Hairy Woodpecker from today (pics included)

[WifeKidsandDog]

This little guy has been hanging around the feeder for a few hours today.

Cheryl P.

[Tom Wilson]

Very Nice Cheryl--Great job on the exposure by the way. Hard to properly expose black and white birds when they are backlit. I also have to say I'm jealous...My woodpeckers wouldn't touch the suet mixes with corn in them last winter. I think I threw away like 8 or 9 of them.

I also spent some time out today... Here's a snap of the only Hairy I had around today. I keep alot of them over the winter, but I haven't seen many yet this fall.

This was full frame cropped to vertical from horizontal--I didn't have time to reposition the camera on the pod.

[WifeKidsandDog]

WOW, great shot, Tom. Look at the detail and sharpness! What lens are you using and do you use a tripod? I just got the new Canon 70-300mm lens with image stabilization but I can't get the detail I want in bird shots, or the sharpness. I get very frustrated.

Beautiful lighting on your bird, too.

Cheryl

[The_Duckslayer]

I have Cedar siding on my house. Shooting one of them around here has a whole different meaning that what you guys are doing. Nice pictures! Have a good one././Jimbo

[Steve Foss]

Cheryl, I'm a Canon 20D shooter with the 100-400 image stabilizer as my go-to wildlife lens. It's quite likely Tom's image appears sharper than yours because it's been sharpened in post processing using software like Photoshop or any of a number of other programs. Even the free image processing software has the "sharpening" feature — it's one of the most important implements when processing images. Almost all digital images need some sharpening to bring out their best. Many cameras allow you to set how sharp you want the image to be rendered, but I don't sharpen my images with camera settings. I prefer Photoshop for that because it offers greater control.

Your glass is quite good. I know that lens.

Also, the measure of a lens is not how images shot with it appear online. Online resolution is only 72 dpi (dots per inch), because that's the standard for almost all consumer grade computer monitors. The real measure of the sharpeness of an image comes when you make a photographic print at 300 dpi. Many an image that looks sharp and sweet on the monitor is fuzzy when printed at high resolution.

It's a lot easier to make a shot look nice on the monitor than it is on the photo paper, so what you see here isn't necessarily what you get from the printer.

It's also worth noting that, while image stabilization (vibration reduction for the Nikon pukes ) is a great leap forward in technology and allows lower-light shooting with more confidence, it isn't a complete replacement for rock-steady hands or a tripod. I rarely use a tripod for my 100-400 anymore except for long exposures, but I still look for any solid surface nearby to rest the lens against. That may be a window sill, a tree, a rock or whatever (I carry a lightweight backpackers monopod, too, and that can make a HUGE difference.) Even with IS, it's better to have some type of anchor. Also, Cheryl, your woodpecker almost certainly was swinging some back and forth, since that suet holder is on a chain. Depending on what ISO you had set, you might be shooting slower than you ought to be. I keep the 20D on 400, because I've had great luck making really big enlargement shooting RAW at that ISO with very little digital noise. That's partly because the 20D sensor is quite advanced and clean. But it's always better to push the ISO up a stop in order to make sure your image is sharp than it is to keep the ISO low and lose the shot to blur. What body are you shooting with?

Also, if you're using a tripod, shut off the IS. It requires a certain amount of movement to operate correctly. Off a tripod, there's often not enough motion to make it work.

And, finally, not all Canon IS lenses are created equal. The 300 f2.8 IS, for example isn't considered as sharp a piece of glass by many shooters as the 100-400. That's because Canon had to design the 100-400 IS from the ground up, since they didn't offer that zoom before IS came to be. The 300 and 400 f2.8 lenses had been around already, so they were adapted for IS, not totally redesigned, and many pros say they aren't as sharp as the 100-400, nor are they as sharp as those fixed 300 and 400 mms from before that didn't have IS. I haven't shot those other lenses, and am going simply on the word of the other pros I've spoken with. But there are quite a few pro Canon shooters who are kicking themselves for selling their non-IS fixed 300 and 400 mms in favor of the IS equivalent, only to find they're not as sharp as the originals.

Your 70-300 IS is much more affordable than all the other lenses I've mentioned, but I know it to be very nice glass, and any problems you feel you have with sharpness most likely are not glass-related.

Jimbo: Don't let anyone see you doing it. It's a federal offense.

