|
slearch posted:This is a bird I can't identify, though I'd guess it's a young one by the fluff. My best guess is eastern phoebe. Are you in Eastern/central North America?
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2010 06:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 16:18 |
|
|
Cross-posting from Critterquest a Black-headed Grosbeak at the feeder.  California Towhee (missed the focus point on this a bit, so the sharpen tool looks a bit artificial to me).  Click here for the full 1024x683 image.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2010 07:05
|
|
|
A few shots from my recent trip to Brazil. Too bad I was too much of a wuss to bring my new DSLR, so these are with my old p&s. Still, it was hard not to accidentally take a pretty picture on occasion. A trogon  Euphonia:  male and female dacnis:  Hyacinth Macaws:   an aracari or toucanette  Potoo: 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2010 21:59
|
|
|
TomR posted:I'm not sure what type of bird this is. Is it just a blue jay? Belted Kingfisher- nice!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2010 01:31
|
|
|
Got inspired by the great photos posted here. Had a break in the rain this weekend, and shot these from my back stairs. t2i with 70-300IS, ISO 800. 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2010 05:07
|
|
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:Nice. I've been trying to get a decent shot of a Bush Tit myself for a while, but they are the jumpiest birds in the world and only have a vague interest in my feeders. Thanks- yeah, the bushtits they were after bugs on our plantings, not the feeder. They seem really bold until you pull out a camera. This was the first time I've managed to get half-decent pictures. Oh, and beautiful light on the coot, Dread Head. I'm so happy this thread is picking up steam again. A few more from the same day (hope this isn't too critter-questy).  Dark-eyed Junco  White-crowned Sparrow  Western Scrub-jay  Downy Woodpecker  Red-breasted Nuthatch 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2010 07:25
|
|
|
My lens isn't L glass or anything fancy, but it does have image stabilization which helps some for hand-holding. If you are having problems with stability, you might try a monopod or tripod (or beanbag/deck railing or whatever you have handy), which might get you another stop for ISO. You might check on-line reviews for your lens to see what kind of performance you should expect. I've been thinking about upgrading to a better telephoto or telephoto zoom, and from what I've been reading, apparently many of the lower priced lenses suck when shooting wide open at their longest focal length. Also, at feeders, you can to some extent pre-focus if you know where the bird is going to land. If your camera has slow or crappy AF, shooting MF might get you another few pics, which for flitty little birds might be all you need.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2010 18:50
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:
I pretty much agree with the comments above. You might get rid of the left most 15% or so, and maybe the bottom 10%. I think this would make for a better composition, although I'm not sure what size this will end up giving you. The bird isn't big enough to dominate the photo, so I think you need for it to be more offset from the center. I don't know much about color processing, but what you have seems kind of in between a "fresh, realistic" look and a purposefully antiqued look.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2010 06:35
|
|
|
VomitOnLio- love the pigeons. if you want id's- are you in europe or north america? Not sure what the cormorant was standing on but seeing feet and the whole tail is usually a good idea if you can manage it (or else have a tighter crop). Execudork- your towhee is a dark-eyed junco. The cardinal is nice- I think you probably found the best way to crop that, although you could play with taking a little more off the top and right side. Bahama.llama- the spoonbill is fantastic. edit- have some pics from a trip to Tucson- I'll try to pic a couple to post. I was a retard and turned off image stabalization on my 70-300 so have a whole day of blurry bird photos. grrr. Hummingbird (in an aviary- yes, I know that's cheating). I think costa's?  Gila Woodpecker- common bird but the best pic I got. they always seemed to be half-obscured by something.  Click here for the full 683x1024 image. Cactus wren (not cropped). This guy practically landed at my feet. Thought about trying to get lower but I'm pretty sure that would have scared him off. Also, so busy looking at his head didn't notice I chopped off his tail.  Click here for the full 1024x683 image. BetterLekNextTime fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Jan 6, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2011 19:07
|
|
|
^^^ Beast- I think those are really nice, especially if you were just walking around, it what looks like was fairly boring light. To be nitpicky, it almost looks like the focus on the nuthatch got the trunk rather than the bird? On the first hawk, I wouldn't mind seeing the face a little lighter, maybe a quick dodge brush in post?Bahama.Llama posted:
