What's Wrong With Me???

[Mike J.]

I enjoy taking photos of small birds. Here is my problem & hopefully someone can help....To get the needed DOF/correct exposure, I find I have to use manual and the phots look like flash rather than fill. I have been unsuccessful using aperture priority because using f:8-16 the speed generally drops below an acceptable range and the photos are soft. In that mode, I always use 400 speed just to make it reasonable but want to use a lower asa. Most of my shots are in light shade or slight overcast. I use good equipment, fill flash, ext. tubes, tripod,etc.....any suggestions to get to a lower asa & still smaller f stops?

[mikeivan]

Mike, not sure I can help. What lens are you using? Why not open up the f stop? I like the effect of a shallow depth of field with small birds. I always shoot Av, usually f/6.3 or 7.1, too slow witted for manual. However, I rarely get below ISO 400 and never above 800. Of course, bright, early morning sunlight can be your best friend.

[Mike J.]

I'm using a Canon 400-5.6....I've never really considered anything less than the total front of the bird in crisp detail....maybe I'll try a shallower DOF..makes perfect sense to me..the sun came out considerably a short while ago & I went to AV, 200asa, f:11 and the shots came out pretty good. Maybe I was just having a bad run of luck and trying to much.....on a funny side note, earlier this afternoon I used a wireless remote.....waited an 30 min. for the male bluebird to show up with food hanging from his mouth and get perched....only to find out the battery on the transm. was dead....some days your the bug...somedays the bluebird....thanks for the response...I'll try a few with less DOF and see how I like them.

[Ken Nielsen]

I'll try a few with less DOF

I know many here are experienced, but just for the sake of us who are new and haven't memorized all of the alphabet descriptions, what is DOF?


Thanks,


Ken


Department of Fritos, Dead on Forival, Deceased old Fa**, I give up.

[artyman]

Depth of Field, the range that will be in focus, greater at smaller apertures like f16 and less at f4, when using telephotos the range even at small apertures is not very large unlike wide angle lenses when a shot at f16 will get virtually everything from a few feet to infinity in focus.

[mikeivan]

Depth of Field, right. Here is a good website:
http://dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
The DOF on wide open super-teles, at close range is amazingly narrow, much less than a bird width.

[StevenM]

Nothing is wrong with you. It's about trade offs. This info may help.
- That lens is great but will be less sharp when you use f11-32 because of diffraction...you will gain DOF but loose sharpness with a higher f stop after f11.
- The 400 on FF at 20 feet, at f11, the DOF will be under 1/2 inch. That's why with small birds it's so so hard to achieve desired DOF. Shoot a lot, and have the bird parallel to the sensor plane if/when you can.
- If your using auto focus, test the camera to learn if your having any front or rear focus issues. Auto focus with my cam is faster and more accurate than I can do it myself.
- For small birds, I would be at ISO 1000 and f11 and 1/500 sec or faster.
- DOF will increase when you increase the distance between the subject and camera (when all camera settings other than focus remain the same) This will usually require cropping of the file but if you shoot FF, you have more file TO crop.
Good Luck

[davebreal]

Mike - Why don't you post one of your photos and full details on the settings. That would get to the heart of the matter really quickly.

[gh patriot]

- The 400 on FF at 20 feet, at f11, the DOF will be under 1/2 inch. That's why with small birds it's so so hard to achieve desired DOF. Shoot a lot, and have the bird parallel to the sensor plane if/when you can.





actually its 0.48 ft. or about 6 inches

[Ken Nielsen]

Depth of Field, the range that will be in focus, greater at smaller apertures like f16 and less at f4, when using telephotos the range even at small apertures is not very large unlike wide angle lenses when a shot at f16 will get virtually everything from a few feet to infinity in focus.

Finally, this afternoon, driving in traffic, it came to me. There are so many acronyms for everything this day, especially on the web, DH = Dear Hubby et. al., I can barely tell what people are saying anymore. Thanks for jumping in with that. I know what depth of field is, I just didn't know what DOF meant.

Thanks


Ken

[Ken Nielsen]

Depth of Field, right. Here is a good website:
http://dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
The DOF on wide open super-teles, at close range is amazingly narrow, much less than a bird width.

I've noticed the shallow depth of field on longer lenses. While the bird's feet might be in focus its beak may not be. Getting that aperture to higher numbers is an important consideration.

[Ken Nielsen]

- The 400 on FF at 20 feet, at f11

FF?

I need to learn what these acronyms are.

TIA,


Ken

[jtrchiang]

If you don't mind the noise, have you considered up'ing the ISO a bit?

[TheBurningCrown]

FF?

I need to learn what these acronyms are.

TIA,


Ken
Full Frame. AKA a 35mm sensor as compared to the APS-C sensor, which has a size that effectively crops the field of view compared to the full frame sensor by a factor of approximately 1.6.

[BradM]

I've noticed the shallow depth of field on longer lenses. While the bird's feet might be in focus its beak may not be. Getting that aperture to higher numbers is an important consideration.

Actually it is a more important consideration to get the focus point on the eye and not middle of the subject. Shooting with with f/stops that are not stopped down will more often result in a pleasing image than one stopped down.It helps with the subject isolation and smoother backgrounds.

Look at some of the very good images that we have on the birds forum and you will not that is one of the commonalities in the images. Those of us with long fast glass are often shooting wide open like 500mm at f/4.5 with the below Bush Tit.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y259/Bradklr/febbushtit4.jpg

Of course this isolation is dependent on a few other variables like subject to lens distance, subject to background distance, sensor type and maybe another or two.

Butthe importnat thing is to get the focus point at the critical point which is almost always the eye, then from there one can work the aperture to pull more or less of the subject into the range of focus, but to do it the other way to use aperture to pull the critical area into focus is really a poor technique.

[Mike J.]

Have been out of town....thanks for the responses....for some reason, probably me, I am unable to post a photo. I have tried several times and different ways in the past & can't even attach them to e-mails..I am going through PS and it just doesn't respond to correctly sizing the photo....anyway, the more I think about it the more it's a simple equation in physics....I'm just looking for something that can't be done within the laws of nature..ie: limited light, small f:stop, higher speed, lower asa..I will try more shots at the larger f:stops and try to control my focus point better.,...thanks everyone.

[John_B]

Mike J.,
Here is the link that should help you with getting a photo for us to see on the forum Tutorial: How to attach photos to a post <-- click to see (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=160897)

As to your question: Most of my shots are in light shade or slight overcast if the background light is more than 2 stops darker then you will have trouble getting a light background with flash unless you use long exposures (which is not recommended for birds), or higher ISO.

[Mike J.]

Thanks so much for the responses...I'll check it out John B.

[eaglesnest]

Actually it is a more important consideration to get the focus point on the eye and not middle of the subject. Shooting with with f/stops that are not stopped down will more often result in a pleasing image than one stopped down.It helps with the subject isolation and smoother backgrounds.

Look at some of the very good images that we have on the birds forum and you will not that is one of the commonalities in the images. Those of us with long fast glass are often shooting wide open like 500mm at f/4.5 with the below Bush Tit.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y259/Bradklr/febbushtit4.jpg

Of course this isolation is dependent on a few other variables like subject to lens distance, subject to background distance, sensor type and maybe another or two.

Butthe importnat thing is to get the focus point at the critical point which is almost always the eye, then from there one can work the aperture to pull more or less of the subject into the range of focus, but to do it the other way to use aperture to pull the critical area into focus is really a poor technique.

Wow Brad, your shots are simply amazing. I am new in Bird photography and having difficulties to get the subjects in focus (real sharp) what did I do wrong? I attached the better shots I have. Need your advice. Thanks

[Ken Nielsen]

Brad, based on your results, you certainly deserve to have a following here. I'll work on focusing on the eye and then work on bringing the rest into focus.

Beautiful work on your part.

Thanks,

Ken

[BradM]

Wow Brad, your shots are simply amazing. I am new in Bird photography and having difficulties to get the subjects in focus (real sharp) what did I do wrong? I attached the better shots I have. Need your advice. Thanks

Thank you, the nice words are appreciated.

It isn't often so much what we did wrong but the what better choice could we have made... I had a look at your web site and you have some very nice images, what stands out is that you seemed to be very aware of the lighting.

Birds are no different, in your image of the Black Bird the lighting is coming from image right and seemingly primarily from behind the subject. A tough circumstance with a dark subject, ideally one would like to move to a frontal light situation, though I usually perfer a quartering light as the shadows add a sense of dimension to the subject.

But in that case a bit of fill flash would have brought up the shadowed area and possibly increased the detail, or using 1 to 2 thirds of exposure compensation may have been enough to raise the shadows. In the case of the Surf Scoter image below I was + 2/3rd's to bring the blacks up and hopefully not blow out the whites.

