Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Incoming and Outgoing
Colin's battling siskins reminded me of a day I spent last summer trying to get one of our resident Red-bellied Woodpeckers in flight as they shuttled back and forth feeding their young. This was the image that I thought at the time was most successful -- mainly because the incoming bird on the tree is sharp and not obstructed by the one coming out. (This image didn't get a very good reception by the nature photography forum crowd -- those few who commented wanted the outgoing bird to be sharp, as I recall.)
Revisiting the images I kept from that day, I now wonder if this one is lacking more because the outgoing bird is not blurry enough. The following frame (.02 seconds later) had him fully out of the hole and has much more feeling of the amazing speed and of flight -- but nothing at all in the image is sharply in focus. Yet if I look at it as documenting the "event", it could be considered more successful than this one. (maybe why I kept it!)
Not sure just where I'm headed with this, but hope you don't mind if I keep the discussion going a bit longer!
Permalink / posted by and copyright of Christina : 2:55 AM
Comments:
I cam imagine the Nature Fraternity comments about sharpness. I find the emerging bird not blurry enough to really demonstrate motion blur and also it is not easy to determine what the bird is doing.
That said the image tells me a lot about the birds and their habitat.
I'd like to see the next frame.
I'd like to see the next frame as well.
The shot you've posted works well as a documentary in the sense that it would be excellent for anybody trying to identify the birds. You can see lots of their markings and colours. You can see the way they hold themselves when standing. You get a sense of scale and habitiat.
But what I don't get is any feeling of life and movement. I don't get the feeling that I get when looking at this sort of bird for real. It is too bird book and not enough bird...if that makes sense.
I will try to process the next frame in a little while (one of my eyes is still dilated from a doctor's visit this AM) and will post it below this one if that is all right. I suspect you might see in it what you are missing in this one.
I added the following frame under the original posted image for the sake of comparison. Not sure how the bird on the tree ended up out of focus.
With a woodpecker pair at the peanut holder outside the kitchen window, I can only count myself as lazy not to have produced something by now!
I fear that neither work and it is largely a matter of composition and timing, which is a pity as the incoming bird is beautifully depicted. To borrow from the '60s folk song 'turn, turn, turn': there's a time for sharp and a time for blur! The first photo suffers from the outgoing bird being in the wrong place: it could have been sharp pre-launch or it could have been a centimetre or two out with wings starting to deploy. Here it is neither one nor the other.
The lower one wouldn't have worked terribly well even if incoming had been sharp because the composition becomes less pleasing; one would have to resort to the D-day revetments. What you needed was a landscape format with the hole just beneath the top and outgoing slipping off-stage bottom left!
So there's plenty of advice from someone who can't even organise a shoot of the bird table!
With a woodpecker pair at the peanut holder outside the kitchen window
I've been watching our woodpeckers (great spotted) to try and learn their habits enough to sort out a camera placement. We currently have a fledgling who lands on the feeder and then looks around for somebody else to do the pecking bit and pass it the food.
Back to the pic...the second version would be better without the upright bird on the tree. If it had been in focus then the moving bird would probably be in the ugly blur part of the lens' rendition. The moving bird is, however, great. Again, you've got the hints of size and context, but also the feel of flight. Both a stop faster and a stop slower would be interesting variants.
Thanks for your comments.
Rex, I could do a composite (sort of my specialty) but, as John said, the composition would still not be there.
John -- I agrre that neither of these really works. I have the photo with one bird just emerging, although this time it is the female, with the male on the tree.
http://cgstudios.smugmug.com/gallery/344265#69351934-L-LB
However I was really after something showing the flight. I tried landscape format also -- it was just a very difficult thing. The birds flew and and out in various directions, and the timing was seemingly random. There would be long waits with nothing in sight then suddenly their exchange would occur. It all happened fast and I was slow!
Now that third picture solves a lot of problems. I thought the tree looked a little on the unnatural side.
I'd agree that these shots make taxonomy a doddle. Beautiful sharpness and colour. For me the first one is the strongest but still has some work to go. The second is spoilt by the crossing of the birds. With that back bird removed and slightly more DOF this would have been the winner. The third is strong in composition but the birds are just a little too 'static'.
