock to the bird. You'll be surprised at how oblivious the birds will be to your presence.
It's easy for me to say because I have mountain backdrops, but find a situation with a background that does not include the sky. Yes, for flatlanders, you will have to find a situation where birds are landing or launching. Think ocean beach, lake or river and forest, with you on the shore. Photograph before the birds gain altitude.
Tripod. Shutter release cable. High shutter speed. All key elements. Sharpest bird images come from 1/1500s or higher. 1/2500s if in flight. 1/5000s if hummingbirds. It goes without saying that your starting aperture should be wide open.
eta: spelling correction
Message edited by author 2011-02-28 16:09:11. |
|
|
|
02/28/2011 04:08:44 PM · #3 |
One of the toughest things about bird photography is exposure. Unless you've got a couple/few grand to spend on a lens you're going to struggle to get enough light. Time of day also is important.
I think the odd spikes in this histogram are due to it being snagged via screenshot, but you can still see where the spikes are falling in your original.
I pulled the sliders in closer to where they should be, and this is the result.
Here's a similar shot my dad ( bewit) took.
Original
 |
|
|
|
02/28/2011 05:05:43 PM · #4 |
My suggestions are to set you camera to spot meter on the bird and to shoot in RAW so that you can adjust exposure as necessary later.
Noise reduction can be applied to the entire image and then masked out of the bird to recover full detail. The noise that you allow back in shouldn't be very noticeable in feathers.
I do a fair bit of post processing to bring out the best in my bird photos and the steps that have already been mentioned in this thread are very important for good results. I can also back up what hahn23 said about not shooting with the sun directly overhead. I've almost always been disappointed with those shots although I've kept a few because they were unique for one reason or another. It is best to capture those shots early or late in the day.
Speaking of light, I have never found it necessary to shoot anywhere near ISO 1600 as you said you have. Quality, fast glass certainly helps here, though. It's quite a lot of money, but there isn't much (within reason) that beats the Nikon 70-200 f2.8. You would definitely benefit from Canon's equivalent of that lens when it comes to capturing quality images at lower ISO's.
Here are a few of my shots of birds:
 I had to be very careful with the exposure so as not to blow out the whites.
 I exposed the sky separately and reduced noise in the sky only.
 This, the previous, and the next one were taken at midday and were difficult to process.
 Again, separate exposures for the bird and the sky, noise reduction in sky only.
 This and the next would have been better if they had been taken earlier or later...
 ...but sometimes you have to capture the opportunities as they come your way.
 Horrible lighting. I maxed out the editing skills that I had at the time.
 I seem to be finding too many good opportunities at the wrong time of day.
 Another good opportunity taken while the sun was directly overhead and really bright. This one has a lot of the lighter areas blown out and there wasn't anything else that I could do about it. I'd love to be able to capture the same shot early in the morning or late in the day.
I got a shot that I really like a lot a couple of weeks ago well after the sun went down. It took a lot of post processing to 'save' it but I love how it turned out. I can't post it yet because I'll be entering it into the Best of Challenge for this month.
|
|
|
|
02/28/2011 05:20:27 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by yakatme:
I can also back up what hahn23 said about not shooting with the sun directly overhead. I've almost always been disappointed with those shots although I've kept a few because they were unique for one reason or another. |
 |
|
|
|
02/28/2011 06:42:10 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by yakatme:
I can also back up what hahn23 said about not shooting with the sun directly overhead. I've almost always been disappointed with those shots although I've kept a few because they were unique for one reason or another. |
|
Is that suppose to be a good example? |
|
|
|
02/28/2011 07:53:24 PM · #7 |
| Wow, lots of excellent information here. One thing not mentioned is lens stabilization. I think every manufacture has some sort of it...Sigma is OS, Nikon is VR and Canon IS. I shoot all birds handheld, and the IS helps immensely. |
|
|
|
02/28/2011 07:54:06 PM · #8 |
Attention to things I should have done differently:
At 75 yards, I was too far away, even with 400mm. It was 8:41 AM on August 17, 2010. Elevation 8700'. Sun on the back of my shoulders. That was too late in the morning, as the sun was high enough to cast harsh shadows. I used evaluative metering, which produced a compromise exposure on both sky and bird. Even then, it was only because of the exposure flexibility of the RAW file that I was able to bring up the shadows under the body to bring back enough detail to the underside, carried prey and talons. The goal for me is always to avoid blocking up the shadows. Wide open aperture of this lens was f/5.6. I was at ISO 320. This allowed 1/2500s. It's not completely clear if I had the DOF plane placed on the bird. It would have been better to have been at shutter speed 1/5000s, which would have been reached with ISO 640 or ISO 800. The image would have been sharper, at the cost of a little extra noise. I did remove noise/grain selectively from the sky with Dfine2.
eta: I shoot without IS. But, I do use tripod and shutter release cable on 99% of my shots. The only time I don't use a tripod is when I'm totally surprised and don't have time to set up.
