Show your Bird Portraits

[AlanF]

While they are whingeing about sensor defects etc in the 5DIV, I couldn't be more happy with mine. 400mm f/4+2xTC, yesterday at RSPB Rye Meads, a goldfinch.

Good one Alan. I guess you are also secretly (or openly??? ) enjoying your 01 starting 5D4 ;D ;D ;D

P.S I have also used my 5D4 with 500mm in very dull weather (and at the same time close to sunset) and I liked the result

My series of Canons - 7D, 7DII, 5DIII, 5DS R and now 5DIV have always worked flawlessly. I guess I must the lucky odd one out.

 

[Click]

Here's a bluejay pic where the fill flash was helpful. Shot from a blind (w/o breaking the flash extender this time!).

5DSR, ISO 800, 600II, f4, 1/1000, fill flash at -1 exp compensation. Other shots from this series are posted under the 5DSR thread.

Beautiful shot, Vern. Well done

 

[Valvebounce]

Hi Vern.
Stunning, excellent light balance, lovely background bokeh. A very polished shot.

Cheers, Graham.

Here's a bluejay pic where the fill flash was helpful. Shot from a blind (w/o breaking the flash extender this time!).

5DSR, ISO 800, 600II, f4, 1/1000, fill flash at -1 exp compensation. Other shots from this series are posted under the 5DSR thread.

 

[AlanF]

Redwings have landed. Here is one captured this morning, eating a berry. 400mm DO II x2TC, 5DIV f/8.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Redwings have landed. Here is one captured this morning, eating a berry. 400mm DO II x2TC, 5DIV f/8.

Very nice Alan!

We're both obviously tickled with having 800mm, F8, which is pretty much why I moved to the 400. I made my purchase at a time when I've been too busy to enjoy it, which is presently frustrating but that'll change by spring I hope.

Now that you've had more shooting time, I'm curious what your assessment of the 400 X2 is relative to the 300 X2 that we've both used a lot, other than the reach advantage. I'm still on the fence regarding selling the 300.

Jack

 

[AlanF]

Redwings have landed. Here is one captured this morning, eating a berry. 400mm DO II x2TC, 5DIV f/8.

Very nice Alan!

We're both obviously tickled with having 800mm, F8, which is pretty much why I moved to the 400. I made my purchase at a time when I've been too busy to enjoy it, which is presently frustrating but that'll change by spring I hope.

Now that you've had more shooting time, I'm curious what your assessment of the 400 X2 is relative to the 300 X2 that we've both used a lot, other than the reach advantage. I'm still on the fence regarding selling the 300.

Jack

They are as good as each other where they overlap (400mm vs 420mm and 560mm vs 600mm). It's whether you use 300mm f/2.8 that counts.

 

[Click]

Redwings have landed. Here is one captured this morning, eating a berry. 400mm DO II x2TC, 5DIV f/8.

Nice shot, Alan.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Thanks Alan. I would sometimes use the 300 for distant mountain scenery/large animal when it was my birding lens but I sure would not be packing both so it remains to be seen if 400 fills that need or I may wish to have my "faithful assistant" carry the 70-200.

Jack

 

[DJL329]

Here are a couple of recent shots, both using the 5D III, 400mm DO II, and 1.4x TC II.

The mocking bird was near the parking lot and picnic area in a local park, so he must've been accustomed to all the human activity, which enabled me to get quite close.

on Flickr

on Flickr

 

[Click]

Nice pictures, Daniel.

 

[AlanF]

Here are a couple of recent shots, both using the 5D III, 400mm DO II, and 1.4x TC II.

The mocking bird was near the parking lot and picnic area in a local park, so he must've been accustomed to all the human activity, which enabled me to get quite close.

on Flickr

on Flickr

To my way of thinking, they are oversharpened. The details are too strong and there is the tell-tale bright sharp halo outline that shows too much sharpening, which makes them look unnatural. I can do the same with the photo of the redwing, just posted above. Here is the head with the minimal sharpening that I prefer and then with a heavy dose of USM, which brings out full detail. Anyway, it's a matter of your personal opinion, but it is worth discussing. Each to his taste.

 

[DJL329]

Nice pictures, Daniel.

Thank you, Click.

Someone else (mistakenly) assumed I had "oversharpened" them by maxing out the Unsharp Mask settings, even though mine don't show all the background noise that his example shows. :

I guess Taylor Swift was right...

 

[Mikehit]

Nice pictures, Daniel.

Thank you, Click.

Someone else (mistakenly) assumed I had "oversharpened" them by maxing out the Unsharp Mask settings, even though mine don't show all the background noise that his example shows. :

I guess Taylor Swift was right...

I have to say I agree with Alan.
Three is a difference between 'maxing out' and applying a bit too much and it is particularly prevalent on the feather barbs on the mocking bird. The heron does not show it anywhere near as much, but it does have a slight halo.
What were your sharpening settings? Is it a particularly heavy crop?

 

[Ryananthony]

Nice pictures, Daniel.

Thank you, Click.

Someone else (mistakenly) assumed I had "oversharpened" them by maxing out the Unsharp Mask settings, even though mine don't show all the background noise that his example shows. :

I guess Taylor Swift was right...

