Barry: When I did them I used 1/125 if not 1/60, and still got them sharp, so why 1/500 ??
If you dropped the ISO, you would still have had more than enough speed, but a better quality of image to work with.
As you imply the female is a much overlooked subject, and you have caught her here superbly, the composition works really well for me, wish the B.G. wasn’t quite so dark.
Posted by Tom Smit on January 24, 2009 at 11:54 AM
Hi Barry,
I agree with Ray. I know the 1DIII is also very good at higher ISO (I use ISO1250 at the ace skating races, because of the very poor light), but I also prefer the picture with ISO 100 more.
The shot and compo is great.
Posted by Barry Southon on January 24, 2009 at 11:54 AM
Ray
I'm still very much at the learning stage and tend to just try adjustments I do get confused sometime.
Barry
Posted by Barry Southon on January 24, 2009 at 11:57 AM
Ray
I'm still very much at the learning stage and tend to just try adjustments I do get confused sometime.
Barry
Posted by John Robinson on January 24, 2009 at 11:59 AM
Looks like you did the best in the circumstances. Lower ISO and you would have lost both shutter speed and DOF and this pic could do with more more of that.
Well done.
JohnR
Barry, as a general rule of thumb, a lens performs best at f8-f11, so take that as your bench mark. If you are doing static subjects, at say a feeder, then start around 1/60, slowly moving subjects 1/125, this will determine your ISO. Flight/fast action is another ball game all together, the intended subject and prevailing conditions will determines most of your setting, a swan in flight is obviously different to a finch. Unfortunately, the main thing is time in the field, to gain experience.
I don’t know the 1DIII, I’m Nikon, but when I’m at a feeding station for example, I find the depth of field preview button exceptionally useful, and will use it continually. Again as a rule of thumb, your depth of field is roughly 1/3 in front and 2/3 behind the point of critical focus. Have a bird in profile and the point of critical focus on effectively its shoulder, and you loose effectively 1/3 of your DOF, this is one of the contributing factors why so many shots have softness in the tails etc..
Barry where are you based, I hoping to gain access shortly to a very varied site, mature Oak and all that, and will be building provisionally three feeding stations pools and all. Come along if your local. We all do things subconciously which makes all the difference to the final images, that's what is so difficult to find out about, so going with someone can be a real eye opener. I'm south of Heathrow
Most current digital SLR'S now perform as well at 400 as they do at 100!!
I think we're getting a bit carried away with the specs and not appretiating the images.
Barry you've done well in what was obviously a difficult lighting situation the main thing to worry about is where the light is coming (behind you if you can manage it) once you've mastered that you can try sidelighting(light coming from either left or right onto your subject) or even rim/back lighting(light from behind your subject) and if you can always focus on the eye,lock on and then reframeand try and get the bird side on if possible as your limited depth of field will hopefuly render more of the bird in focus.
If i'm telling you to suck eggs I appologise but I know a lot of people come on here to learn and hopefuly we can respond accordingly!!!!!
Looks good though keep them coming!!
Craig
www.craigchurchill.co.uk
Posted by John Robinson on January 24, 2009 at 1:28 PM
barry
Something I forgot to mention.
If you shoot at a low angle like this -it is almost impossible to get the whole bird in focus. Unless the bird is side on for example.The distance between the end of the tail and the head is quite substantial. (This is one of the reasons I don't get down too low ) The higher you get, the distance between front and back of the bird gets smaller.
Depth of field is frightening. Look at these figures. With the settings on your picture, ie: f8 on a 500mm, if you were 10 foot from the bird you would have just 1 inch of DOF. At twenty foot away you have more like 3 inches !
Those figures are not to a thou of an inch before someone knocks a hole in my maths !
Cheers
JohnR
Posted by Barry Southon on January 24, 2009 at 2:14 PM
Thanks Tom, Craig, Ray and John
All helps to provide a better under standing. Just need to remember it all that's easier said than done.
I think you have done right, When i has a 1d3 my default ISO was 400 as there was so little grain it wasnt worth going down,If you are shooting at 500mm then you want some decent shutter speed to get a sharp image tripod or not,Especially when you are new to the game and still learning lens technique,The focusing seems to have grabbed the back and the head is soft,Great looking bird with a nice pose,Keep at it
Dave
Posted by Andy Shepherd on January 25, 2009 at 5:23 AM
It's a cracking looking bird Barry, some good advice has been given on this, I've learnt something new myself, keep up the good work Barry.
Forget all the jazz about ISO and the relative merits of different cameras. A camera is just a means of recording the image that is sent to it via the lens, so it is the lens, which is where the final quality of the image is first determined, and as I said above, invariably the lens will perform best at f8-f11.
If you use high ISO there is only one reason for it, lack of quality light, and it shows in the final image every time, which is why technology has to step in with noise reduction software etc.. When you have to use Photoshop to get back a quality image, then you got it wrong in the first place.
You are going the right way by using a tripod, just make sure that it can take at least twice as much weight, including a flash with batteries, that you will be putting on it. I’ve seen tripod legs bending under the weight of a 500, and the photographer was complaining about soft pictures.
