Helpful Posts Helpful Posts:  0
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21

Thread: Seagull

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Tne Netherlands
    Posts
    82
    Real Name
    Jan Diepeveen

    Seagull

    Today my first photo's shot with my Sigma 55-200mm 1:4-5.6 DC. Taken from a shelter in one of our national parks. (Images are cropped).

    img_1571-.jpg

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/jandiepeveen/
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by Dave Humphries; 1st May 2009 at 05:26 PM. Reason: add attached image inline

  2. #2
    Roxy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Oz .. the best bit, Queensland
    Posts
    156

    Re: Seagull

    Interesting image and with good composition after your crop, Jandiep but lack of sharp;
    did you try using the rapid fire option of three frames per second on your 1000D?
    Might still be tricky to get optimum combination of sharp and pose, but must improve your chances?
    roxy

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    17,662
    Real Name
    Have a guess :)

    Re: Seagull

    Hi Jandiep,

    Excellent work Just wondering what post-processing you've done on it ... looks like it might benefit from a bit more sharpening?

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Tne Netherlands
    Posts
    82
    Real Name
    Jan Diepeveen

    Re: Seagull

    Quote Originally Posted by Roxy View Post
    did you try using the rapid fire option of three frames per second on your 1000D?
    Hi Roxy,

    Thanks for that tip, no I had the camera on single frame. For sure next time I will try the rapid fire option!

    Thanks,
    Jan

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Tne Netherlands
    Posts
    82
    Real Name
    Jan Diepeveen

    Re: Seagull

    Quote Originally Posted by Colin Southern View Post
    Hi Jandiep,

    Excellent work Just wondering what post-processing you've done on it ... looks like it might benefit from a bit more sharpening?
    I used the Quick develop option in Lightroom. I realy need to get me a good book about Lightroom, as there are so many options I do not know yet.

    To have more control over the focussing of the camera I selected only the center AF point. Should I had used all AF points in auto mode?

    Regards,
    Jan

  6. #6
    Steaphany's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    The far off Country of Texas
    Posts
    827
    Real Name
    Steaphany

    Re: Seagull

    Did you loose the EXIF data when you processed the image ?

    I was curious to see what the camera setting were, but none are included in the image properties.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Tne Netherlands
    Posts
    82
    Real Name
    Jan Diepeveen

    Re: Seagull

    Quote Originally Posted by Steaphany View Post
    Did you loose the EXIF data when you processed the image ?
    Hi Steaphany,

    I was not aware that you could loose that info. Please check on Flickr for the EXIF data.

    (I'm on a steep learning curve)
    Last edited by Colin Southern; 2nd May 2009 at 10:55 AM. Reason: Fix closing quote tags

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    17,662
    Real Name
    Have a guess :)

    Re: Seagull

    Quote Originally Posted by Jandiep View Post
    I used the Quick develop option in Lightroom. I realy need to get me a good book about Lightroom, as there are so many options I do not know yet.
    Hi Jan,

    Have a look at Scott Kelby's The Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 2 Book for Digital Photographers

    To have more control over the focussing of the camera I selected only the center AF point. Should I had used all AF points in auto mode?
    To be honest, I think that most will suggest getting your camera off auto mode ASAP, so you can start to learn more about the relationships between aperture / shutterspeed / ISO / depth of field etc

    Why not just give it a go - and then ask as many questions as you need to here so that we can help you make sense of it all?

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    17,662
    Real Name
    Have a guess :)

    Re: Seagull

    Quote Originally Posted by Roxy View Post
    did you try using the rapid fire option of three frames per second on your 1000D?
    Back in my Canon 1D3 days (10 fps) I'd cough and quietly suggest that "rapid fire" and "3 fps" shouldn't be used in the same sentence ...

    ... but now I'm using a 1Ds3, I'm down to just 5 fps myself

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    95

    Re: Seagull

    Hi Jan,
    I wonder if the filesize (43,1KB) is small related to picturesize.
    There might be some improvement if you set a higher imagequality or less compression in Lightroom.

    I am not sure about it, i hope somebody can confirm or reject it, but my pic's are about ten times as large (in KB) with the same picturesize.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    95

    Re: Seagull

    Quote Originally Posted by Colin Southern View Post
    ... but now I'm using a 1Ds3, I'm down to just 5 fps myself
    I feel so sorry for you Colin.
    Also you lack a built-in-flash.
    I don't use my flash anyway and just to help you we can swap body so you really get into serious photography with my 400D.

  12. #12
    Steaphany's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    The far off Country of Texas
    Posts
    827
    Real Name
    Steaphany

    Re: Seagull

    Jan,

    Depending on the post processing work flow, photo editing/manipulation software, or the set preferences, the EXIF data can be lost somewhere along the way. Remember, this was integrated into various photo file formats long after the formats came into common use and programs which ignore the EXIT may simply not carry it through to anything that's saved. I know because I have programs which do this.

