Previous Thread Image Limit Reached: >>4474697Incidental Northern Mocking bird outside my balcony. Didn't have a picture of one yet.
The composition here looks boring. Should I crop more?
>>4487837It's a boring photo, cropping won't help. You should have gotten closer to eye level. Put your camera right above the water level next time. The light isn't doing you favors either.It's not your fault, this is a genre where true real keepers are very few and far between and more luck than anything. Just get out there more and consider the forecast. You can use windy.com or nws hourlies for cloud coverage forecasts. Fog looks cool too.
>>4487958noI greatly enjoy seeing a bunch of non-perfect photos and common birds too, the web is already filled with great shots
>>4487971I knowCan you define real photography?
Got a lot of good shots today. Will make edits over the next day or two. Really happy with the male and female mergansers I got. They'll be near the end.
>>4488104>Green Heron>Mostly blueWhat did ornithologists mean by this
Fast moving Red-crowned Amazons. Couldnt zoom in fast enough to get more detail of the in-flight group, but I got some great perched ones later in my set.
>>4488128This is beautiful
>>4488131>bird posting thread>see beautiful birds>mad cause it's not national geographic qualityAnon go be upset somewhere else
>>4488131Yeah, that kind of happens when you're shooting up into basically nothing except tree tops. Here's a rare Mandarin Duck I got today. Lighting was poor and it was stationary under an acorn tree for most the time I spent observing it.
>>4488164Thats just the plumage in poor light; its not going to look good, denoise or not.
>>4488167I don't think you're comprehending. You're also being unreasonably argumentative. Poor lighting will hide details. Denoising will clear the noise and make the poor details more visible. The "smudging" is not because of the denoising, it's because of the poor lighting. My focus was fine.
>>4488177I can give you the raw. Put up or shut up.
>>4488185AF box was on the eye and at f/10; focus was fine. You're now complaining about editing and won't take the raw because you're an armchair warrior. I'm disengaging from this conversation with you.
first time out with new cam
>>4488301
>>4488316
>>4488394
>>4488395Ostriches be curious
>>4488413Dang, reversed the posting order
>>4488770Are you special or something? Downsampling improves bayer bullshit
>>4488771downsampling to 4mpx? u serious nigga?
>>4488771LOOK AT MY RESAMPLED BIRD
>>4488800kek what a retard
>>4488801what happen
Revision on a take from a few weeks ago
>>4488961It's a juvenile
>>4489010nice shot.Curious, what focal length and how far away?
>>44890231/500, ISO 500, f/8, 371mmHad to of been inside 15 feet, though I can't recall specifically
Did some Friday after work birding down at our local costal park. Got an uncommon gull for this area.
>>4487815look at my birds bitches
>>4489302
>>4489324
>>4489325this concludes my birds series I shot today on my phone
>>4488975really nice, anon. you've got talent. probably the only one in this thread.
Recently went to Puerto Rico.Saw this hummingbird on a walk, and was lucky I had my camera in hand.
>>4489436
common koel
>>4489329Samefag
>>4489436>>4489437Nice, especially the first, but they could use some increased luminosity
>>4489578Thanks.New-ish to editing and color blind, so I've got a lot working against me (also this was at F11, 1/5000th on a 100-400 + 2x tele)Not sure if I should just crank the exposure or something else here...
>>4489674In low light situations, there are a couple things you want to typically adjust for.1. Shoot wide open to get the maximum amount of light possible2. Adjust shutter speed (subject dependent). You'll obviously get more exposure with a longer shutter speed, but with a target like your humming bird you're limited to a faster shutter speed.3. Look at your histogram, ideally it should be 2/3 on the right. If it's not, you're probably underexposed and should adjust your exposure compensation on your camera to bring it up. There's also an artistic aspect to exposure compensation, where some might purposefully under or over expose to get their intended shot.
