Eagle photos on Jan 4th

[Recty]

Some of these I had the shutter speed at 1/200 for and I thought that would be more than enough, but it isnt. The whole thing came out a little blurred, so I had a lot of wasted images. On others it actually turned out kind of cool as the body would be in focus but the wings you can tell are beating fast.

The other bad thing was the sun was in a horrible position, so for some shots they are way overexposed and there isnt anything I can do about it in software, that I know of, to fix it.

Anyway, I'm far from a pro Here ya go.

Here is one of the ones that is waaaaay too bright.

 

[Recty]

 

[ahuxman58]

Nice series wow you were with some nice eagles. You have to have a fast shutter to shoot birds in flight. at least 1/800th or better seems to work well for me but lighting has a lot to do with it .I also turn up the ISO a bit to gain faster shutter speeds.

 

[IPT]

cool - rare to get sun down there in the winter. I like to bracket even if it's just in 1/3 stops. You were shooting RAW no? Unless you were more than 2 stops over you should be able to save lost detail and then merge in PS. Sometimes If i know the birds will be in one spot (like that box) I'll meter there and test, looking to see if I blew the hightlights. Then I'll lock in and shoot in manual.

 

[Recty]

Thanks. Yeah, see the chicken in a couple of the pictures? One of them the eagle flying away has a chicken leg in it's talons if I remember right.

My dad lives down there and feeds the eagles at his house, so I thought it would be a good photo opportunity I never have shot wildlife yet so I wasnt sure what I was getting into.

Next time I go, I think I'm going to be at at least 1/800th, the fastest I went this last time was 1/400th which worked OK but still sometimes the bird was blurred. Kind of disappointing since I was standing outside in the -20 degrees for these photos

 

[Recty]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14095445#post14095445 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by IPT
cool - rare to get sun down there in the winter. I like to bracket even if it's just in 1/3 stops. You were shooting RAW no? Unless you were more than 2 stops over you should be able to save lost detail and then merge in PS. Sometimes If i know the birds will be in one spot (like that box) I'll meter there and test, looking to see if I blew the hightlights. Then I'll lock in and shoot in manual.

Hmmmm, I'm not real up to date on photography terms, to be honest. I dont know what bracketing is.

I'm also not real good with photoshop, I just have the elements 7 trial right now, still definitely learning it.

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

Overexposure is far harder to correct in software than underexposure. I really like the series. Great job with the chicken lure! =)

Bracketing is taking several different exposures in very fast succession. This allows you to take the good parts of multiple images and combine them into one super image. Two schools of thought here are "blending" and "HDR". Bracketing doesn't work very well with moving subjects, as the subject will be in a slightly different position no matter how quickly together the separate images are taken. With RAW you can take one image and imitate bracketing the entire photo, saving it as several separate JPEGs, and then blend them all together back to 1 image.

 

[IPT]

Sorry - if you look in your owners manual you'll find it. Basically it will allow you to take three images in a row and automatically adjust the exposure compensation for you. So if you set it to be a 0+/- exposure, it will take that shot, then a +1, and -1 automatically (as you hold the shutter down for three images or it'll do all three automatically if you use the timer). You can set the difference in exposure from 1/3 of a stop to 2 stops if you want. I find it usefull especially when there are big contrast issues (like the white of an Eagles head and the dark of his body feathers). Just a little added flexibility/insurance.

It is particularly useful if your shooting a static scene from a tripod with a large exposure spread and you want to merge exposures instead of using a ND (neutral density) filter. Advanced for you now, but at least you know about it may find it usefull some day in the future.

 

[Recty]

Hmmm, so would it be possible to bracket the motion shots of the eagles? Seems like it would be pretty hard as they are moving pretty fast when they are swooping in to get food.

 

[IPT]

You can bracket, but you're correct that with the motion you can't merge. However, assuming your metering was off, and the fact that the three images would be taken almost at the same time, your chances of getting the proper exposure just went up 66%. Additionally, if you shoot in aperature priority the shutter speed will be changed for you. Maybe that little extra speed (on the "underexposed" image) will get a sharp image where the perfect exposure may be too "slow" to freeze it.

I am not saying you should or shoudn't do this. There is a time and place for eveything. You'll have to be the judge of when to use it. I know there have been times I've taken eagle shots and they moved to an area that affected my metering (as I was taking rapid shots and couldn't change the exp compensation) and between a small bracket and shooting RAW I was able to preserve feather detail in both the white head and dark body.

Admittedly this technique is better applied to a stationary subject when using a tripod, but I use it with wildlife all the time too. Whatever works for you.

In this image I used PS (and shot RAW) to merge two exposures of the same shot, thus getting detail in the head feathers and also maintain feather detail in the shadows. Just did it now pulling from my archive so it's not perfect but you can get the idea.

 

[IPT]

FWIW I think you did a great job of nailing the exposures. I get plenty of soft shots too. It's par for the course when your panning (moving), they're moving, exposures level are changing as they go from snow to trees for the background. I've gotton dead sharp images at 1/100th and soft ones at 1/1600.

Did you focus with Al-servo or one shot?

 

[Recty]

I went with AI-servo, seems to work pretty well for action shots.

