Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Advice needed please comment

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Advice needed please comment

    These are a quandary to me and I am after advice, in action shots like this is it critical to have a crisp focus on the birds, or as in this case does the sense of movement overcome that?



    Pied Wagtail dispute by Tony Taylor, on Flickr

    Pied Wagtail Argument by Tony Taylor, on Flickr
    Canon 1DX, 50D, EF500 F4.0 L, EF100-400 f/4.5-5.6L I , EF100-400 f/4.5-5.6L II, EF70-200 f/2.8L II, EF180 f3.5L Macro, EF 24-105 f/4L, EF17-40 f/4L, EF2.0X III, EF1.4X III, 430EX II, MR-14EX...

    #2
    Personally I like to see the movement in these kind of shots. It will split opinion much like shooting waterfalls with an ND filter.
    Canon 5D3, 7D2, 60D, Canon 70-200L f2.8 IS II, Canon 300 f4L IS, Canon 16-35 f4 L, Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, Canon 1.4 MkIII extender, Sigma AF 10-20mm f/3.5 EX DC HSM, Sigma 150-600 Contemporary, Tamron SP AF 70-300 F/4-5.6 Di VC USD, Canon EF-S 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6 IS
    https://www.flickr.com/photos/16830751@N03/

    Comment


      #3
      I’ve taken similar shot to these of squabbling starlings and my thought is that with the shutter fast enough to have the head sharp then some degree of blurring of the wings is perfectly acceptable to give some sense of action and movement to the picture. An example of this are pictures of humming birds where the head and body are sharp but the wings are blurred, it would look odd if they weren’t.

      Ian
      Ian

      Comment


        #4
        I think its a personal thing, there's no hard and fast rules of what a picture should be. There are people who will try and dictate what they consider it should be, been some on here in the past.
        They are two great action shots, I would give the same comment if you had frozen the wing movement. If you are happy with the shot Tony, that's all that matters.
        Trev

        Equipment - According to the wife more than a Camera Shop got

        Flickr:
        https://www.flickr.com/photos/trevb2639/

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Trev B View Post
          I think its a personal thing, there's no hard and fast rules of what a picture should be. There are people who will try and dictate what they consider it should be, been some on here in the past.
          They are two great action shots, I would give the same comment if you had frozen the wing movement. If you are happy with the shot Tony, that's all that matters.
          I agree with Trev. In both images one of the birds is sharp. When action suddenly occurs in front of you you don't have time to adjust settings, you just have to go with what you have and hope for the best. In this case it's worked very well for you.
          http://www.cbnatureimages.co.uk

          http://www.flickr.com/photos/101212171@N02/

          Comment


            #6
            Get much the same when I'm photographing the kestrels. Its very fortunate to get no wing blur when the birds are leaving/arriving. Even at 1/1500, when light is good enough.

            Like this shot for example, the head and prey are acceptably sharp and the wing blur shows movement
            Kestrel 2020-66 by tblake2007, on Flickr
            Canon 5D3, 7D2, 60D, Canon 70-200L f2.8 IS II, Canon 300 f4L IS, Canon 16-35 f4 L, Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, Canon 1.4 MkIII extender, Sigma AF 10-20mm f/3.5 EX DC HSM, Sigma 150-600 Contemporary, Tamron SP AF 70-300 F/4-5.6 Di VC USD, Canon EF-S 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6 IS
            https://www.flickr.com/photos/16830751@N03/

            Comment


              #7
              Tony if I took a shot that was as sharp as your images are, I would be over the moon, blurring of rotors or props on aircraft are what is required in these shots why not other flying machines, great photos Tony keep posting them blur or not.

              Comment


                #8
                I sometimes think it is easier to worry about the technical quality of a picture and underestimate the value of the emotional quality ( the response that a viewer may have).

                As humans we bring our emotion to whatever we look at and that applies to interpreting animal behaviour in human terms. It is this that can make a picture work emotionally.
                To explain what I'm trying to say take the second picture, the aggressive bird is slightly out of focus, the passive bird sharp. In human terms when we get emotionally angry or aggressive our thinking becomes a little fuzzy, if we are on the receiving end of aggression our thinking becomes quite sharp and clear. The picture captures those emotional responses in the fuzzy and clear elements so I think it works very well.

                So a lesson for me here as well, there are times to set aside the technical aspects and view with emotion and question whether the blur adds or subtracts from the feeling conveyed.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Yep we can get too concerned about the technical aspects. Still not sure about this one though
                  Kestrel 2020-125 by tblake2007, on Flickr
                  Canon 5D3, 7D2, 60D, Canon 70-200L f2.8 IS II, Canon 300 f4L IS, Canon 16-35 f4 L, Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, Canon 1.4 MkIII extender, Sigma AF 10-20mm f/3.5 EX DC HSM, Sigma 150-600 Contemporary, Tamron SP AF 70-300 F/4-5.6 Di VC USD, Canon EF-S 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6 IS
                  https://www.flickr.com/photos/16830751@N03/

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X