>>4489720I'm not new to photography, just to editing and posting my pics lol.F11 is as wide as my lens goes with a 2x converter, and 1/5000 is needed to freeze hummingbird wings. This was also 12800 or 16000 iso IIRC.Since I'm colorblind I have to edit with histograms so I never know if what I'm doing is right, haha.Thanks for the tips though.
>>4489817Anyways, enjoying taking photos while colorblind feels like this.(Pigeon walking around the walls of Castillo San Felipe del Morro in PR)
>>4489818sick. I am going to PR this winter. bringing camera of course. I prefer wimbrels
>>4489817You're doing pretty well considering you're colorblind. If it's Deuteranopia you're pretty fucked, but if it's just some minor red-orange colorblindness then it shouldn't be a huge deal.>F11 is as wide as my lens goes with a 2x converterAre you shooting a 400mm f/5.6? with a 2x? Can't really get any better of a setup for 800mm without spending $10,000>This was also 12800 or 16000 isoThis is completely personal opinion, but if I was shooting this high of an ISO I would be turning NR off completely and shooting B&W. The chroma noise disappears and the luma noise is tolerable. In some cases it can look like a faux B&W film this way (but grain looks way better than luma noise ever will). Yes you lose the vibrant colors, but you're colourblind anyway so if anything it would be far easier for you to see what the photo looks like for other people.
>>4489860Yep, snoy 100-400. I can't afford a 300 f2.8I prefer it over the 200-600 because of size/weight, and I use it for landscape as well.I'm not afraid of iso, and I did not denoise or really crop this image at all. It was actually fairly ETTR'd so 16,000 looks ok. Just seems a bit blocky because of the compression down to 4-ish mbPicrel is a cat in my hotel room.
>>4489857Nice!I had a lot of fun. It's great for birds, but I kind of regret not going out specifically to shoot wildlife.I just got a bunch of random pics on resort or around old San Juan.Also, it's much pricier than say, Mexico. I was blindsided a bit.Picrel random bird on an umbrella at the resort. Not sure what this is, but they were everywhere.
>>4489881Looks to be a species of grackle. Not sure which, there's a handful of black variations depending on region.
>>4489817How does it look better than m43 ISO 800?
>>4489875Great shot desuI don't know much about color blindness, but if it's only affecting the perception of colors it shouldn't be an issue regarding fixing what I pointed out on the previous shots - which is only related to tonality (underexposure). But I'm not colorblind so I could be wrong
>>4490118Not sure if gearbaiting, but better dynamic range because FF is 3-4x the sensor size so noise is amplified.Anything beyond the 2 stop DR difference is due to ETTR (more signal to overwhelm the noise. High ISOs from any sensor can look pretty much fine with sufficient light.
Those little chirpsters defy gravity
where are birds in winter
>>4487815Eurasian blackbird
Still practicing, I haven't started doing post production but here are a few I recently took
1/2Lucky I got this close. Shot on a d610 with a 300 and a 2x teleconverter
2/2He left to get dinner
Great horned owl at dusk. D610 with a 300
>>4490833I hadn't considered using a teleconverter and was hesitating buying a 600mm lens. Thank you for telling anon
>>4490842Yea fren I wanted to expand into some bird stuff because I see a ton of them while landscape hunting, but I didn’t want to spend $5k on some crazy 600. I got an old af nikkor 300 1:4 and I use the tc200 to reach out to 600. In daylight with that bitch as wide open as possible I was able to get some fun photos. Just make sure you get a tripod/monopole. My hands shake too much to even use that 300 sometimes. With that tc 200 it’s impossible for me to purely freehand https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/tc200.htm
>>4491533Attempted to get a little artsy with a badly lit image. There was an Osprey circling trees to grab branches for what I'm assuming was building a nest. Captured the above but it was strongly backlit and couldn't pull out much detail. There was also an unidentified raptor sitting in the tree while it was swooping in. Couldn't quite make out what kind but I know some Merlins were in the area. Decided to turn it into a black and white. Here's the Osprey in question from a better lit position.