One last thing. Take note of what is being said in each thread, try and look behind each comment and by who it is being said. It won’t be long before you will realise who is talking from knowledge, and who isn’t, in other words, which orifice they are talking from. Many are relying on technology, and believe this is the be all and end all and it isn’t, its just a means to an end, to be used or not, dependant on the situation, and not blindly followed. This also leads to a very blinkered approach to their photography. Again it shows in their images.
Posted by Barry Southon on January 25, 2009 at 6:37 AM
Thanks Tom, Craig, Ray and John
All helps to provide a better under standing. Just need to remember it all that's easier said than done.
Barry
Posted by John Chapman on January 26, 2009 at 2:54 PM
Hi Barry nice capture. The more you shoot the more you will learn.
Discussion
14 repliesCanon 1D3 50mm-500mm 1/500sec ISO400 f/8 500mm Tripod.
Critique Advice Comments always welcome.
Thanks for looking.
Barry
If you dropped the ISO, you would still have had more than enough speed, but a better quality of image to work with.
As you imply the female is a much overlooked subject, and you have caught her here superbly, the composition works really well for me, wish the B.G. wasn’t quite so dark.
I agree with Ray. I know the 1DIII is also very good at higher ISO (I use ISO1250 at the ace skating races, because of the very poor light), but I also prefer the picture with ISO 100 more.
The shot and compo is great.
I'm still very much at the learning stage and tend to just try adjustments I do get confused sometime.
Barry
I'm still very much at the learning stage and tend to just try adjustments I do get confused sometime.
Barry
Well done.
JohnR
I don’t know the 1DIII, I’m Nikon, but when I’m at a feeding station for example, I find the depth of field preview button exceptionally useful, and will use it continually. Again as a rule of thumb, your depth of field is roughly 1/3 in front and 2/3 behind the point of critical focus. Have a bird in profile and the point of critical focus on effectively its shoulder, and you loose effectively 1/3 of your DOF, this is one of the contributing factors why so many shots have softness in the tails etc..
Barry where are you based, I hoping to gain access shortly to a very varied site, mature Oak and all that, and will be building provisionally three feeding stations pools and all. Come along if your local. We all do things subconciously which makes all the difference to the final images, that's what is so difficult to find out about, so going with someone can be a real eye opener. I'm south of Heathrow
I think we're getting a bit carried away with the specs and not appretiating the images.
Barry you've done well in what was obviously a difficult lighting situation the main thing to worry about is where the light is coming (behind you if you can manage it) once you've mastered that you can try sidelighting(light coming from either left or right onto your subject) or even rim/back lighting(light from behind your subject) and if you can always focus on the eye,lock on and then reframeand try and get the bird side on if possible as your limited depth of field will hopefuly render more of the bird in focus.
If i'm telling you to suck eggs I appologise but I know a lot of people come on here to learn and hopefuly we can respond accordingly!!!!!
Looks good though keep them coming!!
Craig
www.craigchurchill.co.uk
Something I forgot to mention.
If you shoot at a low angle like this -it is almost impossible to get the whole bird in focus. Unless the bird is side on for example.The distance between the end of the tail and the head is quite substantial. (This is one of the reasons I don't get down too low ) The higher you get, the distance between front and back of the bird gets smaller.
Depth of field is frightening. Look at these figures. With the settings on your picture, ie: f8 on a 500mm, if you were 10 foot from the bird you would have just 1 inch of DOF. At twenty foot away you have more like 3 inches !
Those figures are not to a thou of an inch before someone knocks a hole in my maths !
Cheers
JohnR
All helps to provide a better under standing. Just need to remember it all that's easier said than done.
Barry
Dave
It's a cracking looking bird Barry, some good advice has been given on this, I've learnt something new myself, keep up the good work Barry.
Andy...
Forget all the jazz about ISO and the relative merits of different cameras. A camera is just a means of recording the image that is sent to it via the lens, so it is the lens, which is where the final quality of the image is first determined, and as I said above, invariably the lens will perform best at f8-f11.
If you use high ISO there is only one reason for it, lack of quality light, and it shows in the final image every time, which is why technology has to step in with noise reduction software etc.. When you have to use Photoshop to get back a quality image, then you got it wrong in the first place.
You are going the right way by using a tripod, just make sure that it can take at least twice as much weight, including a flash with batteries, that you will be putting on it. I’ve seen tripod legs bending under the weight of a 500, and the photographer was complaining about soft pictures.
One last thing. Take note of what is being said in each thread, try and look behind each comment and by who it is being said. It won’t be long before you will realise who is talking from knowledge, and who isn’t, in other words, which orifice they are talking from. Many are relying on technology, and believe this is the be all and end all and it isn’t, its just a means to an end, to be used or not, dependant on the situation, and not blindly followed. This also leads to a very blinkered approach to their photography. Again it shows in their images.
All helps to provide a better under standing. Just need to remember it all that's easier said than done.
Barry