Nicely Posed in the Snowstorm
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: George Kerby on 8 Feb 2010 16:10 On 2/8/10 2:03 PM, in article nospam.m-m-F736DC.15030908022010(a)cpe-76-190-186-198.neo.res.rr.com, "M-M" <nospam.m-m(a)ny.more> wrote: > In article <C795C8FE.3E2FD%ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com>, > George Kerby <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On 2/8/10 1:41 PM, in article >> nospam.m-m-D19AAC.14415208022010(a)cpe-76-190-186-198.neo.res.rr.com, "M-M" >> <nospam.m-m(a)ny.more> wrote: >> >>> I thought this was a lucky catch: >>> >>> http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/DSC_21427w.jpg >> >> Would be nice to be able to see it. > > > It's there. What are you getting? Now it's fine. The first time, it wanted a name and password for viewing. Being a native Houstonian, I never realized the soft reflectivity factor of snow, since it is so rare here. I assume that is what is providing the light on the birds' bellies. Very interesting.
From: M-M on 8 Feb 2010 17:14 In article <C795DA00.3E36E%ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com>, George Kerby <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>> http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/DSC_21427w.jpg > > Being a native Houstonian, I never realized the soft reflectivity factor of > snow, since it is so rare here. I assume that is what is providing the light > on the birds' bellies. Very interesting. That, but a little Photoshop helped also :) Interesting also that when you take a photo of snow on a sunny day, it comes out blue- reflecting the sky. -- m-m http://www.mhmyers.com
From: Observant One on 8 Feb 2010 18:00 On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:14:53 -0500, M-M <nospam.m-m(a)ny.more> wrote: >In article <C795DA00.3E36E%ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com>, > George Kerby <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >>> http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/DSC_21427w.jpg > >> >> Being a native Houstonian, I never realized the soft reflectivity factor of >> snow, since it is so rare here. I assume that is what is providing the light >> on the birds' bellies. Very interesting. > >That, but a little Photoshop helped also :) > >Interesting also that when you take a photo of snow on a sunny day, it >comes out blue- reflecting the sky. Composition is pretty bad overall, but with some strong cropping you could still get a decent composition out of it because the birds posed themselves fairly nicely. But why is it so blurry? Shot through a few panes of glass or something? Looks more like the DOF is so shallow that only the mid-point of the twig the male cardinal is sitting on is the part in focus. Aren't those giant sensors and huge apertures wonderful? Just checked the EXIF. Sheesh, f/5.6 and you still couldn't get both birds in focus. Yeah, I'll pass on those kinds of cameras, thanks anyway. When I'm shooting wildlife I have to make sure I have a useful image when I get back home.
From: M-M on 8 Feb 2010 20:40 In article <ha51n591hb9r2hh5pil1vtkih3fvu3k5vr(a)4ax.com>, Observant One <oo(a)hmmm.org> wrote: > Shot through a few panes of glass or something? That and the heat coming out of the house. -- m-m http://www.mhmyers.com
From: NameHere on 8 Feb 2010 20:50
On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:00:08 -0600, Observant One <oo(a)hmmm.org> wrote: >On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:14:53 -0500, M-M <nospam.m-m(a)ny.more> wrote: > >>In article <C795DA00.3E36E%ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com>, >> George Kerby <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/DSC_21427w.jpg >> >>> >>> Being a native Houstonian, I never realized the soft reflectivity factor of >>> snow, since it is so rare here. I assume that is what is providing the light >>> on the birds' bellies. Very interesting. >> >>That, but a little Photoshop helped also :) >> >>Interesting also that when you take a photo of snow on a sunny day, it >>comes out blue- reflecting the sky. > >Composition is pretty bad overall, but with some strong cropping you could >still get a decent composition out of it because the birds posed themselves >fairly nicely. > >But why is it so blurry? Shot through a few panes of glass or something? > >Looks more like the DOF is so shallow that only the mid-point of the twig >the male cardinal is sitting on is the part in focus. Aren't those giant >sensors and huge apertures wonderful? > >Just checked the EXIF. Sheesh, f/5.6 and you still couldn't get both birds >in focus. Yeah, I'll pass on those kinds of cameras, thanks anyway. When >I'm shooting wildlife I have to make sure I have a useful image when I get >back home. > Interesting. Using an online DOF calculator, if those birds were only 50 ft. away, your camera and lens would only have a useful DOF of 9.9 inches. I'm guessing that's probably pretty close to the situation, considering the blurriness and their seemingly apparent positions on the twigs. Or else they might even be closer, diminishing the DOF even further. In order to get the same useless DOF with that focal length on a 2/3" sensor P&S camera, I would have to use a 450mm EFL at about f/0.8 (? possibly even wider). Instead, I can always get a useful DOF of about 22 inches at f/2.0. But since my favorite wildlife P&S camera only opens up to f/2.4 at that focal length (f/2.0 at shorter focal lengths), then I get 26 inches of useful DOF to adequately capture both of those birds in sharp focus. The other upside is that I can shoot at that same ISO noise-free (easily) but use a shutter speed of 1/700s instead of the 1/125s that was used, which probably also added to your image blur. What with that shutter and mirror slap and all adding to the blurriness too. With a 1/2.5" sensor P&S camera then at widest aperture of about f/3.5 on most of them with that focal length, then you would get a 55 inch DOF at that distance with that focal length. Still a much more useful DOF and both birds would have been in sharp focus. Plus that's still 1.3 EV stops advantage, meaning it could be shot at a shutter speed of 1/320s. Well, that was a fun thing to calculate. 1.3 to 2.3 stops aperture advantage to the $250-$350 P&S cameras and both providing a useful DOF. Then you would have come back home with a useful printable image. Rather than what you have now. One that can't even stand up to being published at 968x648 pixels, which means it can't even be printed at 3-4 inches in size horizontally. Seems that an awful lot of money was used to attain all that wonderful DSLR blur that everyone brags on. What a shame. Boy, the cost of that thing must be really burning about now. Thanks for providing yet another example that proves P&S camera excel for wildlife photography. |