What is weird is the shots dont look real great on my work PC, but at home they looked great. I run two LCDs here, on my main monitor the pictures are way too dark and on the secondary monitor they look just like at home. I'm wondering which one is correct, if I have my main monitor too dark or if my home and my secondary are both too bright?

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

If you are going to edit digital pictures, you really have to get your monitor calibrated. Otherwise you'll be editing everything in the wrong direction.

 

[Recty]

So do these pictures look too dark to you or good?

 

[IPT]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14100104#post14100104 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by TitusvileSurfer
If you are going to edit digital pictures, you really have to get your monitor calibrated. Otherwise you'll be editing everything in the wrong direction.

True, true. I used to always have to add exposure and color to my prints because the monitor saw the images darker and more saturated than my printer. LCD calibration won't necesarily make your printer and screen play togther well, but it will be sure you are at the industry standard for evaluating color and brightness.

http://spyder.datacolor.com/product-mc.php

 

[Reef Bass]

Love the eagles. Awesome subject. Very nice pics. I see goldens or balds usually while out fishing, but I don't have a feeding station dusted with snow for them to land on and pose while I shoot.

TS and IPT, you hit on a subject which has been banging around my head - monitor calibration. Now that I am trying to be more critical with my images, their exposure, color, etc., how can I be sure that what I see is "what it is", or that images edited on my monitor are at all what others see?

I have a nice consumer printer (Canon i9900) which produces darker, more saturated prints than what I would expect looking at my monitor, which appears washed out and too bright in comparison. Which device is "telling the truth"?

I see the Spyder info at the Datacolor site. One straps the colorimeter on one's screen and it does the rest? I don't see user controls on my monitor for color adjustments. Sure, brightness and contrast, but not hue / tint or saturation / color. Are those adjustments availabe in service menus?

Have you guys used the Spyder?

Thanks for your input.

 

[Reef Bass]

I watched the Spyder3 demo with Catherine Hall and it was very informative. It appears that the software / device makes changes by modifying the display driver's properties on the computer v. relying on the user to twiddle hardware settings on the monitor. Interesting.

So has anyone used one and were you happy with the results? Any compelling reason(s) to go with the pro v. express? The ability to make Gamma and color temp choices (pro) v. not (express) seem important. However, if I'm already setting the color temp of my images then having it be flexible on the monitor doesn't seem necessary. Is the ability to alter the gamma then worth double the price of the express version?

 

[IPT]

I can't remember what the most used Gamma is (I'm sure a quick Google search would reveal it). If the one without controls uses the standard (there are really 2 differenct choices that I recall)than it probably doesn't make much difference (though I am far from an authority on these issues).

I used the Spyder for my last CRT monitor and was happy. It actually made things darkers as I had it set too light. That may help your particular mismatch.

By using a calibrated monitor you can assure yourself that you are looking at the standard. Thus, any colors you choose will look exactly the same on someone elses monitor IF THEY ARE CALIBRATED TOO. That's the catch. To the best of my knowledge websites and internet is not using a standardized setpoint, and the odds are most people viewing your stuff online don't/won't have a calibrated monitor.

As for your printer, what you'll need (if you want it to match up perfectly) is a custom profile for you printer and each specific paper you use. This stuff can get really complex! If I recall the name properly, "Cathy's" profiles is supossed to be a good one and relatively cheap. The equipment to make your own profiles are thousands of dollars.

All that being said my new monitor is not calibrated! I just found that it looks OK to me and thus far what I post online looks the same (or within tolerable limits online) on any computer I've used to look at it. My prints also seem to match reasonably too (Epson 4000). Occasionally they are off a tad, but a layer or two of corrections and I am usually good (I always print strips of 1 or 2x7's to test colors etc). Once I have it done it is archived and I needn't worry about it again.

Hope that helped some and wasn't too all over the place regarding the scope of the topic.

 

[Reef Bass]

Definitely helped, thanks. I believe "standard" gamma is in the range of 2.2-2.4. Your point makes sense.

I've heard that the typical home theater monitor professional calibration can leave the screen less bright compared to the way the monitor leaves the factory with very bright presets, but ideally those displays are viewed in a darkened environment.

I ordered the Spyder 3 pro today. If nothing else I feel as though I have bought myself piece of mind knowing that my three monitors will be consistent. I hear your point about "Joe the Plumber"'s monitor probably being off. But as is the case so often in life, all you can do it get your own ducks in a row.

My guess is that my printer will much more closely match my monitor after I get my monitor dialed in, or hopefully at least close enough that the differences aren't worth compensating for (as subjectively viewed by me at my laziest).

 

[Reef Bass]

Spyder 3 pro received, installed and executed. Monitor calibrated!

I haven't taken the time yet to really scrutinize the new settings, but first impression is "Nice! Good job."

HUGE difference on my Dell 22" UltraSharp. My original complaints about it appearing way too bright and washed out are gone. It's still bright, just not annoyingly so. It looks more like a lucious crt display.

Casually and quickly comparing with my prints shows much closer match to overall brightness and tonality / saturation.

Currently calibrating my laptop's screen. I'm curious to see how it does there.

Easy install. Easy execution. Good looking display. :thumbsup: