D200Sigma 100-400mm
Contrast down in camera.
EV -1 stop
180th @f11
JohnR
Posted by Simon Litten on July 17, 2008 at 7:22 AM
Lovely shot! I like the oof foliage in the background - it gives context without competing with the subject (not that anything could compete with such a magnificent bird!). Got yourself a few dust bunnies - or midges? - around your signature though which could do with an attack of the clones!
Simon
Posted by Kim Connolly on July 17, 2008 at 7:38 AM
A lovely shot John, glad to see you have Redstart back again. Can't see the dust bunnies - perhaps it's my old age!!!!
Not the nicest perch or the cleanest background but a lovely bird to have around and better than what i have which is nothing-Nicely composed and detailed with a lovely catchlight
few minor nits already mentioned including the dust bunnies, but I'd still be happy with this if it was mine, so very well done John and thanks for sharing.
Sorry John, for me its just another bird on a stick, there is nothing in the frame which conveys to me that this is a bird of mature woodlands, which your previous redstart did, with the addition of that lichen covered twig did. Change the perch to a moss covered one, for example, and this would go a long way to improving the shot.
Although well handled, the flash is rather obvious to me, as there are no shadows. As someone once said, light illuminates, shadows define.
Rather a low viewpoint for you me thinks.
Personally, I do like to see the feathering on the backs of my subjects.
Technically faultless, nicely exposed, defined etc., as always. Nice record shot.
Posted by John Robinson on July 17, 2008 at 12:04 PM
Thanks all.
Ray - What flash is that then ??
Cheers
JohnR
Posted by Dawn Monrose on July 17, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Works for me! Great colours, I like the pose, and I don't think the perch is too bad either!!
What makes it for me is the detail and sharpness of the bird, and the colours.
I like this and it is infinitely better than mine as I have never even seen one never mind photograph one. I believe they do come to the woodlands this far North, but I've never been lucky enough to see them.
Firstly I always, and I mean always, say/write what I honestly think, no point in adding a comment otherwise, and that does include praise when warranted.
For me the lighting isn’t right, there is little to negligible shadow in the shot, be it the bird or the perch.
If this was illuminated by natural light, and say the sun was to the right as viewed then there would be shadow down the L.H. side of the bird/perch. This principle is true whereever the sun is in relation to the subject.
There are exceptions to this tho’ where the subject is above water, sand etc. where you get high reflectivity of light.
So why flash. Well the perch is evenly illuminated all over, even when under the bird, the underside of the chin is illuminated as well as the rest of the bird, even the birds right primaries are illuminated underneath, where they stick out. The only indication of any shadow is on the underside of the tail and this is negligible.
There is one very common situation where there is no shadows and that is when we have a semi bright overcast day, but then the light wouldn’t even then be of this quality.
Now I’m perfectly prepared to accept that you didn’t use flash, but if as you say this is true then something else is going on.
With flower photography you would say “reflectors”, but this is not a viable option here. So what can it be.
It has to be artificial, and I would suggest a combination of your cameras settings, and being “pulled” in Photoshop.
Does it matter to a publisher, not in the least. Does it matter to most photographers, again not in the least. You have to understand lighting in order to appreciate it, and that takes many years.
As I said above, for me the lighting is unnatural.
Hi Ray
I findyour comments interesting to say the least !. I have been using flash on birds for at least
40 years but went off it during my later pool shot series. At that time I was using three flashes. I haven't used a flash on a bird away from that dark pool situation for years.
With the high ISO's available nowadays there's no need anyway. You mention "no shadows." In my humble experience, flash is the one thing that does create shadows. !! That's why many of us went off it.
As far as the Redstart pic goes I am affraid you have it a little wrong.
The picture it is "as is" apart from some dark area lifting in the throat area in Paint shop Pro. (Why everyone assumes photoshop is the norm is beyond me. - I can't stand it.)
The tem "pulled " confuses me too, as does the inference that camera settings can create an "artificial " image. All images since day one of digital at least are artificial up to the neck.
Its quite simple really concerning this shot.. The bird in was done on a bright cloudy day , and as the specs above say with the camera contrast down one. ( mainly to handle the white forehead.) If you have ever done redstart you will understand that they can be a pain in that respect.
Thats all there is to it. I could send you a thousand bird pictures done in daylight, with not a shadow in sight.
