Show your Bird Portraits

Jul 29, 2012
17,654
6,349
Canada
Beautiful picture. Well done, Durf!
d055.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Bert63

What’s in da box?
CR Pro
Dec 3, 2017
1,072
2,335
60
Yes. Underexpose and then raise the shadows. It will be better with your 5DIV or EOS-R than the 7DII as they have improved sensors. Avoid clipping the highlights in the original exposure.

That's exactly the technique I try to use but very often I just fumble finger it and try to patch things back together later in post lol..

We see the Buffles in the spring and then again in the late fall so the opportunities to experiment with these specifically are pretty limited - not to mention that they are rarely close enough for my gear to give me an honest attempt at a decent shot. I need that 600mm + 1.4X that the guy using the new 1DX was using the other day.

It was a Youtube video showing Adam Jones doing a little birding with the 1DX and his short lens was the 200-400 F4 and when things got tough he threw on the 600mm. Rough life.

Thanks very much for the advice! It will be in my head next time I have a go at these little buggers.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bert63

What’s in da box?
CR Pro
Dec 3, 2017
1,072
2,335
60
Bufflehead ducks are also my favorites but challenging. Light direction and intensity are to be perfect to get the head color right.
The first one was taken on a cloudy day and in the second one sun was behind me.
Both with EOS-R.
View attachment 188967

View attachment 188968


Excellent shots. Grinning smug little buggers. I can hear the bottom one saying "yeah Bob, just out of reach for that paltry set up... You can see me, but you know you can't crop me."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Bert63

What’s in da box?
CR Pro
Dec 3, 2017
1,072
2,335
60
They are very common in my back yard, so to speak. I'll modify that; they used to be before the country trapped out the beavers and blew up the dams.:mad:

Jack


That's a shame. We get a bit of that around here too - the destruction of habitat. We're just down the street from you over here in western Washington.
 
Upvote 0

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,980
2,602
Alberta, Canada
That's a shame. We get a bit of that around here too - the destruction of habitat. We're just down the street from you over here in western Washington.
I'll trade you locations ... at least temporarily. On second thought, considering the politics, maybe not.;)

From the good old days of 2013: King Tut and his wife. And the caretaker.Cedar Waxwing_M_s_7568.JPGCedar Waxwing_F_s_7627.JPGCrow_s_7622.JPG

Jack
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Upvote 0

ISv

"The equipment that matters, is you"
CR Pro
Apr 30, 2017
2,569
7,450
For me it's a bit saturated, but it's a subjective topic. Sometimes I'll process a picture and then come back to it later and wonder what I was thinking. Then I'll change it and months later I like the first chop better..

Nowadays I try to leave things as SOTC as I can. I've finally realized that I can't fix bad pictures with PP. lololol...
:D! " I've finally realized that I can't fix bad pictures with PP. lololol..."
- You are absolutely right! With PP you can (well, valid at least for me...) make good photo slightly better (or just destroy it if you don't know what exactly you are doing).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

ISv

"The equipment that matters, is you"
CR Pro
Apr 30, 2017
2,569
7,450
Yes. Underexpose and then raise the shadows. It will be better with your 5DIV or EOS-R than the 7DII as they have improved sensors. Avoid clipping the highlights in the original exposure.
If your camera is signaling for small patches of overexposure it is still OK. I actually prefer that variant. Than you can clip little bit the highlights and lift the shadows (if necessary lift also the mids). If the highlights are to "high" (in big patches) clipping is counterproductive. What you will clip in that variant is the coded in the RAW file data for the highlights. In the really overexposed patches you clip nothing - there is no data that you can work on there.
Not very sure if I expressed myself in good English but it's what I'm doing (or trying to do) with my photos:).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

Bert63

What’s in da box?
CR Pro
Dec 3, 2017
1,072
2,335
60
Upvote 0

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,980
2,602
Alberta, Canada
Wow. Was just going through my Cedar Waxwing pictures the other day. Glad I didn't post one. LMAO... Are you shooting these with the 400mm DO II?
We all like to feed our ego but if this criterion was valid no one would be posting anything. One aspect is the technical quality of the photo but don't forget we all like to see the different bird variants and poses etc. There will always be someone doing better - so what. What I like about this thread; it's a friendly place to be.

I was using 300 2.8 II X2 which AlanF used to praise constantly. ;) Now neither of us own it because .... good question. For me I judged that I seldom used 300 and sold so I could get the 400 DO II. When 300 was needed that lens was superb and pretty decent X2.

These photos I'm going back to resurrect are getting DPP post processing as best I can do (minus selective NR) because in most cases the originals weren't done that well. I had only owned the 6D a very short time then and I didn't even own a DSLR about 2 years before that (D5100 was my starting point). When I'm done I'll choose those that might be worthy and do background NR etc.

There is a motive to this. I've been interacting with the county regarding their indiscriminate beaver trapping and these shots are all from the affected area when it was vibrant. They will be hearing from me loudly.

Jack
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,343
22,519
We all like to feed our ego but if this criterion was valid no one would be posting anything. One aspect is the technical quality of the photo but don't forget we all like to see the different bird variants and poses etc. There will always be someone doing better - so what. What I like about this thread; it's a friendly place to be.

I was using 300 2.8 II X2 which AlanF used to praise constantly. ;) Now neither of us own it because .... good question. For me I judged that I seldom used 300 and sold so I could get the 400 DO II. When 300 was needed that lens was superb and pretty decent X2.

These photos I'm going back to resurrect are getting DPP post processing as best I can do (minus selective NR) because in most cases the originals weren't done that well. I had only owned the 6D a very short time then and I didn't even own a DSLR about 2 years before that (D5100 was my starting point). When I'm done I'll choose those that might be worthy and do background NR etc.

There is a motive to this. I've been interacting with the county regarding their indiscriminate beaver trapping and these shots are all from the affected area when it was vibrant. They will be hearing from me loudly.

Jack
I seem to recall that we both had kept the 300mm for quite a while after we had the 400mm DO II. According to Arf Morris the price of the used 300/2.8 on his bird site dropped dramatically after the introduction of the DO II.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,980
2,602
Alberta, Canada
I seem to recall that we both had kept the 300mm for quite a while after we had the 400mm DO II. According to Arf Morris the price of the used 300/2.8 on his bird site dropped dramatically after the introduction of the DO II.

You are right. In my mind I had sold it to get the 400 (promised the boss because I was also getting the 1DX2) but it took some time to unload it at a decent price. No regrets on that because of low useage (I actually never mounted it again after the 400 arrived). I didn't loose that much ... not like trying to sell a 1DX2. ;)

I wonder how many DO II there are out there? I do regret one thing - the closer focus of the 300 - I wish they'd but a close-up feature in all the telephotos for bugs.

Jack
 
Upvote 0