    BTW, if you use Firefox, take a look at the add-on Firefox exIF, the latest version is 0.2.3. On any web page, you can right click on an image to bring up a pop up menu, clicking on Properties will bring up a window of information about the image and FxIF will extract the available EXIF data and include it. It's very handy to see what settings were used to shoot a photo.

    I agree with previous posts regarding sharpness, but I know it is very difficult to capture a bird in flight. I've tried to shoot a Hummingbird hovering with a pure blue sky behind. I also feel that truly helpful commentary should include corrective recommendations, which is why I was curious about the EXIF data.

    I can not comment if you had your camera in Auto mode or not. Auto has it's place and it's better to understand when it's appropriate. Autofocus should not be a taboo either, especially when shooting wildlife. Check your manual to see what your camera does when you select all the autofocus points. Some cameras interpret this setting to mean "Focus any point" not "Find the best focus of every point". I have Sigma lenses and they can be wonderfully clear and crisply focused. Shooting rapid fire may not solve your problem. Check to see if your camera focuses once and then starts to shoot or focuses prior to each exposure. This may be something which you can select.

    A good general rule for moving wildlife photography is to use Aperture priority mode and select a medium aperture, something that achieves a balance with depth of field while preserving a non-distracting background or foreground. Even so, for shooting birds in flight, you'll need a reasonably quick shutter speed.

    Just so you won't feel alone, I too have a lot to learn, that's why I joined. I've been involved with photography since the 1970's and I don't consider myself an expert.

    I hope this helps.
    Last edited by Steaphany; 2nd May 2009 at 02:55 PM.

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    95

    Re: Seagull

    And when you don't use Firefox [COLOR="Red"]this can be used.
    Add to your favorites to make it easy for yourself.

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    South Devon, UK
    Posts
    11,615

    Re: Seagull

    For flying birds I prefer Tv priority set to at least 1/1000 and adjust ISO as required. To me, for fast moving subjects, the correct shutter speed is more important than aperture, but check that you aren't a long way off what is necessary for a decent depth of field.

    I also use the centre focus point and spot metering, plus or minus a little compensation. Auto focus set to AI servo, I can't manually focus fast enough for flying birds.

    And my software (Serif Photo Plus X2) loses the EXIF when editing RAW which has been converted with Canon DPP then exported as a Tiff, or other lossless format. But Jpeg retains basic EXIF details no matter what I do with it.

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    17,662
    Real Name
    Have a guess :)

    Re: Seagull

    Quote Originally Posted by d3debian View Post
    I feel so sorry for you Colin.
    Also you lack a built-in-flash.
    I don't use my flash anyway and just to help you we can swap body so you really get into serious photography with my 400D.
    Thankfully the camera has a little thing on top that allows me to hook up a pocket wizard so I can trigger 1/2 dozen flashy things all at the same time

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    17,662
    Real Name
    Have a guess :)

    Re: Seagull

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoff F View Post
    For flying birds I prefer Tv priority set to at least 1/1000 and adjust ISO as required.
    Hi Geoff,

    I would have thought that if you're setting ISO manually (and using Av mode) then shutterspeed would be a function of aperture (which would normally be pretty close to wide open for BIF shots)?

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    17,662
    Real Name
    Have a guess :)

    Re: Seagull

    Just as an example (hope you don't mind), but I ran a quick unsharp mask over the image (300%, 0.4 pixel) ... Seagull

    ... what do you think?

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    South Devon, UK
    Posts
    11,615

    Re: Seagull

    What you say, Colin, is true under ideal conditions but I find that too often with flying birds I am not working under optimum conditions. I do agree that under ideal conditions aperture is very important, if only to guarantee sufficient depth of field.

    Ideally, I check exposure levels and make manual settings; Av also works fine. But I keep getting circumstances where it is a case of 'look at that' pick up camera select Tv which I default to 1/1000, aim and click.

    The other frequent occasion is when I am set up for birds against a clear sky and one comes in low, ie against the trees, and without time to reset, aim and click. If using Av something has to give and that can only be shutter speed. Under those conditions I would prefer to take my chances with a variable aperture.

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Tne Netherlands
    Posts
    82
    Real Name
    Jan Diepeveen

    Re: Seagull

    Hello All,

    Thank you all for your comments. For sure I will keep all your advice in my mind for the next shooting. Hope to share the result again with you all.

    Thanks!
    Jan

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Tne Netherlands
    Posts
    82
    Real Name
    Jan Diepeveen

    Re: Seagull

    Hi Colin,
    Of course I do not mind! This is how I can learn
    Looks much better! For sure I need to get me a book to process RAW.
    But maybe I might first concentrate on taking the image

    Regards,
    Jan

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •