The bird.....again

KhaosKhaos Registered Users Posts: 2,435 Major grins
edited February 27, 2005 in Holy Macro
I know, me and shots of my damn bird.

I love the feathers on this one, but I unfortunately blurred the beak. Any other comments are welcome. Brutal honesty is always welcome and preferred.

16546878-L.jpg

Comments

  • KhaosKhaos Registered Users Posts: 2,435 Major grins
    edited February 26, 2005
    This one is a little better. Not as close but at least fully in focus. Brutal away please.

    16546880-L.jpg
  • TristanPTristanP Registered Users Posts: 1,107 Major grins
    edited February 26, 2005
    I like both. The first needs a smaller aperture to get him/her all in focus. Colors are good. The second looks to have a slight motion blur to it? Maybe it's my eyes/monitor.
    panekfamily.smugmug.com (personal)
    tristansphotography.com (motorsports)

    Canon 20D | 10-22 | 17-85 IS | 50/1.4 | 70-300 IS | 100/2.8 macro
    Sony F717 | Hoya R72
  • fishfish Registered Users Posts: 2,950 Major grins
    edited February 26, 2005
    The colors are nice. Is it a focus problem or a DOF problem? ne_nau.gif
    "Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk." - Edward Weston
    "The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
  • KhaosKhaos Registered Users Posts: 2,435 Major grins
    edited February 27, 2005
    Both are at 2.8.

    I don't see the motion blur on 2, does anyone else? I think it may be a focus issue. Click on both for EXIF. The first has a slow shutter speed. Both have the same ISO and aperture. I think its a Canon autofocus issue occuring in the first. I'm lazy and I've been letting the camera choose shutter speed instaed of doing it myself.
  • wxwaxwxwax Registered Users Posts: 15,471 Major grins
    edited February 27, 2005
    I think you're so close, and have such a narrow depth of field, that when your autofocus picks the neck as its focus point, the eye goes soft.
    Sid.
    Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
    http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
  • KhaosKhaos Registered Users Posts: 2,435 Major grins
    edited February 27, 2005
    wxwax wrote:
    I think you're so close, and have such a narrow depth of field, that when your autofocus picks the neck as its focus point, the eye goes soft.
    So I should quit being a lazy ass and focus myself or bump up the aperture to 3.2?
  • fishfish Registered Users Posts: 2,950 Major grins
    edited February 27, 2005
    Khaos wrote:
    So I should quit being a lazy ass and focus myself or bump up the aperture to 3.2?
    I don't think you're going to see a marked improvement in DOF between f2.8 and f3.2 (3.2??). My guess is that you're going to need at least f5.6. Might also want to back up a bit. And if your shutterspeed isn't fast enough, go with a tripod.
    "Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk." - Edward Weston
    "The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
Sign In or Register to comment.