Bahama.Llama- it occurs to me I don't know what this is. Is it warbler size or tanager size? Love the buntings- I think you posted a couple of feeder shots earlier, and I like seeing the ones on natural perches. Very jealous that you have these in your yard!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2011 21:50
|
|
|
I'd believe yellow-throated vireo- nice! My head was in SE Arizona birds. I did a southern Florida bird trip a few years ago but just had an OLD nikon P&S camera then. I'd love to go back. The latest Audubon magazine came to my house, and they had the results of a recent photo contest. I think my favorite one so far may be the 2nd place amateur shot of the snowy owl.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2011 04:53
|
|
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:
Tell me about it... 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2011 08:21
|
|
|
Bahama.Llama posted:Althought the 100-400 is nice, I prefer the 400 f5.6 prime. I thought the faster AF and the $400 cheaper price tag was worth trading for the loss of flexibility and IS. I've been extremely happy with it and suggest it to anyone. I saved for about a year and would do it again in a heart beat. Sometimes I wish it was faster in the lower light situations, but then I keep reminding myself that it was $1200, not $6000. Judging from how crappy my pictures look when I forget to turn on the IS on my 70-300, I think IS is pretty much mandatory for me... Of course, for the price difference between the 400 and 100-400 I could sell my T2i and get a 60D.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2011 20:35
|
|
|
I have a couple of tripods, but don't use them often enough (for bird photography, at least). If I get serious enough about wildlife photography to the point that I'm usually out doing that instead of birding, I might think more about a longer prime like the 400. For now I'm taking a lot more pictures if I can just bring the camera and hand-hold it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2011 02:25
|
|
|
MrOpus posted:A bird thread! I just got my first DSLR about a year ago (Nikon D3000) though I have been taking pictures for awhile. One of my first purchases for it was a Nikkor 70-300mm These are nice! I think the woodpecker is the best one. Also one of my favorite birds. I've never seen a nest before. You could try cropping it a bit- the brighter sky on the left side draws your eye away from the woodpecker, although at the same time it makes the woodpecker a little more hidden/less obvious, which usually isn't good but in this case maybe adds more intimacy to the bird popping out of his nest. For what it's worth, the other birds are: boat-tailed grackle, royal tern, and (I think- it's kind of dark) willet. I like the grackle photo, but I can't help wishing it was a little more cropped to feature the bird more and see more details of the face, or else that you had caught the bird not looking directly at you, in which case you could have composed it more off-center. Just a nitpick- again, these are nice.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2011 23:45
|
|
|
^^^^ Kiri Koli- those are nice photos- no need to apologize! Faltion- NENE !!!! I missed those on my one trip to Kauai. Beautiful rooster too. We're having an early spring out here in CA, and the plum trees are starting to bloom. Not the best photos but at least a different backdrop for my backyard birds...  Click here for the full 1024x683 image.  Click here for the full 682x1024 image.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2011 05:11
|
|
|
^^^^^ It's called "habitat"  I had a bad experience with a film-maker once. He had a blind with a close shot of a bird nest I was studying, and there was one piece of grass in the shot. He got out of his blind to clip it, spooked the bird who abandoned the nest and caused it to fail. After that I've always thought twice before clipping something just for a shot.Foreground veg can be annoying, but I actually like it in your shot. I don't think the bird would have been quite as interesting without something else going on. Some gloomy day birds shot through my back window. Hard to say how much of the crapiness is due to that or to pretending my t2i can shoot at ISO 800.   This is my first time linking to picasa- anyone know how you get the photo that is also a link to the album?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2011 05:58
|
|
|
Thanks! Although maybe I'm doing something wrong at high ISO because I've never been super-satisfied (or maybe I'm expecting too much) I just ordered a 60D and 70-300L... Not many bird photos yet from Wyoming, but I'll try to post a few here and there. Hopefully will have lots of rad sage-grouse photos soon. Rough-legged Hawk  also Big Floppy- you captured a great moment with the cardinal and blue jay! Dread Head- love the towhee as well. What an eye!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2011 02:11