Not a bird shooter. But too beautiful to not snap a pic.
Cedar Waxwing
>>4491724literally none of that
>>4491733>a good photodefine that
>>4491739That wasn't the ask. If you can't define what's considered good then good becomes subjective and you're attempting to gatekeep at that point like a good little commie.
>>4491741>npc can't extrapolate that information for himselfYou can't and you're deflecting. It's ok to go away. Being an adult is knowing when you're wrong.
>>4491749thanks. i used to go birding as a kid but recently took it back up as a 34 year old
i wish the light was right for this mfer
So cold and windy in the UK at the moment. Saw a few redwings and dunnocks and this robin that seemed as cold as I was.
>>4491889Fuck you that's why
>>4491891That's my first post with the trip, not my first post on the board. Seethe more, nophoto faggot.
>>4491898Sherlock Ranjeet, the nophoto faggot, lmao.
>>4491903Oh no, a nophoto faggot just called my photos snapshots. I'm devastated. I'll never recover from this.Kys ranjeet.
>>4491903>rajeshi
This is bird photo I didn't mean to take. Tripped over a dead ash log and hit the shutter release as I fumbled about trying not to fall face first into beaver pond muck.
>>4491921Nophoto faggot bitches about putting in zero effort. Have we hit rock bottom yet?Fuck your grandpa then kys ranjeet.
>>4491958As a valuable contributor to the board, Burt is entitled to his opinions. As a nophoto faggot, you are not. Thanks for confirming you are a jeet tho, explains the seething and schizophrenia.
>>4492097Two different hobbies that share the same foundation. Youre comparing a home cooked meal to fine dining. Don't be a cunt.
>>4492101Its incredible how much you must hate yourself. Get help.
>>4492101Please post some of your clearly amazing "real" photography work.
>>4492126Oh, so you don't have any, because you don't actually take pictures.You can come out and say you like the theory and science behind photography but don't care for actually participating in the art. Being this passive aggressive is just really weird.
>>4492126Cope friendless fatty. Show us your pics of all the sex you have since you're not a birder.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emIrhLNt2sE
>>4492397Thanks for sharing.
Anyone else ever been shit on by a thousand birds when a black couple comes up from behind you and throws an entire box of crushed up ritz crackers at a murder of seagulls?
The Merganser
>>4487397>>4487398>>4487399>>4487400>>4487401To whomever posted these in the last thread, you should feel a near crippling amount of shame for letting these image files get above even 3MB. More than half of these are close to 5. The lack of care to slide a JPEG compression slider is incomprehensible. This wasn't even all of the images I could find: the site wouldn't let me list them all because it thought my message was spam. Rip your fingernails off with pliers and then dip your fingers into vinegar as punishment.
Pair of many-colored rush tyrant from my first ever roll of film, what do you guys think? Is analog bird photography viable?
>>4492749dial up indian internet?
>>4492749Moving forward, I will attempt to make every image I post exactly 5mb in size, only because I can't post them larger. I would love to post every one as a 500mb 4x upscale TIFF file only so I can see you cry more.
Not much I could do it with since the bird was miles out, but I got a shot of a bald eagle the other day
Why stop with the back of peoples heads?
>>4493223rock leaves peoples backs -> birdo bacc building corner X2/10 lacks at least a building corner
>>4493244horrid shiet the tick symbol doesnt appear
>>4493266>tell me you've never seen foreground blur without telling me you've never seen foreground blur
>>4493276You're retarded
>>4493286Looks like a masking error to me. You're still retarded.
My photography teacher said not to take pictures of geese but I don't care and I'm having lots of fun with my first telephoto lens >:3
I do have a hard time getting focus on birds in flight. I usually try and keep my lens as wide open as possible, but wondering what general settings for aperture / shutter speed I should be aiming for when trying to take a picture of a bird flying overhead.
Also, if anyone has advice on spot modifying pictures, that'd be great. I wanted the dirt being flung by this northern flicker to really pop, but all I know how to do is modify global image settings.
