Cardinals in the Snow

pathfinder · February 17, 2016

It snowed a bit earlier this week, so I loaded my bird feeders, opened up my umbrella hide, and sat down to watch the fun as the birds arrived looking for a bit of sustenance with the ground covered with a couple inches of snow.

I used three different lenses, simply because i wanted to see how they compared. I started with a current version of Tamron's 150-600 f5-6.3 Di VC lens in Canon Mount on my 7DMkII. I like this lens and have gotten good images with it in New Mexico, but I think it does not fair as well at 600mm when focused close to its near focus limits. I have not tried it with an extension tube though.

I got this image with that combination, processed in LR and maybe a bit of Photoshop. The light was heavy overcast, it was snowing initially. My shutter speed was 1/1000th with the 7DMkII and Tv with Auto ISO. ISO was set by the 7DMkII at 1000.

female%20cardinal%20in%20snow%208013--X2.jpg

female%20cardinal%20in%20snow%208013--X2.jpg

And this one of a perched bird, shortly after it left its perch - my trigger finger delay got it in flight - sort of. Auto ISO set the ISO at 400 - good example of the variation of the ISO due to background and exposure metering - this was shot shortly after the first image.

female%20cardinal%20in%20flight%207954-7954-X2.jpg

female%20cardinal%20in%20flight%207954-7954-X2.jpg

The next day I switched to my EOS 100-400 f4.5-> 5.6 IS L VII mounted on my 1DX. I got the first image at 1/1600 at ISO 8000, shot in Tv with Auto ISO

female%20cardinal%20on%20tree%20trunk-4583-XL.jpg

female%20cardinal%20on%20tree%20trunk-4583-XL.jpg

I also grabbed this male cardinal at 1/1600th at ISO 6400.
male%20cardina%20in%20rhododendron%20-4564-XL.jpg

I wanted more reach than the 100-400 on the full frame so I switched to my old, venerable EOS 400 f4 DO IS V1 + a 1.4 TC III on my 1Dx and went back out to try again.

I got this female cardinal on a branch on the ground - 1/1600th at ISO 640

female%20cardinal%20on%20branch%20in%20snow%204829--XL.jpg

female%20cardinal%20on%20branch%20in%20snow%204829--XL.jpg

I also captured this white breasted nuthatch on a tree trunk 1/1600th ISO 640
white%20breasted%20nuthatch%20-4849-X2.jpg

I also got this female cardinal on a tree trunk too - ISO 5000

female%20cardinal%20on%20tree%20-4787-XL.jpg

Just some frames shot from my back deck.

Comments and criticisms are encouraged.

Folks may also discuss differences in the images related to the lenses used. A few more frames are here - https://pathfinder.smugmug.com

Stumblebum · February 17, 2016

Wow Jim, with such high ISOs, I still don't see even a shred of noise. Can you say what your sharpness sliders (4 of them in LR) and clarity are doing? I really like how delicate these look.
Did you use LR for NR?

The first image, the last image and the female Cardinal on the ground are great!!

Not sure it it would improve, but instinct on red-male Cardinal shot is to try vertical comp with an inch left in front of it....

Cheers!

denisegoldberg · February 17, 2016

I love that you caught the cardinal in flight in #2. I think my favorite is the last photo.

--- Denise

pathfinder · February 17, 2016

Denise, I am interested to see how folks react to the difference in the background bokeh of image 3 ( shot with 100-400v2 ) and image 7 ( shot with my 400DO + 1.4 TC )

The images really are pretty similar - a female cardinal on an oak tree with a background of dappled green Holly leafs and grey overcast sky peeking through. I think this is the difference between a standard telescopic lens and a DO lens. I have read about folks complaining on websites about the bokeh of the DO lenses, and I have used mine on three continents for wildlife with what I think is pretty good success and never really convinced myself of the halo highlights some folks ruminate about, not at sea or in snowfields, or on land. This might be an example, maybe, and I think I prefer the image shot with the DO lens over the standard lens eg: image 7 might be better than image three at least for backgrounds. Maybe.

Taz, I probably should try to answer your question about sharpening and noise reduction in LR in the Finishing School thread maybe. I tend to use the sharpening tool and the noise reduction tool a little differently than most folks that I have followed in workshops or online, but I rather like the results, just the same. I'll try to fabricate an answer by tomorrow night in Finishing School. OK? The short answer is that I do sharpen pretty aggressively, and I use the noise reduction sliders in the luminosity channel pretty aggressively too, but I do it to taste, as I watch the image. I do run the detail sliders in Luminosity and Color Noise up pretty high to regain some of the detail lost to aggressive noise reduction.

I am not above taking an image over to Photoshop to use NoiseWare on a background that I find too noisy - say a sky or some other large area filled with luminosity noise. But I don't take more than 10-15% of my images to Photoshop anymore, Lightroom engine is just that good. Faster, easier, and good, I like that!

Taz, About cropping the male cardinal in the rhododendron, I have lots of those shots, but I shot image #4 to make use of the negative space to the right of the frame, rather than just surrounding the cardinal with rhododendron leaves. I will try to process one and see if you prefer it to the larger negative space as well.

Stumblebum · February 18, 2016

Thanks Jim! I would have to find your post....don't think I have ever gone there.
Cheers!

denisegoldberg · February 18, 2016

pathfinder wrote: »

Denise, I am interested to see how folks react to the difference in the background bokeh of image 3 ( shot with 100-400v2 ) and image 7 ( shot with my 400DO + 1.4 TC )

The images really are pretty similar - a female cardinal on an oak tree with a background of dappled green leaves and grey overcast sky peeking through. I think this is the difference between a standard telescopic lens and a DO lens. I have read about folks complaining on websites about the bokeh of the DO lenses, and I have used mine on three continents for wildlife with what I think is pretty good success and never really convinced myself of the halo highlights some folks ruminate about, not at sea or or snowfields or on land. This might be an example, maybe, and I think I prefer the image shot with the DO lens over the standard lens eg: image 7 might be better than image three at least for backgrounds. Maybe.

I just looked at the two images again. I also prefer the image show with the DO lens. The bokeh works, the bird is highlighted and nicely in focus.

--- Denise

Awais Yaqub · February 18, 2016

These are just wonderful

pathfinder · February 18, 2016

Thanks for your comment, Awais!

Glad you seem to like the bokeh of the DO lens as well, Denise.

Taz, I am writing your answer about noise and sharpening now --> http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?p=2025340#post2025340

I thought about your comments about cropping that image of my cardinal in the rhododendron - is this better?

male%20cardina%20in%20rhododendron%20square%20-4564-X2.jpg

male%20cardina%20in%20rhododendron%20square%20-4564-X2.jpg

puzzledpaul · February 19, 2016

pathfinder wrote: »

Denise, I am interested to see how folks react to the difference in the background bokeh of image 3 ( shot with 100-400v2 ) and image 7 ( shot with my 400DO + 1.4 TC )

Of the 2, if mine, I'd dump 3 and keep 7, fiddle about with the bg for a while, mutter various oaths whenever re-visited and then 'free up' a bit more HD space.

I wonder if the hotter core of the #3 bg highlights (producing a more distracting - to me - contrast with the leaves) is associated with more than just how the different lenses render the scene - ie conditions at the time?

Yes, it's a shame because the bird poses are good (prefer 3, btw) ... but the 'keep or not' decision is typically about more than just the subject for me.

pp

jerryr · February 19, 2016

Excellent Work - especially #2 ! jerryr

pathfinder · February 19, 2016

puzzledpaul wrote: »

Of the 2, if mine, I'd dump 3 and keep 7, fiddle about with the bg for a while, mutter various oaths whenever re-visited and then 'free up' a bit more HD space.

I wonder if the hotter core of the #3 bg highlights (producing a more distracting - to me - contrast with the leaves) is associated with more than just how the different lenses render the scene - ie conditions at the time?

Yes, it's a shame because the bird poses are good (prefer 3, btw) ... but the 'keep or not' decision is typically about more than just the subject for me.

pp

I like the bird pose in #3 better than in #7 as well, Paul. I think the difference in the background is the sharper, higher contrast edges of the brighter areas in the background of #7, versus the brighter, yet softer margined, areas of the background in #3.

I won't bin them, but I knew when I was shooting that the results might be marginal. Whenever the sky is so grey that one is using ISO 5000 at times, you know the odds are not really in your favor. But in February, Indiana doesn't always get a lot of sun. Something folks in the UK can relate to, I suspect.

For readers here who haven't seen Paul's work, which I wish he would post more of here on dgrin, you can see some lovely images here - https://www.flickr.com/photos/122385257@N08/

Stumblebum · February 19, 2016

Thanks a million Jim!! I am going to go through it!

bow
For me, the reworked version is more pleasing because IMHO the bg in negative space wasn't best...
Cheers!

pathfinder · February 19, 2016

yes, I think you're correct, I thought the out of focus branches were a bit over the top too, in the landscape version. I even tried darkening it with a gradient, but still no joy.

Like Paul says, bin it!

wtlwdwgn · February 19, 2016

All are excellent but I prefer the images with the 400 DO and TC. If I wasn't a Pentaxian I would love to have that combo on a 7D Mk II.