Show your Bird Portraits

Sort by date Sort by votes
#29,281
AlanF said:
No problem - here's a choice of two blurred backgrounds for you. Actually, I'm deadly serious here: we currently manipulate background using lens aperture as an analog tool, but just as mobile phones blur background digitally (as does Zoom if you want) for portraits, so digital methods will increasingly do the same for traditional photography obviating the need for wide lenses for those who want. The field blur in the bottom image pretty closely mimicks the one I had at 1600mm and nicer than the shorter focal lengths with the 200-800mm.

View attachment 214761View attachment 214762
Click to expand...
And where do you see the threshold? One day we may not need cameras/lenses and ourselfs behind? Maybe even the bird in front?!! All generated by AI?! In that scenario I would imagine someone posting photos of "real" dragons just to get out of the common flow? It sounds pretty scary to me!!! I'm pretty sure it's not the world you wish, you are not that kind of person!
On other hand I wish I can make the messy background of the Red-crested Cardinal from my previous post better! But hell not of that prize!!!
We are getting more and more lazy: instead of getting low to the ground, or even on my belly I'm dreaming about AI that will make the background of my photos better! And yes - I realize that the AI is already here but so far it's just helping here and there and I hope it will stay there! :unsure:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#29,282
ISv said:
And where do you see the threshold? One day we may not need cameras/lenses and ourselfs behind? Maybe even the bird in front?!! All generated by AI?! In that scenario I would imagine someone posting photos of "real" dragons just to get out of the common flow? It sounds pretty scary to me!!! I'm pretty sure it's not the world you wish, you are not that kind of person!
On other hand I wish I can make the messy background of the Red-crested Cardinal from my previous post better! But hell not of that prize!!!
We are getting more and more lazy: instead of getting low to the ground, or even on my belly I'm dreaming about AI that will make the background of my photos better! And yes - I realize that the AI is already here but so far it's just helping here and there and I hope it will stay there! :unsure:
Click to expand...
Altering the background bokeh by two clicks in post digitally is basically no different from altering it during shooting by using two clicks of the f-number by an analog procedure. It’s about the same as altering the exposure in post, contrast etc or sharpening. That is totally different from using AI to generate an image. Classical photography with film used dodging and burning, ultra sharp mask in post etc to improve images. And that was also below the threshold of using multiple negatives to fake photos. And, there are now billions of photos taken routinely on phones in portrait mode where the background is blurred digitally. In short, the need for expensive, heavy wide aperture telephoto lenses is lessening and Canon is leading the way in that revolution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#29,283
ISv said:
And where do you see the threshold? One day we may not need cameras/lenses and ourselfs behind? Maybe even the bird in front?!! All generated by AI?! In that scenario I would imagine someone posting photos of "real" dragons just to get out of the common flow? It sounds pretty scary to me!!! I'm pretty sure it's not the world you wish, you are not that kind of person!
On other hand I wish I can make the messy background of the Red-crested Cardinal from my previous post better! But hell not of that prize!!!
We are getting more and more lazy: instead of getting low to the ground, or even on my belly I'm dreaming about AI that will make the background of my photos better! And yes - I realize that the AI is already here but so far it's just helping here and there and I hope it will stay there! :unsure:
Click to expand...
I have to agree.

I am not sure if there will ever be anything more than an individual threshold. As we see with nearly every other topic, there are people who want absolutely no rules and other people who want complete bans. When it's somewhere in the middle and data suggests the current state is adequate, it's common enough for at least one group to push for one extreme, if not more groups pushing for both ends.

I suspect even if a total ban on AI is made, some programmers will continue to work on improving it even knowing they would be risking fines or imprisonment. I admit it is already possible for Microsoft, Apple, and Google to create someway to prevent unauthorized code from running, but as far as I know, there are still ways to trick computers and phones into running such software.

I'm looking for John Connor
 
Upvote 0
#29,284
Just getting this out there....but I take photos because I enjoy taking photos. I enjoy the challenge. I enjoy the creativity. I enjoy thinking about having to get low, how to compensate/use the light. How to work with and get the most out of my gear. I enjoy being in nature with a purpose. I enjoy the experience. If a new tool exists that lets me enjoy photography more, ok. But there is a chasm between a tool I chose to use that adds to my enjoyment and something creeping in and taking over the photographic process which I enjoy.

So, while I am full on concerned about AI taking over many services and eroding professions. Photography? I really view it as more of a tool. For a hobby, I simply will not choose to click a button that takes away from my enjoyment. As for professionals, I can see it being used more heavily, but, as an example, I suspect that people want photographers at weddings to document and record the events of that day. That will always take a physical presence. Commercial photography...they already use computer graphics a lot, AI is an evolution of CG.

The primary area I expect to be annoyed by AI in photography is if I am comparing myself to other photographer work either online or in a competition and they leaned heavily on AI...say, swapped out a sky or something to the point where the image no longer reflects the actual scene. I won't like that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
#29,285
No AI...just a bird....

Ok...based on everything I have heard from you good people, I have a loaner of the RF 100-500L. My first sitting with it was yesterday. Nice lens.

And Red Bellied WPs are among my favorites.

Small-6829.jpg

and it takes an extender very well:

Small-6871.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 15 users
Upvote 0
#29,287
As an individual, I can do whatever I want. To quote EricN, the threshold is purely individual. Whether I manipulate deeply, or I only accept slight adjustments, remains my very own choice. I, for myself, think it's no sin if I correct noise, using AI.
Transforming pictures has always been done, how many pictures got an added blue sky? This, I personally reject, just like adding camels on desert dunes using Photoshop.
But that's only me, other photographers might see it differently, it's about their pictures, not mine. If people prefer camels where there were none, who am I to condemn...
Yet, things are a bit different for a photojournalist. Manipulating pictures can be manipulating public opinion. But this has been true since (almost) the invention of photography. Isn't it so, Messrs. Goebbels and Tchakotine?
AI is not the devil, but sometimes those misusing it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
#29,292
josephandrews222 said:
The month of February has brought warmer temperatures and the ever-welcome sound of birds and a reminder that spring is coming to our area (midwest USA), including:

*northern mockingbird (at dusk; the winter sun orientation is needed to get this magic hour shot at this particular location)
View attachment 214773

*northern cardinal
View attachment 214774

*some type of sparrow?
View attachment 214775

*American robin
View attachment 214776

*male downy woodpecker (2)
View attachment 214777

View attachment 214778

All 5DMkIII and 100-400II/1.4III
Click to expand...
It was a White-throated Sparrow; thanks for posting.
 
Upvote 0
#29,293
Del Paso said:
As an individual, I can do whatever I want. To quote EricN, the threshold is purely individual. Whether I manipulate deeply, or I only accept slight adjustments, remains my very own choice. I, for myself, think it's no sin if I correct noise, using AI.
Transforming pictures has always been done, how many pictures got an added blue sky? This, I personally reject, just like adding camels on desert dunes using Photoshop.
But that's only me, other photographers might see it differently, it's about their pictures, not mine. If people prefer camels where there were none, who am I to condemn...
Yet, things are a bit different for a photojournalist. Manipulating pictures can be manipulating public opinion. But this has been true since (almost) the invention of photography. Isn't it so, Messrs. Goebbels and Tchakotine?
AI is not the devil, but sometimes those misusing it.
Click to expand...
If we consider painting, and sculpture, those mediums were used to manipulate thinking well before photography. As for today, even if absolutely no PJ has an intention to exploit the use of cropping, camera angles color, or something else to change our perception of what is being photographed, we can bet whoever writes the story is likely to to do so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#29,294
These hawks were across the lake and I was manually focusing the ef 100-400L f/4.5-5.6L ii. I don't think I have every gotten a very sharp image from across this lake. So, I'm unsure how much the softness is from my old eyes and the turbulence of the air. at a closer distance with a female Orchard Oriole (I think ?) focus is much better.
100A0942_DxO_PL7_1080x1620.jpg
100A0942_DxO_hawk-crop.jpg100A1015_DxO_PL7_1440.jpg
Edit= I forgot to add there was a heron towards the bottom left of the uncropped photo, but unfortunately, there were too many branches in front of it that even manually focusing I couldn't see it well and of course before I could get to a better angle it decided to fly off...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 8 users
Upvote 0
#29,295
EricN said:
These hawks were across the lake and I was manually focusing the ef 100-400L f/4.5-5.6L ii. I don't think I have every gotten a very sharp image from across this lake. So, I'm unsure how much the softness is from my old eyes and the turbulence of the air. at a closer distance with a female Orchard Oriole (I think ?) focus is much better.
View attachment 214803
View attachment 214802View attachment 214801
Click to expand...
The hawks are simply too small - only 250 px high. This is where 800-1600mm would help if it is not due to atmospheric conditions! 500px can give a usable image and 1000px a lot of sharp detail. The other bird (which looks like an American Goldfinch!) is on the soft side, but is again small. Manual focussing isn't easy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#29,296
AlanF said:
The hawks are simply too small - only 250 px high. This is where 800-1600mm would help if it is not due to atmospheric conditions! 500px can give a usable image and 1000px a lot of sharp detail. The other bird (which looks like an American Goldfinch!) is on the soft side, but is again small. Manual focussing isn't easy.
Click to expand...
Thanks Alan! American Goldfinch does match better when I google the bird. The chart I looked at before showed the breading male which is weird because it showed the female Oriole... I had better find a better chart!

I'm also testing a filter from Tiffen called, "Ultra Contrast" I chose the three strength. I know we say, "don't use filters on telephotos," but I thought I would test it anyway. in some photos it has a definite negative effect, but It preformed much better with those imperialist squirrels I posted in the other thread, as well as a bacon-cheeseburger (is there a food thread? - I'll have to look) and some mediocre landscapes. It definitely made some of the photos softer, but I like the filter because I want to expose for the color of the subject and that frequently causes my photos to be excessively bright or more often dark. Of course there is HDR, but I'm not really a fan, although that is how I was taught to paint from photos (one each exposed for the lightest details midrange and darkest). I felt it was nuisance to use three photos and in photoshop, I attempted to combine them in photoshop with such limited success that it was not better than simply using the three photos. What did usually work was taking one photo and adjusting the levels, but I'm sure you know, this method increased noise. There might be no real solution to this until something special happens with sensors.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

1
Interior Shots
Replies
15
Views
18K
jtee
J
1
Your best Architectural & City B&W shots?
Replies
118
Views
97K
canon_guy
C
1
Water Reflections
Replies
28
Views
24K
Pitbullo
P
Top Bottom
Home
Forums
Media
Menu