question about wing movement

[skitterbug]

It has been quite a while since I've posted to this forum, so please be patient, offer any advice about how to post images, and I'll be very appreciative.

My question is about showing wing movement. I've seen many photos on the web, and most of them have the wing movement in a stationary position. So should the camera capture the speed of movement, or should it show the motion of the wings in a stationary position? Or is it mostly what the photographer would want?

Thank you for any suggestions about best practices?


FastFlyer.jpg

[connectinfosoft]

It has been quite a while since I've posted to this forum, so please be patient, offer any advice about how to post images, and I'll be very appreciative.

My question is about showing wing movement. I've seen many photos on the web, and most of them have the wing movement in a stationary position. So should the camera capture the speed of movement, or should it show the motion of the wings in a stationary position? Or is it mostly what the photographer would want?

Thank you for any suggestions about best practices?


FastFlyer.jpg

Both approaches work—it really depends on the effect you want.

For hummingbirds, fast shutter speeds (1/2000s+) freeze the wings and show feather detail, while slower speeds introduce wing blur and communicate motion. I generally prefer a little controlled blur because it makes the hovering action feel more natural.

There’s no single “best practice” it’s primarily a creative choice. Your example does a nice job of showing movement while keeping the bird recognizable.

[skitterbug]

It took me a few days to get back in, whew! Apparently, this site is still at slow speed at times.
I want to thank you for commenting on my photo and answering my question! Hummers will soon be headed south, so catching them in action is becoming more difficult to do!
Enjoy the day!

[Round Tuit]

Welcome back Sandy. It is nice to see you post again in spite of the site being so sluggish.
I fully agree with Connect Infosoft that the choice of frozen vs blurry wings is entirely up to you.

[skitterbug]

Welcome back Sandy. It is nice to see you post again in spite of the site being so sluggish.
I fully agree with Connect Infosoft that the choice of frozen vs blurry wings is entirely up to you.

Thank you for your kindness and verifying wing speed choice.
I sure hope to participate more often! I've missed this group and the many wonderful people who are involved here!
We have sunshine and warm weather currently. Nice! Hope your area is also experiencing pleasant weather!
Enjoy the day!

[Manfred M]

In some ways, I agree with what has been written, but only to a point.

Most "expert" bird photographers shoot bird in flight images to freeze wing motion, unless there is a special reason not to. Hummingbirds are challenging because their wings move so fast and it takes a very good bird photographer and the right lighting conditions to freeze the wings. Select the higheset shutter speed your camera has for these shots. That likely means setting the camera's aperture wide open and adjusting the ISO to work under those conditions (a good place to use auto-ISO).

From a personal taste standpoint, I don't mind a tiny bit of softness at the extreme tips of the wings. In the example you posted, the image appears to be quite sharp, but from a composition standpoint, the motion blur in the wings is not working all that well for me.

[skitterbug]

In some ways, I agree with what has been written, but only to a point.

Most "expert" bird photographers shoot bird in flight images to freeze wing motion, unless there is a special reason not to. Hummingbirds are challenging because their wings move so fast and it takes a very good bird photographer and the right lighting conditions to freeze the wings. Select the higheset shutter speed your camera has for these shots. That likely means setting the camera's aperture wide open and adjusting the ISO to work under those conditions (a good place to use auto-ISO).

From a personal taste standpoint, I don't mind a tiny bit of softness at the extreme tips of the wings. In the example you posted, the image appears to be quite sharp, but from a composition standpoint, the motion blur in the wings is not working all that well for me.

Finally got in today! And a happy HI to you, Manfred! Thank you for your viewpoint about wing motion. I would imagine any photo entered for competition may have this standard applied? What I really hope to do is capture one of these "buzz bombs" sipping from a flower. Mostly around here they use the two feeders we have out. I suppose it is easier for them.
I also must confess that I am still trying to adjust to the Mark II R6 Canon's AF. Supposedly it should make capturing photos easier, but so far I can't say that it has.
Anyway, I'll keep trying and see what I can do about those wings!
Thank you for your reply!

