Post your Bird Portraits

avondale87 wrote in post #18722454
more part of the ritual

Hosted photo: posted by avondale87 in
./showthread.php?p=187​22454&i=i250428123
forum: Birds

Grey Shrike Thrush

Excellent, sharp close-up shot, Richard.

sogs wrote in post #18722470
Their eyes are fascinating.

Thank you sogs, and yes, they surely do stand out.

Pax2You wrote in post #18722502
Not quite grown Maned Goose (AKA Australian Wood Duck)

Hosted photo: posted by Pax2You in
./showthread.php?p=187​22502&i=i239039080
forum: Birds

Nice close-up, and excellent detail, Pax.

Spencerphoto wrote in post #18722522
Great photo. Well done.

However, it is an example of the weird OOF effect/artefacts that I'm starting to dislike about the EF100-400L II, and I say that as a new owner of that lens myself. I took some bird shots with it earlier this week and I was really bothered by the horrible (to me) OOF effects. It might depend on the nature of the background because, like your shot above, mine comprised mostly foliage. Other shots taken with that lens on this forum, with less detailed/complex backgrounds, are fine.

Is it just me?

I think you are referring to the so-called "nervous" bokeh, which appears as a kind of doubling of small out-of-focus objects. It is a well-known effect with this lens, and its predecessor too, as well as some other lenses. Out-of-focus points are rendered as circles instead of diffuse blurs, and this causes linear objects to show parallel lines on either side. The effect is often not noticeable, but depending on aperture and distance and the shapes, it will show up.

Spencerphoto wrote in post #18722522
Great photo. Well done.

However, it is an example of the weird OOF effect/artefacts that I'm starting to dislike about the EF100-400L II, and I say that as a new owner of that lens myself. I took some bird shots with it earlier this week and I was really bothered by the horrible (to me) OOF effects. It might depend on the nature of the background because, like your shot above, mine comprised mostly foliage. Other shots taken with that lens on this forum, with less detailed/complex backgrounds, are fine.

Is it just me?

I'm terrible with abbreviations, Spencer...what is OOF? Never mind Spencer, I see where Archibald explained it (our of focus).

Thanks. I didn't know about this phenem ... phononim ... phemon ...

... effect.

I shall consult with other users to find out how to avoid or minimise it, because I really find it distracting.

Lame-Duck wrote in post #18722542
I'm terrible with abbreviations, Spencer...what is OOF? Never mind Spencer, I see where Archibald explained it (our of focus).

Actually, it's a soccer term used to describe the unfortunate nexus of one high-velocity ball with two stationary balls. It comes from the noise made by the player when his fruit basket is thus suddenly and painfully rearranged.

In extreme cases, the word is often suffixed with "Uck!"

Spencerphoto wrote in post #18722551
Thanks. I didn't know about this phenem ... phononim ... phemon ...

... effect.

I shall consult with other users to find out how to avoid or minimise it, because I really find it distracting.

I have come to the somewhat unscientific conclusion that parallel lines - ie grasses/reeds etc and/or back lit highlights are the areas where the less that desirable effects are likely to occur.

However I have also had some really good bokeh out of this lens too.

Likewise I have occasionally had some similarly shoddy bokeh out of my 500 F4....but to a much lesser extent.

Maybe the sheer number of elements/group in the lens has a contributing factor to how sensitive the lens its to this effect

Cute Video...a friend of mine sent me this today, I thought some of you folk might enjoy it. I must say, it's a bit hard to believe. In the dead of winter when the hawk gets hungry, friendships might be abandoned. I hope not.


https://www.flixxy.com …day&utm_medium=​newsletter

Lame-Duck wrote in post #18722558
Cute Video...a friend of mine sent me this today, I thought some of you folk might enjoy it. I must say, it's a bit hard to believe. In the dead of winter when the hawk gets hungry, friendships might be abandoned. I hope not.


https://www.flixxy.com …day&utm_medium=​newsletter

wow, indeed hard to believe. It must be a newly fledged RTH, doesn't know what to do yet. I have shot RTH juvenile catching squirrel for lunch.

Spencerphoto wrote in post #18722551
Thanks. I didn't know about this phenem ... phononim ... phemon ...

... effect.

I shall consult with other users to find out how to avoid or minimise it, because I really find it distracting.

It's been discussed here at POTN before several times. To see an example that illustrates the origins, see
https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=18594992

graham121 wrote in post #18722556
I have come to the somewhat unscientific conclusion that parallel lines - ie grasses/reeds etc and/or back lit highlights are the areas where the less that desirable effects are likely to occur.

Yes, that is where it is often most noticeable.

Spencerphoto wrote in post #18722551
Thanks. I didn't know about this phenem ... phononim ... phemon ...

... effect.

I shall consult with other users to find out how to avoid or minimise it, because I really find it distracting.

For the record, the word is phenomenon.

Archibald wrote in post #18722600
For the record, the word is phenomenon.

Don't be daft. That's the title of a movie starring John Travolta.

Jeez.

Little Wattlebird

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2a7E​FaR

Great pic. Never heard of the Little Wattlebird though. Doesn't look much like its cousins, does it?

Also, the OOF background is a lot more pleasing than the photos I got earlier this week with the same lens, using the same aperture. As Archibald said, the ugly bokeh that this lens sometimes produces seems to happen when there are straight(ish) lines included. Some more research required ...