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:I'm an idiot for wanting so much to get a good shot of a raven, aren't I? I mean, look at it: That's pretty tough. You're almost better trying just for the silhouette in those conditions- if you can get one flying overhead (or in a turn where you can see both wings), it can look pretty good. Or go somewhere the ravens are a little more tame. I was in Yellowstone last year and there were ravens taking food out of people's hands and caching it under buffalo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2011 22:18
|
|
They know about cameras and just hate me 
|
Just got my 60D and 70-300L last week. Love the camera and the lens so far but I haven't had much chance to use them yet. Yes, something longer would be nice, but I was pretty impressed with how well this lens did in relatively low light, and how I could crop images like this one and not have it look so horrible. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2011 04:17
|
|
|
More raven photos! Not super sharp but kind of a cool perspective. InternetJunky- if you are in grouse territory again in the spring, look up the local wildlife office (Department of Game and Fish/Fish and Game/Natural Resources), and they may be able to direct you to a "public" lek to see the birds. The grouse are pretty tolerant of blinds (and sometimes vehicles as long as you are quiet and don't get out of the car). It's a pretty awesome to spend a morning on a lek if you get the chance. Oh, and that's pretty amazing to catch the waxwing tossing back a berry! ^^^^^ That's a cool looking grackle too.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2011 04:48
|
|
|
^^^^ Awesome photos. Everything looks good except... wait- is something wrong with your tail?  Yes, yes there is... 
BetterLekNextTime fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Mar 25, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2011 23:28
|
|
|
tuyop posted:How do you guys identify birds? Is there a program somewhere or is it just a matter of reading a lot about birds? I grew up learning birds, but it really is about practice- looking through a field guide of some sort, then getting out there and either shooting lots of pics or looking through binoculars. Hopefully hooking up with someone who knows the local birds who can help you ID things. Still trying to get a good flying grouse shot. This one at least has a nice spread of the tail and wing feathers. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2011 20:37
|
|
|
tuyop posted:Great job on the action but I think it's a little bit underexposed. Thanks- yeah- I'm still getting the hang of adjusting things on my new camera and learning what my light meter is telling me. The morning light has been great some times and horribly grey other times. A couple more (these are very photogenic birds).  
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2011 23:33
|
|
|
This is great advice- the older books are fine- a few species get split/lumped by the ornithologists by the time each new edition gets published, but you'll just be retro cool if you call something by the old name. If you feel like spending a little more to get a newer guide check out the Sibley guides. A few more sage-grouse:   More critter-questy than a fantastic photo, but a rough-legged hawk tried to take on a grouse, then thought better of it at the last minute. But they look like best friends in this picture! 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2011 23:03
|
|
|
PREYING MANTITS posted:Sibley and Audubon both released e-guides for the iphone/ipad/android/blackberry phones recently too, if you've got one of those. I just picked up the Android version of the Audubon guide, it's currently on sale for $9.99 whereas the Sibley one is $29.99. Handles itself a lot like the websites, but it hasn't failed to ID a bird I've thrown at it yet. Thanks! I have iBird(pro) on my iPhone. It's a nice resource, but I imagine it would be pretty hard to use if you were really just starting out. Haven't tried out the Sibley or Audubon apps yet.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2011 17:11
|
|
|
^^^^^Wow- the second one in particular is just breathtaking. Really fantastic. Also love that pigeon. Is that a crazy breed of domestic rock pigeon or is that some other species? I just had a look at a crazy new bird guide to Eastern US birds- it's called the Crossley ID Guide. It is a photographic guide, with one image per species, but each "photo" is really many, many separate photos of the bird photoshopped together into the same scene (foreground, background, everywhere). Basically an OCD photoshop collage. I certainly wouldn't recommend it as your only guide, but it is kind of interesting and different.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2011 18:59
|
|
|
I think it might be good if you got a look (or photo) that didn't exactly match a field guide. Also, some of the tiny photos probably would be the most helpful (e.g. telling apart very distant birds like loons or ducks, etc). I suppose having the ecological setting featured as much as it is could be useful in some cases, although it would probably lead you astray at other times. However, this book is big enough there's no way you'd want to bring it as a field guide, so you'd have to remember what you saw, or have gotten a photo of some sort. I totally agree with you that the illustrated guides are the way to go.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2011 00:10
|
|
|
I was going to post something almost identical (except not as good- the bird was pretty far). Instead, some sex and violence. Hmm, what's this?  HEY!  SHE'S MINE!  POW! 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2011 22:57
|
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:Some Sanderlings (I think). My first birding attempt, taken with my Sigma 70-300mm APO. Looks like Western Sandpipers. Nice shot! I wonder if you could play with the highlights/shaddows a bit to see more of the face of the one on the left, and lower the highlights on its belly.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2011 00:56
|
|
|
Had a close encounter with a meadowlark this morning. Unfortunately only had my bridge camera and no tripod, it was still almost dark, and it was windy. Still probably my best meadowlark photos, although I think I like ones of the birds singing more even if they were from much farther away. (These are uncropped) No flash- +2 stops in post  with on-camera flash 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2011 16:22
|
|
|
I've been hearing Sage Sparrows everywhere, but have only seen them a handful of times this year, and typically just zipping through or perched on a too-distant bush. Finally had some luck this morning though. These are cropped pretty heavily but are definitely my best pics of this guy to date. 
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2011 16:44
|
|
|
Western Kingbird from an interstate rest area.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2011 21:04
|
|
|
Thanks! I probably would have cropped it tighter but I wanted to get some blue sky in it. I got some closer shots but they only had cloud in the background.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2011 22:27
|
|
|
brown thrasher, but let's keep the more imaginative answers coming...
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2011 17:36
|
|
|
^^really nice, Slo-tek Shot through my kitchen window... (pacific-slope flycatcher) 
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2011 02:50
|
|
|
I've got those AND these in my yard. 
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2011 05:01
|
|
|
demonachizer posted:3 options to choose from: Do you already have a tripod? You'd need that for the 400mm- although it would still probably make it the cheapest option. I'd guess the 100-400 would be best if you are planning to mainly do hand-held, since it would still have IS and would be a lot lighter than the 70-200 2.8. I think they are coming out with a new 200-400, but if I remember it was going to be a bit pricier... the 70-300L is pretty great but not quite as long as you are looking for. I just ordered a 1.4x kenko extension tube for it. I know it will be pretty slow but will hopefully give me some extra range when I can handle the slowness.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2011 20:05
|
|
|
I don't know- don't have those unfortunately! My guess is you would end up fairly close? But if the 70-200 2.8 is at all an option, I'd seriously consider that since you'd have it for all kinds of other shots as well. I also wonder about the 300/4 + a 1.4x ?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2011 20:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 16:18 |
|
|
Yeah- those are fantastic shots. (as were yours, PM) For what it's worth, my Kenko 1.4x extension tube arrived yesterday. Unfortunately didn't get home until after 8 so had very little light to play with it. I tried it with my 60D and 70-300L. I'll try to get some better shots to post, and try to do some controlled comparison- cropping the 70-300 alone vs. the 70-300+1.4. My initial observations were that the teleconverter "works" fine- AF, IS, camera knew it had a max f8.0 with the lens. I took some hand-held shots at ISO 1600 and 1/15 or 1/30 and the IS on the lens is good enough to come away with decent pics. I'm not one of those super-steady hands guys so this kind of surprised me. AF was noticeably slower, and seemed to hunt around a lot more. It reminded me of the AF on my old 70-300IS nonL. I haven't downloaded the pics yet so I can't really comment on sharpness, but my sense was that there was a drop in sharpness too, although I'm not sure my 5 min of shooting at an ISO I rarely use provides a good comparison. So far my suspicions are confirmed- that the 1.4x will be pretty useful for slow moving birds that I'm likely to be shooting in good light but can't get super-close to (raptors, waterbirds), but certainly not something I'll leave attached to my lens all the time.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2011 18:12
|
|