You say you are "prepared to accept that if I say I didn't use flash then I didn't"
Thank you- I didn't, and it would possibly have been mentioned in the specs if I had done so.
Cheers
John
This is another shot from the same session straight out of the camera apart from cropping off a horizintal. Again- no flash and no "pulling" and only camera contrast down 1
Cheers
JR
Discussion
17 repliesWyre forest July 2008
D200Sigma 100-400mm
Contrast down in camera.
EV -1 stop
180th @f11
JohnR
Simon
Dave
Brett.
Greetings,
Jeroen Stel
Although well handled, the flash is rather obvious to me, as there are no shadows. As someone once said, light illuminates, shadows define.
Rather a low viewpoint for you me thinks.
Personally, I do like to see the feathering on the backs of my subjects.
Technically faultless, nicely exposed, defined etc., as always. Nice record shot.
Ray - What flash is that then ??
Cheers
JohnR
What makes it for me is the detail and sharpness of the bird, and the colours.
I like this and it is infinitely better than mine as I have never even seen one never mind photograph one. I believe they do come to the woodlands this far North, but I've never been lucky enough to see them.
The nits have been mentioned already.
Cheers
Austin
Major.
Fair enough, I’ll explain.
Firstly I always, and I mean always, say/write what I honestly think, no point in adding a comment otherwise, and that does include praise when warranted.
For me the lighting isn’t right, there is little to negligible shadow in the shot, be it the bird or the perch.
If this was illuminated by natural light, and say the sun was to the right as viewed then there would be shadow down the L.H. side of the bird/perch. This principle is true whereever the sun is in relation to the subject.
There are exceptions to this tho’ where the subject is above water, sand etc. where you get high reflectivity of light.
So why flash. Well the perch is evenly illuminated all over, even when under the bird, the underside of the chin is illuminated as well as the rest of the bird, even the birds right primaries are illuminated underneath, where they stick out. The only indication of any shadow is on the underside of the tail and this is negligible.
There is one very common situation where there is no shadows and that is when we have a semi bright overcast day, but then the light wouldn’t even then be of this quality.
Now I’m perfectly prepared to accept that you didn’t use flash, but if as you say this is true then something else is going on.
With flower photography you would say “reflectors”, but this is not a viable option here. So what can it be.
It has to be artificial, and I would suggest a combination of your cameras settings, and being “pulled” in Photoshop.
Does it matter to a publisher, not in the least. Does it matter to most photographers, again not in the least. You have to understand lighting in order to appreciate it, and that takes many years.
As I said above, for me the lighting is unnatural.
Hope this explains my initial comment.
I findyour comments interesting to say the least !. I have been using flash on birds for at least
40 years but went off it during my later pool shot series. At that time I was using three flashes. I haven't used a flash on a bird away from that dark pool situation for years.
With the high ISO's available nowadays there's no need anyway. You mention "no shadows." In my humble experience, flash is the one thing that does create shadows. !! That's why many of us went off it.
As far as the Redstart pic goes I am affraid you have it a little wrong.
The picture it is "as is" apart from some dark area lifting in the throat area in Paint shop Pro. (Why everyone assumes photoshop is the norm is beyond me. - I can't stand it.)
The tem "pulled " confuses me too, as does the inference that camera settings can create an "artificial " image. All images since day one of digital at least are artificial up to the neck.
Its quite simple really concerning this shot.. The bird in was done on a bright cloudy day , and as the specs above say with the camera contrast down one. ( mainly to handle the white forehead.) If you have ever done redstart you will understand that they can be a pain in that respect.
Thats all there is to it. I could send you a thousand bird pictures done in daylight, with not a shadow in sight.
You say you are "prepared to accept that if I say I didn't use flash then I didn't"
Thank you- I didn't, and it would possibly have been mentioned in the specs if I had done so.
Cheers
John
Cheers
JR
Matt
I found your reply interesting, and there are several points of particular interest, but to be honest, I don’t think this is the place to pursue them.
One thing I would say tho’, is that the viewer has only the finished product to assess, and as such can only comment accordingly.
When an image is posted then most give lip service to wanting a honest critique, but in fact all they want is praise, that’s human nature.
When I commented, I was calling on my own experience, and to be frankly honest, I still think the same.
Never forget that the author, of any post, always has the right to disregard any comment they wish.
Keep snapping and enjoying what you are doing.