Picture of the Day by ginger

ginger_55 · August 27, 2005

http://gingerSnap.smugmug.com/photos/33728783-L.jpg

I don't know if you can get the exif like that or not. This is my personal favorite from yesterday, out of the ones I have so far worked up.
I will post more.........but not now. It is getting to be all about the food with me.

ginger

Thanks for stopping. Comments are welcome.

Andy · August 27, 2005

how to embed the exif in your photo
it's all in the dgrin support forum, but i'm copying and pasting here for you:

andy wrote:

and here's the commands that you need (i've put * in front of the commands so you can see how the commands look. for real-life application, you must not put an asterisk )

[*url=http://www.moonriverphotography.com/photos/newexif.mg?ImageID=11909504*] [*img]http://www.moonriverphotography.com/photos/11909504-S.jpg[*/img] [*/url]

the first part, after the url command, is the link to your exif data. you must have "photo details" enabled for the gallery.. then simply click on "more photo details" and you see the link popup with your exif. on teh top of this exif window, there's a hyperlink for "Photograph Details" ... simply right click on that, copy to your clipboard, and then paste into the message window.

ginger_55 · August 27, 2005

Thank you, Andy. I will try it. I really am a PC illiterate. But if I do it once or three times, I will be able in the future. Gotta eat and take a break.

Thanks, ginger (I knew it was in search and all over, I just get so confused looking at that stuff. Any questions, I will ask in the appropriate place, I hope. There was nothing unusual about this shot, I have been working them up almost by rote. That bird was pulling food out right and left, he tolerated me closer than the others did: for awhile, until he was full, I think. I don't know what that is, but he had fresh shrimp, too. And a piece of paper or a butterfly really turned him on. It is easier when one has a clear shot, a bird not half way to NYC, etc. As I said, by the time the cable turned back on, I could have had an action to work this stuff up with that bird. However, I don't understand actions, either. And when I am on the PC, I try to get this stuff worked up, not work on other things. smile, thanks again............)

ginger_55 · August 28, 2005

I am going to bump this myself. I would really like some comments on the photo itself.

Thank you, if you can, bad, good, whatever.............but I don't understand why this one died. I would like to give it another chance.

ginger

4labs · August 28, 2005

Ginger while I find the composition to be pleasing there is too much noise and the picture is not as sharp as it could be. I think you could probably recover some feather detail but I don't know enough to tell you how. I am finding in my own epxeriences that if I don't expose right the first time even with a great camera that I have there is always way too much noise in post.

Sorry about your sons dog.

John Mueller · August 28, 2005

Wonderful catch Ginger

IMHO it has much noise and some blown whites lower portion.Try some more processing
It is one that I would be proud of

rutt · August 28, 2005

Very cool capture. Must take a lot of persistence to catch a moment like this. I also love the composition and colors. Love the water drops.

Not as sharp as I might like, maybe we can sharpen it up with some fancy post. We can certainly recover some highlight details which might help. Do you have raw?

Osprey Whisperer · August 28, 2005

Hi Ginger, Nice comp. I agree with the others. Kind of noisey & lacking sharpness/detail. Do you ever "bracket" when you are shooting these stationary birds? Kind of hard with BIF..but on sitting birds you might put that 20D on auto bracket and use some exposure compensation. (-EV 1 1/2 or so) on those white birds. When bracketing try and figure what you think is the "correct exposure" and stagger the settings on either side..or in the case of white birds..perhaps towards underexposure. Difficult not to blow some white highlights in the sun with these birds. Do you ever use the dodge/burn tools in PS ? Sometimes I can save some detail with a bit of burning (on white birds) or bring out a tad bit more in the shadows with dodging.

Composition is fine/nice. I think I might have shot a tad more wide open to get that busy background to drop out of focus a tad more. If you had the bird tack sharp..and that busy backround more blurred, it would really pop that bird out/forward. Again....would like that bird much more sharpened IMO. Too close to the natural blurring of the background with your new lens. Want greater difference in sharpness between image and background. (unless the background is saying something important..and not competing with subject matter).

I wish I had more PP experience/skills...as I am still figuring this stuff out myself. I would like to make some "solid" suggestions regarding this aspect of the shot..but can't.

I'm sure the things I do in PP are unusual..and probably not hte norm. I probably should read a book or 5 on PS. I just play around with it....and use what I've figured out. Shame on me for being so lazy and difficult.

Overall a nice shot and with a bit of "correct" PP procedure...I'm sure it will become a real "keeper".

Good luck.

BMP

JamesJWeg · August 28, 2005

I love the composition, and the water mid air really brings out the action. I think the lack of sharpness that has been comented about is due to it being a heavy crop. Alas the carolina birds arn't as tame as some other areas and we have to try from a greater distance. This shot would look a little sharper if not cropped as much, but the cropping you did is wonderful from a compsition aspect. I run into the same problems shooting birds, I just don't have the lens for the job, these shots are just plain tough to get, you made excelent attempt. That shot is a keeper but you may want to play with it not cropping as much to see what you come up with.

