Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Blue Tit (Parus caeruleus)

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

Add Comment

Heres a Blue foriging for food in the branches

Brand:Canon
Camera:Canon EOS 7D
Lens:Canon EF 400.0 mm f/2.8 (35 mm equivalent: 1340.0 mm)
Recording media:JPEG (digital)
Date Taken:2 Mar 2013 - 12:04 PM
Focal Length:400mm
Aperture:f/7.1
Shutter Speed:1/500sec
Exposure Comp:0.0
ISO:2000
Metering Mode:Evaluative
Flash:Off, Did not fire
White Balance:Auto
Title:Blue Tit (Parus caeruleus)
Username:johnybegood johnybegood
Uploaded:2 Mar 2013 - 4:41 PM
Tags:Wildlife / nature, Wildlife birds
VS Mode Rating 100 (33.33% won)
These stats show the percentage of wins and the rating score that your photo has achieved. You can go to the VS Mode by clicking on this icon.

Signup to e2

Signup to e2 to see which photo this has won or lost against in the vs mode
Votes:19

Comments

Chrisjaz
Chrisjaz  3 France
2 Mar 2013 - 4:53 PM

Beautiful shot , so clear ,sharp and vibrant , the little blue tit is gorgeous

Nominating Constructive Critique

Please ensure that you understand what is meant by Constructive Critique - see FAQ here. If you still wish to nominate this comment click Yes

mcgannc
mcgannc  5389 forum posts England3 Constructive Critique Points
2 Mar 2013 - 5:42 PMConstructive Critique!This comment was flagged as constructive critique! 

My observation here is that the noise reduction/sharpen details work that has been done on this detracts from the final image. I know it's difficult when you need to crop, however if you know this when taking the shot then it's worth seeing what you can do to limit the noise you will get...knowing that it will be exaggerated when you crop in.

I noticed that your shutter speed looked a bit high and it made me think that you may get away with a slower speed - say 250 or 125 maybe. And also the aperture may possibly have been a bit larger - say 5.6. All this would allow to reduce the iso to a maximum of 1000 (potentially lower) and therefore reduce the amount of noise to remove. Obviously I don't know what the light was like for you but I know you've talked in the forums about noise so thought this might be a useful observation.

There's another shot that was uploaded recently that shows these sorts of settings and what can be achieved. I'm not saying the other shot is perfect, and it looks like they may have been much closer than you were to your subject but the exif info may be useful for you.

Cheers,
Chris

Nominating Constructive Critique

Please ensure that you understand what is meant by Constructive Critique - see FAQ here. If you still wish to nominate this comment click Yes

Jefflor
Jefflor  1 United Kingdom
2 Mar 2013 - 7:56 PM

Hi John, lovely shot.
Nice meeting you at Warnham today.

Jeff

Nominating Constructive Critique

Please ensure that you understand what is meant by Constructive Critique - see FAQ here. If you still wish to nominate this comment click Yes

DerekL
DerekL e2 Member 9101 forum postsDerekL vcard England23 Constructive Critique Points
2 Mar 2013 - 10:39 PM

Agree with "mcgannc", the use of a high ISO setting and over sharpening has spoilt the image.

It may have been cropped excessively also, or the original was underexposed, as there is a lot of artefacts noise visible in the image.

Nominating Constructive Critique

Please ensure that you understand what is meant by Constructive Critique - see FAQ here. If you still wish to nominate this comment click Yes

johnybegood
2 Mar 2013 - 11:18 PM

If I want critique I will ask for it, thank everyone that voted positively on my image

Nominating Constructive Critique

Please ensure that you understand what is meant by Constructive Critique - see FAQ here. If you still wish to nominate this comment click Yes

johnybegood
2 Mar 2013 - 11:19 PM


Quote: My observation here is that the noise reduction/sharpen details work that has been done on this detracts from the final image. I know it's difficult when you need to crop, however if you know this when taking the shot then it's worth seeing what you can do to limit the noise you will get...knowing that it will be exaggerated when you crop in.

I noticed that your shutter speed looked a bit high and it made me think that you may get away with a slower speed - say 250 or 125 maybe. And also the aperture may possibly have been a bit larger - say 5.6. All this would allow to reduce the iso to a maximum of 1000 (potentially lower) and therefore reduce the amount of noise to remove. Obviously I don't know what the light was like for you but I know you've talked in the forums about noise so thought this might be a useful observation.

There's another shot that was uploaded recently that shows these sorts of settings and what can be achieved. I'm not saying the other shot is perfect, and it looks like they may have been much closer than you were to your subject but the exif info may be useful for you.

Cheers,
Chris

Nominating Constructive Critique

Please ensure that you understand what is meant by Constructive Critique - see FAQ here. If you still wish to nominate this comment click Yes

johnybegood
2 Mar 2013 - 11:22 PM

because a 1200 lens was used the shutter speed has to be high, you will know this by the rule of thumb....?
Quote: My observation here is that the noise reduction/sharpen details work that has been done on this detracts from the final image. I know it's difficult when you need to crop, however if you know this when taking the shot then it's worth seeing what you can do to limit the noise you will get...knowing that it will be exaggerated when you crop in.

I noticed that your shutter speed looked a bit high and it made me think that you may get away with a slower speed - say 250 or 125 maybe. And also the aperture may possibly have been a bit larger - say 5.6. All this would allow to reduce the iso to a maximum of 1000 (potentially lower) and therefore reduce the amount of noise to remove. Obviously I don't know what the light was like for you but I know you've talked in the forums about noise so thought this might be a useful observation.

There's another shot that was uploaded recently that shows these sorts of settings and what can be achieved. I'm not saying the other shot is perfect, and it looks like they may have been much closer than you were to your subject but the exif info may be useful for you.

Cheers,
Chris

Nominating Constructive Critique

Please ensure that you understand what is meant by Constructive Critique - see FAQ here. If you still wish to nominate this comment click Yes

jimthistle73
2 Mar 2013 - 11:43 PM

Lighten up fella Smile You've been given some genuinely helpful advice. All we can do with such advice is scrutinise it, decide whether or not it's useful and either learn from it, or move on.

In this case, I'd have to agree with mcgannc's well put observations. If it was a "1200 lens", why does the EXIF say 400mm?

Composition is very good Smile

Nominating Constructive Critique

Please ensure that you understand what is meant by Constructive Critique - see FAQ here. If you still wish to nominate this comment click Yes

alistairfarrugia
alistairfarrugia Critique Team 2164 forum posts Malta88 Constructive Critique Points
3 Mar 2013 - 12:00 AMConstructive Critique!This comment was flagged as constructive critique! 

I think the lack of image stabilisation meant that your shutter speed had to be about 1/640 (400mm x 1.6 crop factor) if you are to follow the rule of thumb.
Your settings were: 1/500, on ISO 2000 and an aperture of f/7.1. I'll try to work out different settings for you that would give a similar exposure and the see the effect that would have on the picture.

Your aperture was 2/3 of a stop higher than f/5.6, so let's assume you could use 2/3 of a stop lower ISO (1,300 range) and used f/5.6 instead of f/7.1. That would already result in lower ISO. Now, since 1/500 is slower than the rule of thumb would have you use, let's assume you lose 1/3 of a stop of light and go up to a shutter speed of 1/640. By opening aperture further, to f/5.0, we could gain that lost 1/3 of a stop back.

From this step on, much depends on how far away you were from the bird. Going up to f/4.0 would enable you to go down to an ISO of around 640 - 800, which would give you much better noise results I guess, but the depth of field would probably be very limited to work comfortably on such a subject. I tried out some figures in online calculators and it seems that for a bird 10 metres away, you'd have a field of only 10 cm length at such a focal length, at f/4.0.

Given all these calculations, I think a high ISO was in a way a requirement here, particularly if the shot was hand-held rather than from a tripod.

Nominating Constructive Critique

Please ensure that you understand what is meant by Constructive Critique - see FAQ here. If you still wish to nominate this comment click Yes

johnybegood
3 Mar 2013 - 11:24 AM

Alistair Thank you for your critique, I now understand the calculations thank you for taking the time to investigate I should know all this being I was bought up on film, but being that I only had the shot in the view finder for a minute I stuffed up on the settings, the lens was on a tripod, in a hide, through a very small window on a block of wood, I have had the lens for about a month and still getting used to it,


Quote: I think the lack of image stabilisation meant that your shutter speed had to be about 1/640 (400mm x 1.6 crop factor) if you are to follow the rule of thumb.
Your settings were: 1/500, on ISO 2000 and an aperture of f/7.1. I'll try to work out different settings for you that would give a similar exposure and the see the effect that would have on the picture.

Your aperture was 2/3 of a stop higher than f/5.6, so let's assume you could use 2/3 of a stop lower ISO (1,300 range) and used f/5.6 instead of f/7.1. That would already result in lower ISO. Now, since 1/500 is slower than the rule of thumb would have you use, let's assume you lose 1/3 of a stop of light and go up to a shutter speed of 1/640. By opening aperture further, to f/5.0, we could gain that lost 1/3 of a stop back.

From this step on, much depends on how far away you were from the bird. Going up to f/4.0 would enable you to go down to an ISO of around 640 - 800, which would give you much better noise results I guess, but the depth of field would probably be very limited to work comfortably on such a subject. I tried out some figures in online calculators and it seems that for a bird 10 metres away, you'd have a field of only 10 cm length at such a focal length, at f/4.0.

Given all these calculations, I think a high ISO was in a way a requirement here, particularly if the shot was hand-held rather than from a tripod.

Nominating Constructive Critique

Please ensure that you understand what is meant by Constructive Critique - see FAQ here. If you still wish to nominate this comment click Yes

- Original Poster Comments
- Your Posts

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.