Yup, gonna have to agree with Alan. I noticed it right away. F*** anyone who responds with any sort of criticism, right? He was polite, stated how it was he opinion. But I must be a hater too.

 

[Loswr]

Nice pictures, Daniel.

Thank you, Click.

Someone else (mistakenly) assumed I had "oversharpened" them by maxing out the Unsharp Mask settings, even though mine don't show all the background noise that his example shows. :

I guess Taylor Swift was right...

I have to say I agree with Alan.
Three is a difference between 'maxing out' and applying a bit too much and it is particularly prevalent on the feather barbs on the mocking bird. The heron does not show it anywhere near as much, but it does have a slight halo.
What were your sharpening settings? Is it a particularly heavy crop?

I agree with Alan as well. Particularly the mockingbird shot shows too much sharpening, the white halo around the head and especially the beak looks unnatural, and that's what happens when an image is oversharpened. It's not as evident in the egret shot because of the white feathers and the white in the background, but that shot also looks oversharpened to me.

Taylor Swift reportedly handles criticism badly, too, so you're in good company there.

 

[Jack Douglas]

The truth is not always pleasant but it can set you free (of nasty halos). Now if you happen to like halos I think we have a problem here. However, as a beginner I know that it can be a little unsettling to find out that what you're very proud of is being shown to have some impediment.

So, for my personal illumination, for anyone using DPP or translating from other software, what's the consensus of the typical desirable setting? I've fallen into a strength and threshold of 3 and fineness towards the limit but have noted that noise is very sensitive to the threshold choice. Along with this I generally set the lens optimizer at 65.

Another thing, I seem to recall a halo associated with some of my 11-24 shots that I've treated just like my typical bird shots. So is this very lens dependent?

BTW what has happened to dear old Dilbert and his daily wisdom? :'(

Jack

 

[AlanF]

The truth is not always pleasant but it can set you free (of nasty halos). Now if you happen to like halos I think we have a problem here. However, as a beginner I know that it can be a little unsettling to find out that what you're very proud of is being shown to have some impediment.

So, for my personal illumination, for anyone using DPP or translating from other software, what's the consensus of the typical desirable setting? I've fallen into a strength and threshold of 3 and fineness towards the limit but have noted that noise is very sensitive to the threshold choice. Along with this I generally set the lens optimizer at 65.

Another thing, I seem to recall a halo associated with some of my 11-24 shots that I've treated just like my typical bird shots. So is this very lens dependent?

BTW what has happened to dear old Dilbert and his daily wisdom? :'(

Jack

Dilbert was unmasked and his name published. So he painstakingly removed all of his posts and has departed from this part of the world.

Settings vary according to the degree of crop. You can sharpen a large pixel size with a higher setting. The important thing is to keep the sharpening low enough not to give halos.

DPP is inherently noisy, and I am back to using DxO. My standard protocol is to suppress noise with DxO PRIME and then sharpen with USM at 0.9 px and 100%.

The head where the background was said to be noisy was processed from DPP as I was in a hurry. Here it is using DxO, first at 0.9px and then 3px at 100%.

 

[DJL329]

Nice pictures, Daniel.

Thank you, Click.

Someone else (mistakenly) assumed I had "oversharpened" them by maxing out the Unsharp Mask settings, even though mine don't show all the background noise that his example shows. :

I guess Taylor Swift was right...

I have to say I agree with Alan.
Three is a difference between 'maxing out' and applying a bit too much and it is particularly prevalent on the feather barbs on the mocking bird. The heron does not show it anywhere near as much, but it does have a slight halo.
What were your sharpening settings? Is it a particularly heavy crop?

I agree with Alan as well. Particularly the mockingbird shot shows too much sharpening, the white halo around the head and especially the beak looks unnatural, and that's what happens when an image is oversharpened. It's not as evident in the egret shot because of the white feathers and the white in the background, but that shot also looks oversharpened to me.

Taylor Swift reportedly handles criticism badly, too, so you're in good company there.

Okay folks, so here it is with no sharpening done in post. The Unsharp Mask values were left at the default out of the camera and the "halo" is still there. All I did in post was correct the white balance and increase contrast as I had done originally. But, even in the .jpg file, right out of the camera (I save both .raw and .jpg), the halo is there.

Perhaps it's due to the DO lens (Chromatic Aberration correction done in-camera?), or the combination of it and the 1.4x TC Mark II (not III), but it is not because of "oversharpening."

 

[tron]

I encountered a similar issue when I tried to change the background sky color to something other than white. (I was shooting against the sun and I had to increase exposure thus burning the sky to almost white. Trying to correct the sky was resulting a halo around the bird so I gave up and left it almost white.

 

[Loswr]

Okay folks, so here it is with no sharpening done in post. The Unsharp Mask values were left at the default out of the camera and the "halo" is still there. All I did in post was correct the white balance and increase contrast as I had done originally. But, even in the .jpg file, right out of the camera (I save both .raw and .jpg), the halo is there.

Perhaps it's due to the DO lens (Chromatic Aberration correction done in-camera?), or the combination of it and the 1.4x TC Mark II (not III), but it is not because of "oversharpening."

I suppose it comes down to personal taste. My taste would be somewhere in the middle of the two images. The one on the right looks 'crunchy' and oversharpened to me.