James.

ginger_55 · August 28, 2005

Oh, thank you all. You are good people.

Rutt, I will get back to you on post help later. Would appreciate it.

ginger

James, Bird Man, Rutt, John Mueller, 4 labs, I appreciate your looking and all your comments.

Harryb · August 28, 2005

Good capture of the egret grabbing its snack. The composition is excellent.

The picture is not as clear or sharp as it could be. W/o knowing the exif data or how much of a crop it is its hard to say why. The egret is overexposed so you are not getting as much feather detail as you could. The background is very noisy and that distracts from the main subject.

Overall its a good capture.

ginger_55 · August 28, 2005

Harryb wrote:

Good capture of the egret grabbing its snack. The composition is excellent.

The picture is not as clear or sharp as it could be. W/o knowing the exif data or how much of a crop it is its hard to say why. The egret is overexpsed so you are not getting as much feather detail as you could. The background is very noisy and taht distarcts from the main subject.

Overall its a good capture.

Thanks, Harry, it was a huge crop. Below is the full frame just brought up from RAW.

I am working on getting the exif info into my photos.

I have some good info that I hope works, have not tried it yet.

ISO 800 (recommended by John Mueller and Steve), shutter speed 1.1600,
f8.0, AV, EC -1)

Thanks for the nice comment above the "meat" of the post, nice style, and appreciated. I have heard from several people that digital does not take well to such drastic crops, and I don't have the lens to get that close, sooooooo a learning curve right there.

Thanks,
ginger

Harryb · August 28, 2005

This is a better shot than the tight in crop. I would crop out most of the frame to the right of the egret and some of it above the egret. You would be able to see he's made a catch and see some of the setting. The end result would be stronger, IMHO, than the drastic crop.

Steve Cavigliano · August 28, 2005

Ginger,

I agree with just about every comment made in this thread.

Your timing was right on

Love the shrimp in the beak and the droplets of water flung around

I think your tight crop presents too many issues. The noisey BG and the exposure problems are much more evident in the tight crops. I agree with Harry, on his suggestion to maybe zoom out a bit on the crop and with Rutt on adding a bit of TLC during post to get some highlights back and to sharpen the egret without making the BG noisier.

I'm not sure if these issues are because you were so far away and you cropped 100%. Or, whether post processing made them more noticeable

Because of the distance you were from the egret (he fills so little of the frame), you definitely don't have a lot of pixels to work with.

FWIW, I see the same issues when trying to "over-reach". I've come to the conclusion that if my crop doesn't have enough pixels, that I zoom out until it does.

It's not like you lose much detail. Since these shots are usually from too far away.

Ginger, we need a portable version of the Hubble.....

I never have enough reach

Despite the minor flaws (mainly visible because of the severe cropping), I think you have every right to be proud of this pic

The composition, color, action are all really good

Steve

ginger_55 · August 28, 2005

Thanks so much, Steve! I learned, I agree, etc.

Much appreciated from everyone, including you.

For future reference, that is the closest bird I have seen, to say the least of, shot, since the babies were in a near tree w parents nesting. Our birds are just not close. I think that causes a lot of my problems. Sometimes I can just about see holes between the pixels, would toss, but when it is like the little green heron in flight, first ever. I will keep until another comes along.

I take it back, a GBH has gotten close into my site a couple of times, many months ago. They are getting more skittish, rather than less.

I appreciate the help and the answer.

ginger

Steve Cavigliano · August 28, 2005

ginger_55 wrote:

Thanks so much, Steve! I learned, I agree, etc.

Much appreciated from everyone, including you.

For future reference, that is the closest bird I have seen, to say the least of, shot, since the babies were in a near tree w parents nesting. Our birds are just not close. I think that causes a lot of my problems. Sometimes I can just about see holes between the pixels, would toss, but when it is like the little green heron in flight, first ever. I will keep until another comes along.

I take it back, a GBH has gotten close into my site a couple of times, many months ago. They are getting more skittish, rather than less.

I appreciate the help and the answer.

ginger

Ginger,
To me, the key is getting close enough. IMHO, the only way to get great feather detail is to fill lots of the frame/viewfinder with the bird. I think many of the really nice bird shots we see here, are not all that heavily cropped. The more cropping, the less detail, IMO. It sort of makes sense. You get 8mpxls of resolution over the entire frame. If your subject only fills up 5% of the frame, there's not many mpxls to work with

I know that most of my detailed bird shots happen because I get so close. Especially, for smaller birds. The GBH shots I posted the other day were shot from about 10 feet away. The GBH filled like 80% of the frame/VF, @ 400-500mm's, in most of those shots. So there's lots of visible detail and the focus seems sharper.

Here's the GBH shot I was supposed to post in that thread

But it was late and I'm getting old....

Again, from maybe 10 feet away and though downsized, this is about 80% of the original frame (cropped off a bit of the left edge).

It's hard to "get close" with BIF's. You have to try to put yourself in their flightpath and cross your fingers. Or, take what flies at/by you. But birds on the ground can be stalked. If you are shooting at a small pond and there's another photographer with you, one can "herd" while the other shoots

Although this GBH was nice and friendly, I had to follow him back and forth around this pond to get close enough for decent shots. If I or someone else got too close, poof....gone to the other side of the pond

I guess what I'm trying to get across is, that shooting birds usually involves a lot of walking and very little shooting....

Even in target rich enviorments, I spend 90% of my time trying to get closer. Yep, I spook lots of birds and get lots of butt shots as they fly away from big ole ugly me....lol But it's still a blast. The thrill of the chase and all

So join me. Just throw on your camo duds and start working your stalking techniques (slow is always good). It's easier, more comfortable and cheaper than buying an even longer/heavier lens

Ya done good here Ginger

Steve

snapapple · August 28, 2005

Ginger,
I love the original shot. The grasses blowing in the wind are wonderful. Yeah, it's not the detail of the close-up. I know you want that when you're holding that long lens. But, I gather you were a long way away. However, if that shot is cropped like Steve suggests and printed large, you'll still be able to see the shrimp in his mouth. It's a wonderful catch. Has all the action of the bird and movement of the wind too.

bfjr · August 28, 2005

Steve Cavigliano wrote:

Ginger,
To me, the key is getting close enough. IMHO, the only way to get great feather detail is to fill lots of the frame/viewfinder with the bird. I think many of the really nice bird shots we see here, are not all that heavily cropped. The more cropping, the less detail, IMO. It sort of makes sense. You get 8mpxls of resolution over the entire frame. If your subject only fills up 5% of the frame, there's not many mpxls to work with I know that most of my detailed bird shots happen because I get so close. Especially, for smaller birds. The GBH shots I posted the other day were shot from about 10 feet away. The GBH filled like 80% of the frame/VF, @ 400-500mm's, in most of those shots. So there's lots of visible detail and the focus seems sharper.

Here's the GBH shot I was supposed to post in that thread But it was late and I'm getting old.... Again, from maybe 10 feet away and though downsized, this is about 80% of the original frame (cropped off a bit of the left edge).

It's hard to "get close" with BIF's. You have to try to put yourself in their flightpath and cross your fingers. Or, take what flies at/by you. But birds on the ground can be stalked. If you are shooting at a small pond and there's another photographer with you, one can "herd" while the other shoots Although this GBH was nice and friendly, I had to follow him back and forth around this pond to get close enough for decent shots. If I or someone else got too close, poof....gone to the other side of the pond

I guess what I'm trying to get across is, that shooting birds usually involves a lot of walking and very little shooting.... Even in target rich enviorments, I spend 90% of my time trying to get closer. Yep, I spook lots of birds and get lots of butt shots as they fly away from big ole ugly me....lol But it's still a blast. The thrill of the chase and all

So join me. Just throw on your camo duds and start working your stalking techniques (slow is always good). It's easier, more comfortable and cheaper than buying an even longer/heavier lens

Ya done good here Ginger

Steve

Hi Ginger said I come by. Have not had a chance to read everyones post, but steve's is exactly how Jeff and I handle our birds, We Stalk or try and Herd for each other. We also spent much time learning there flight paths, they are predictable, so that helps.

Remember my camera only shots 4mg pixels so I can not afford much of a crop at all. It has in a way made me a better stalker because I got to get close!! It's harder yes but so much more rewarding when a successful shot enters the viewfinder and I drop the hammer on the machine gun!!

If this has been said sorry for the repeat:
Lean towards slight underexposure
keep your ISO low, if you got to bump ISO so hi that noise is prominent then call it a day, there will be another day.

Every shot is different and it is a consant learning process, keep shoting, keep posting have enjoyed all of yours

ginger_55 · August 28, 2005

Uh, just have to say that I can't stalk in water. There is water where there doesn't look to be water. Can't get around it, can't get over it. It is a huge marsh situation. Huge. I thought I say dry marsh grass this day, that I took the photos. Went to get closer, stepped in water up to my knees.

These are not ponds, they are huge.

Come visit me.

Sorry if I missed anything else. I slept all day.

This is an old photo, but it is an example of a marsh. The obvious water, then the rest of it is water, too. If the tide is way out, it is sucking mud. I mean sucking. If it is so dry as to get oysters, another season, there are no birds.

This picture no one likes, it is miles of water. The thing I am on is man made from the 1800s for a trolley. On that side, below is marsh, forever, and on the other side is marsh and the harbor.

That is a large reason my bird photos are partly landscapes. I have been trying to make the most of what I have. And I hope it remains this way forever. But it won't.

The question is, should I be in the landscape forum?

ginger