Given the man-made nesting site you should be able to nail the shot. Perhaps moving back a little to give the birds more room within the shot may help as would a slightly slower shutter speed to emphasise the action (this would give some more DOF to play with). Perhaps even moving slightly more round to the right and shooting at a more oblique angle may work.
In any event all three are great examples of the patience required to execute such shots and you should be congratulated for that too! This is a project you should progress with because you'll be rewarded with some stunning results.
Akikana -- yes, the hole is way too perfect, isn't it?
"Given the man-made nesting site you should be able to nail the shot."
You would think so, wouldn't you? But the log house was put up for the bird's convenience, definitely not mine -- and it is too heavy to move easily. Plus, that particular day was overcast, -- generally the Florida sun is out and high in the sky, creating new problems. But none of that matters this year. Thanks to the starlings, they are in a standard box birdhouse in an even trickier location. I'll just try again next year! ;-)
I think the three shots taken together work better than any single shot alone. There's just something interesting about them as a series even if there are some technical issues with them. Perhaps you should present them as a triptych?
Post a Comment
That said the image tells me a lot about the birds and their habitat.
I'd like to see the next frame.
The shot you've posted works well as a documentary in the sense that it would be excellent for anybody trying to identify the birds. You can see lots of their markings and colours. You can see the way they hold themselves when standing. You get a sense of scale and habitiat.
But what I don't get is any feeling of life and movement. I don't get the feeling that I get when looking at this sort of bird for real. It is too bird book and not enough bird...if that makes sense.
I fear that neither work and it is largely a matter of composition and timing, which is a pity as the incoming bird is beautifully depicted. To borrow from the '60s folk song 'turn, turn, turn': there's a time for sharp and a time for blur! The first photo suffers from the outgoing bird being in the wrong place: it could have been sharp pre-launch or it could have been a centimetre or two out with wings starting to deploy. Here it is neither one nor the other.
The lower one wouldn't have worked terribly well even if incoming had been sharp because the composition becomes less pleasing; one would have to resort to the D-day revetments. What you needed was a landscape format with the hole just beneath the top and outgoing slipping off-stage bottom left!
So there's plenty of advice from someone who can't even organise a shoot of the bird table!
I've been watching our woodpeckers (great spotted) to try and learn their habits enough to sort out a camera placement. We currently have a fledgling who lands on the feeder and then looks around for somebody else to do the pecking bit and pass it the food.
Back to the pic...the second version would be better without the upright bird on the tree. If it had been in focus then the moving bird would probably be in the ugly blur part of the lens' rendition. The moving bird is, however, great. Again, you've got the hints of size and context, but also the feel of flight. Both a stop faster and a stop slower would be interesting variants.
Rex, I could do a composite (sort of my specialty) but, as John said, the composition would still not be there.
John -- I agrre that neither of these really works. I have the photo with one bird just emerging, although this time it is the female, with the male on the tree.
http://cgstudios.smugmug.com/gallery/344265#69351934-L-LB
However I was really after something showing the flight. I tried landscape format also -- it was just a very difficult thing. The birds flew and and out in various directions, and the timing was seemingly random. There would be long waits with nothing in sight then suddenly their exchange would occur. It all happened fast and I was slow!
I'd agree that these shots make taxonomy a doddle. Beautiful sharpness and colour. For me the first one is the strongest but still has some work to go. The second is spoilt by the crossing of the birds. With that back bird removed and slightly more DOF this would have been the winner. The third is strong in composition but the birds are just a little too 'static'.
Given the man-made nesting site you should be able to nail the shot. Perhaps moving back a little to give the birds more room within the shot may help as would a slightly slower shutter speed to emphasise the action (this would give some more DOF to play with). Perhaps even moving slightly more round to the right and shooting at a more oblique angle may work.
In any event all three are great examples of the patience required to execute such shots and you should be congratulated for that too! This is a project you should progress with because you'll be rewarded with some stunning results.
"Given the man-made nesting site you should be able to nail the shot."
You would think so, wouldn't you? But the log house was put up for the bird's convenience, definitely not mine -- and it is too heavy to move easily. Plus, that particular day was overcast, -- generally the Florida sun is out and high in the sky, creating new problems. But none of that matters this year. Thanks to the starlings, they are in a standard box birdhouse in an even trickier location. I'll just try again next year! ;-)