But it is often that kind of choice one needs to make, in this shot I wish I had gone for another stop or two to bring the tail into the range of focus but I missed it. However I got the eye, head and beak and that makes the shot work IMO. For this I used a 30D and 100-400mm handheld @ 1/400th, f/8, ISO 400 while lying on a dock waiting for this bird to resurface, they dive to eat shellfish like mussels or clams.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y259/Bradklr/surfscoter-2.jpg

However as to the sharpness of the subject, without shooting information (the exif has been stripped) I can't really give any specific advise. On a general note both images seem to have some distance to them, in particular the 2nd. Without being close to the subject fine detail will not come into the image.

Get close, or better yet let the subject come to you. Sitting in an appropriate spot and waiting will often bring the birds right on top of you. It is a matter of finding that spot but if you see birds in an area they will be there again. I will often go and just wait for them to come back, they always do in my experience.

I am not sure what focal length you are using but of course longer is almost always better. There are some exceptions like a long soft lens is not worth using over a shorter sharper lens if you are looking for the best detail possible. Techniques just have to change because you can't make a soft shot sharp.

But whatever lens you are using there is a place on it where it performs the best, an aperture where the image sharpness goes up dramatically. With my 100-400mm it is f/8, and still pretty good between f/7.1 to f/9. And if I can I will always shoot there to get the best out of the shot. Find that sweet spot on your lens and use it, it will make a difference.

Personally with that lens I will bump ISO up before I open up the aperture if I need more shutter speed. Another choice one needs to make. That makes the 1D3 a great choice for a body besides the added benefits of incredible AF (and more), the noise level is so low all way through the range.

The Bushtit I shared was about 15' away from the camera, a 50D using the 500mm f/4 L IS mounted on a Jobu gimbal and Gitzo tripod. Shutter speed was 1/200th, f/4.5 (+1/3rd EV), ISO 400. Having the camera stable helped a bit but so did the subject by not moving "really" quickly. It allowed me to capture a moment as it searched for insects in the buds.

However it isn't required to go out and shoot birds with the camera tripod mounted, remote release and mirror lock up which has been some recent advice in several threads.

Using good techniques and an IS lens if possible can result in some very decent results. This quail was shot using the 100-400mm again handheld on the 30D while lying down @ 400mm, f/9, ISO 400 at 1/40th of a second. The bird was very still and so was I so I was able to get a crisp image.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y259/Bradklr/fallquail.jpg

The gear can make a bit of difference and I will be first to admit I have some very good stuff to play with. However a huge number of images I have taken have been with middle of the road equipment, in fact some really look down on the 100-400mm as not being capable of a great image, but I think it is a beautifully accurate and functional lens. But it doesn't come down to the equipment is the point.

If the glass is reasonably sharp then anyone can take a great shots using the right techniques; of seeing and working the light, of getting close, being sure the focus point is the eye, being stable and shooting smoothly.

With those techniques in hand then it is the artistic elements of composition and presentation. Piece of cake ;)

Hope this helps a bit!

[Sn33zy]

I agree totally with BradM. I only have the 100-400 and often shoot at f/5.6-7. IMO it is a great lens. I always use it handheld, cause then I am a bit quicker in getting the bird in frame before it flies off again.

Getting close or waiting for the bird is often what it takes. Sometimes when i hear a bird, I just get very quiet and wait for it to come out again. Sometimes I even hide in the bushes in the local park (though you can get some weird looks from bypassers). It could be that at times you are waiting 30mins-an hour for 'that' shot, but I think that is totally worth it.

Overall with birds... you need to have patience...

[Ken Nielsen]

This thread is giving me energy to get up early in the morning, go out and get the shots that would have otherwise been missed.

At my level, beginner, I call it learning in an outdoor classroom which is very enjoyable.

Patience is indeed key. Birds will come to you, situations will come to you if you simply make yourself ready and available.

Every time I go out, I get shots that take me to another level of understanding and ability. This is a hobby that pays back.

This morning I got: Canada Geese taking off in front of me with the sunrise to my back, a Killdeer, a mother Mallard with her three ducklings and Daddy Mallard following along close behind, plus some other low flying stealth I haven't I.D.'d.

[Nighthound]

Hard to add anything of substance to the excellent advice already given. Brad is a true inspiration and enormous resource regardless of anyone's skill level.

There are snap decisions that have to be made on what is best for any given situation. Ideally I'd prefer to shot ISO 400 at f/8 in the morning and evening light when shooting birds. Unfortunately to do so requires that the subject remains fairly still. So it's necessary to make trade off to get the most possible from the presented photo op. In time the decisions will become easier and you'll know what to expect from them. Practice, practice and keep your eyes and ears open. The birds are offering tips as well, some will be essential.