[DanK]

Sandy,

I don't do birds, but I have used the tracking functions of the R6 II AF for candids of kids, and it has worked very well. The difficulty is that its power comes with complexity: choosing a tracking mode, choosing an AF point and if I recall (I don't have it with me) one or two other settings. I had the most luck using the cross-shaped assisted single point AF point, aming the center at the eye and then letting the camera track as I composed the shot. At least with people, it's amazingly good at this--keeping focus on the eye when its visible, falling back on the head when the eye isn't visible, and then going back to the eye when it's again visible.

Given that I don't do birds, I have no strong opinion, but what I have seen comports with what Manfred said: most of the shots have the wings either frozen or nearly so. But this reminds me of an experience I had last winter. After I moved more than a year ago, I joined a new (to me) large, old, very active photography club that has a number of very accomplished members. After two meetings, I made the decision to quit. The first was a meeting of the nature photography subgroup, and they spent a lot of time talking about all sorts of rules, rather than about the aesthetic appeal of the images. I think that's just part of the parcel if you get involved in that genre, but I found it completely unhelpful. Look at the rules for the PSA nature category.

[Manfred M]

But this reminds me of an experience I had last winter. After I moved more than a year ago, I joined a new (to me) large, old, very active photography club that has a number of very accomplished members. After two meetings, I made the decision to quit. The first was a meeting of the nature photography subgroup, and they spent a lot of time talking about all sorts of rules, rather than about the aesthetic appeal of the images. I think that's just part of the parcel if you get involved in that genre, but I found it completely unhelpful. Look at the rules for the PSA nature category.

Dan - I concur with your thoughts here, but the problem with the Nature category in competitions (as well as similar issues with other genres that are documentary in nature) is that there are strict rules about what is permissible. The "hand of man" that requires that anything considered man-made such as buildings, roads, bird feeders, etc. results in disqualification. Lawns, hybrid pants (roses, for example), hay, grape vines, etc are also generally banned.

When it comes to post processing, traditional darkroom techniques like cropping, exposure and contrast adjustments and as well as dodging and burning are permissible. Nothing can be added or removed (other than sensor dust).

Yes, the nature category (which also generally includes birds, wildlife and landscapes) is heavily rule-based.

I've spoken to some photojournalists and the restrictions on what can and cannot be changed in post are equally strict. These folks can lose their jobs if there is even a hint of something that is not straight-out-of-camera. "Photoshopped" is a bad word in those circle.

Use of Generative AI is in a similar situation. Strictly forbidden, even if the effect is indistinguishable from other techniques that heavily manipulate pixels. An example would be that Photoshop's Content Aware functions are allowed, even though the pixels are manipulated to the point that they bear no resemblence to the original image.

A common complaint in competitions is that there is a "guilty unless proven innocent" approach by photographic organizations. They seem to be moving in a direction of using software to identify any image that has used a Generative AI tool, but I have yet to get a reasonable answer as to why we accept answers delivered by these "black boxes". I have yet to get any information on this software, including information of the level of false positves and false negative.

We live in interesting times...

[DanK]

I understand the rules, but it's not how I want to spend my time. I'm interested in creating attractive and engaging images. I was able to get a great shot of a juvenile hawk that was perched on my fence. I have no interest in discarding it because the fence is man-made. I do a lot of flowers, and I have no interest at all in whether they are hybrids. If people want to compete that way, more power to them, but it holds no interest for me.

Photojournalism is another matter, IMHO. It's function is to portray reality, so I think strict guidelines are necessary.

I agree with you that it's very hard to figure out a clear line with respect to AI. For example, I allow myself to use the AI-based removal tools, which I see as just more effective versions of content-aware fill, but that is in fact generative. I freely use AI-based selection tools, which are far faster and sometimes better than my manual selections. I say that I am simply using AI to do what I would do anyway without it, but the line isn't as clear as that statement makes it sound.