>>4493292If you nail the focus apparture shouldnt matter as much as shutter speed. I did this on with 1/400 and there is still a visible blurr in the wings. f5.6 on the 70-300 from canon with my 6DModern cameras can even detect animals and follow them with the focus point with continous focusing....and I was thinking the old capture was fucked up. Holy shit.
Bird up
My Sony 18-135mm doesn't take good bird pictures unless it's literally tied to its handler and I want a lens with longer reach.Would I regret switching my Sony 18-135mm for the Tamron 18-300mm (59,501 yen new before tax refund, which seems stupid good) due to the weight + bulk + slightly decreased picture quality?Or would I regret having to carry an extra lens by getting the Sony 70-350mm (93,400 yen new, 86,600 yen used before tax refund)?
>>4493449Forgot pic.
Vole's view
Observed Osprey gathering nesting material.
>>4494115>he cropped his cropped crop for reach
>>4494127>always shitposting>never posting birds>small dick energy
Male and female pair
Out of focus birbs
>>4493449Most bird photography is done at (FF equivalent) 400-600mm. Sigma makes a cheap decent 100-400mm lens you could get.However, if you aren't doing wild birds your mid zoom should be good. In fact, I quite like wider angles on birds, most bird photography just looks way too cropped. You'll probably be fine wisuper zooms.Anyway to answer your question, it's personal taste but I'd get the 70-350 over the superzooms. Take a look at your photos exif and see how often you need the 18-70 range back to back with the 70+ range and you should know if swapping lenses is a pain or not.
based
>>4494304Wow that is a lot
>>4493291>My photography teacherkill that fag
>>4493449I bought the 70-350g and i regret not going for a longer lens but it's fine
>>4493449i have the tamron 18-300 and paid full 900$ for it only to be on sale for 400$ not even 4 months later. pics ar hit and miss some are fucking sharp some look like shit some have CA like hell some have minimal. 70-350 is considered as the best bang/buck for sharpness in that range18 300 has buit in stabilization so does the sony, can;t tell which one is better. but ppl say the sony is. i barrowed the sony from a fried so i don;t have too much time with it but is clearly sharperthe pro of the tamron is that if you don't care that much of super sharpness will be the mount and forget lens. AF is ok if the target is not moving fast towards youit s an ok lens at the end of the day.
>>4494469i don;t regret not getting the sony as you would need to spend more money on another lens to cover 18 70 mm range and changing lenses is a pain in the ass, as i found out a couple of days ago in -13*C. so i said fuck it and shoot everything with the tamron.if you are going for some niche segment like birding go for best sharpness and reach. if you want an every day lens that does an "ok/good enough for me" job get the tamron.also you will quick find out that 300 - 350 reach is not enough
>>4494469>>4494476pics are sooc as i have no ideea wtf i m doing in lrc
online reviews say is not that sharp at 300. max sharpnes is 100-200 at f8-f11.all pics posted are at 300 f6.3 using af on bird eyes
here i ve tryied using manual focus and failed
>>4494495Thanks friend. Changing lens is indeed a pain in the ass and I have not changed lens while outside even once ever since it got cold.When I go for walks and look for things to shoot, a lot of time it's birds, but sometimes, it's insects and flowers too so the 1:2 macro of the Tamron should be useful.I'll try to grab one when I head to Japan in February.
>>4494713Keep in mind that 0.5 mag is only at 18mm. Hand stacking is imposible asyou will have size distorsion and the lens can focus at 5mm in front of the lens, so you only have 5mm or less to work with. Focus bracketing works well if your camera has that function. All you need is good lighting and a tripod or steady handsThread reached image limit so i cannot post some of my semi macro attempts. both single shots and staking so you can make some ideea about macro potential
>>4494509What are they doing?
>>4494952stacking, did yuo rily thought that only photogs can do stacks? pigeons/doves are slowly gettin on your level and you cant do anything bout it