Message edited by author 2011-02-28 19:55:53. |
|
|
|
02/28/2011 08:09:31 PM · #9 |
| Great shot Richard,I should have mentioned I only use IS when shooting perched birds, for BIF"s, I find you need at least 1/2000 of a second, and at 400mm, thats plenty of speed. |
|
|
|
02/28/2011 08:21:34 PM · #10 |
I have a tendency to over expose on shots of birds in flight. It seems like it's easier to recover the highlights than to fix the shadows.
|
|
|
|
02/28/2011 08:48:01 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by cdn1:
Great shot Richard,I should have mentioned I only use IS when shooting perched birds, for BIF"s, I find you need at least 1/2000 of a second, and at 400mm, thats plenty of speed. |
Thanks for the comment. This is a good moment to mention the two sources of subject blurriness. The first is camera shake. And, one can use the (1/lensfocallength) rule-of-thumb for the minimum shutter speed to mitigate hand held camera shake. (cropped sensor cameras need to adjust for their respective conversion factor) The second is subject motion blur. And, this depends on the speed of flight and more importantly, the speed of wing flap. All I can say is reach for the fastest shutter speed your ambient light will allow.... wide open aperture and pushing the envelope of your camera for ISO speed. |
|
|
|
02/28/2011 09:01:11 PM · #12 |
Well said Richard. It's at the point now that I won't even go out to shoot BIF's unless it sunny out, and, as you've stated,you need the sun behind you and lighting up your subject. We seem to be lacking sun at this time of the year, but from what they say, tomorrow is going to be bright, and I've located some short eared owls ...hopefully they will co-operate, and i'll be able to get some shots!
Message edited by author 2011-02-28 21:02:00. |
|
|
|
02/28/2011 09:24:56 PM · #13 |
I shot this with the 300 f/2.8 @ f/4 - ISO 100, shutter was 1/800 - the super fast AF on that lens is something you have to experience to appreciate, it pretty much makes shooting anything that is moving and small/distant an easy task...
Of course, this was really, in the end, just a very good shooting situation, right light, right lens, right everything.
Message edited by author 2011-02-28 21:26:08. |
|
|
|
02/28/2011 11:25:00 PM · #14 |
For me the challenge is to get good shots of birds in flight. One rule I use concerns exposure. For birds above the horizon - overexpose. The ones flying below the treetops - underexpose. Some cameras allow you to switch between the two modes quickly, others, not so much. Certainly the type of sky and the time of day will affect your settings as well. I use the IS on my 100-400 100% of the time.
|
|
|
|
02/28/2011 11:30:10 PM · #15 |
Sun directly overhead is not always such a bad deal, backlighting is nice. These gulls were close enough to the sand to pick up fill light bounced off the beach, basically. Careful PP did the rest.
R. |
|
|
|
02/28/2011 11:40:03 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by yakatme:
I can also back up what hahn23 said about not shooting with the sun directly overhead. I've almost always been disappointed with those shots although I've kept a few because they were unique for one reason or another. |
|
Is that suppose to be a good example? |
It's supposed to be an example of a a photo with "unique" qualities ... I (and a few others) like it; not everyone will. FWIW: Resized original:
Originally posted by posthumous:
from blurgeois pedagogues:
Blur can be sharp. It can sharply carve shapes into darkness (or light). It can be sharper than even reality, by removing details that soften an object with extraneous information, information about individuality that does not concern us. This is not a particular bird, this is a creature of flight, an aerodynamic shape, a phenomenon, a particle of physics. |
Message edited by author 2011-02-28 23:41:57. |
|
|
|
02/28/2011 11:45:28 PM · #17 |
If all else fails, you can work hard, save up a pile of cash for a new "wow" lens, then spend it on a South Florida vacation to go where the wild birds are so friendly that you can use the equipment you already have.
: )
|
|
|
|
03/01/2011 12:11:44 AM · #18 |
Wowsers! definitely given me a lot of new stuff to think about. Dpcers are the best!
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/24/2024 04:05:53 AM EDT.