[Tom Wilson]

Cheryl,

STF is right on with his advice. I shot this with my Sigma 170-500 zoom on a monopod braced between my chest and the floor with my leg around the bottom of the pole for extra stability. The photo was given very minimal sharpening using only my Nikon view program. I never go to the extent to try and sharpen a photo with one of my larger programs in order to fix it. If it isn't sharp out of the camera, it won't be sharp no matter what you do. With that being said however, all digital photos should receive a very small degree of sharpening, and like STF said it is better to do this with a program than in camera. I also had a shutter speed of around 1/1000 of a second. I wish I could tell you not to get discouraged, but I went through years of that discouragement and for everyday that goes by, I feel I get that much better at taking photos. I wish you all the luck and I hope you continue to grow in your photography and continue to post your photos.

Tom W

[Steve Foss]

Cheryl, your composition is very good in the photos I've seen. While composition can be learned, it's far more about instinct than that thar book lernin. Your shot of the goose and ducks is a winner any way you look at it, and you can't teach the eye — you have it or you don't.

And you do.

Cool thing is, digital makes almost all experimentation easy and painless, compared with film. So rock on and shoot that sucker 'til the shutter wears out.

Thomas, as an example for Cheryl, what ISO setting did you use to achieve the 1/1000 shutter speed. The light was rich on the bird, but not especially bright . . .

[WifeKidsandDog]

Thanks for the advice, I appreciate it.

I should add, I shot the woodpecker through the window, so probably that didn't help much either

I do a little post-processing on my images, maybe a bit of levels/contrast adjustment and some slight sharpening but I guess I always want to 'get it right' in the camera. Tom, I'm like you in that if it's not sharp out of the camera, then I'm not interested in trying to salvage it.

Steve, I have a 20D. I upgraded from the Rebel a few months ago. I love the 20D but I have problems with camera shake with it. I think it's because I'm 5'2 and not much over 100 lbs so I don't absorb the shutter slap well, LOL. I've been toying with the idea of selling it and going back to the Rebel XT but I'd miss features of the 20D too much. That said, when I use the monopod, I can get super tack-sharp shots.

I just got the 70-300 lens. With the weight issue it's the best option for me as the longer/faster telephoto lenses are too heavy. Though, I know for birding, you can't have a long enough lens so it's a tradeoff. I also read you can use a 1.4x teleconvertor with the 70-300 and still get decent shots, so that way I'll get more reach without adding weight.

I am using a monopod more and more. This is my first lens with image stablization. Should I turn IS off when using the monopod or just the tripod?

Thanks again --

Cheryl

[Steve Foss]

Yeah, windows add another layer of glass between the subject and the sensor, and it's a rare window that is as clear as a really good camera lens.

For the record, I agree that an image that's not sharp out of the camera is very difficult to "save" in post processing. I've been able to make many images work at the 180 dpi of the newspaper I work with that won't print sharply at the higher standard, but it's always a lot of work to fix them.

I leave my IS on with the monopod, because, though the 'pod offers a pretty stable platform, there's still enough natural shake to enable the IS to work effectively. Monopod with IS is a total winner.

I shot the Rebel for quite awhile for the newspaper before upgrading on my own to the 20D. Hadn't really considered the different in shutter slap, but I do recall the Rebel has a more gentle shutter feel. I think, however, that getting used to the 20D will come with time, and it's so clearly got better features even than the XT that it's worth the time to acclimate. I also got the optional vertical hand/battery grip for the 20D. If you don't have it, I'd strongly recommend it. IS eats batteries 30 percent faster than non-IS, so it's nice to have two batteries working at the same time. Perhaps more importantly, I think it improves the overall balance of the camera and doesn't add too much weight (it's far lighter construction than the body itself.) I've also found that, because the grip has controls of its own, I shoot much steadier vertically using the grip than I did without it.

I have Canon's best 1.4x converter. It's crystal clear glass, but it stays in my camera bag. Only lenses that open to f2.8 or wider will allow the converter to be used on autofocus mode, and I don't have any lenses like that. My 100-400 has a max opening of f4.5, so I'm forced to manual focus with the 1.4 added on. So I'm selling the 1.4, if anyone's interested.

[WifeKidsandDog]

Quote:

---

Cheryl, your composition is very good in the photos I've seen. While composition can be learned, it's far more about instinct than that thar book lernin.

---

Well, thank you so much. I do like the duck shot. I have it printed in 11 x 14 and that daft goose cracks me up every time I look at it.

I meant to post earlier that I found your Web site in your profile and went and had a look -- loved your galleries!!

I think it is worth perservering with the 20D and I'll think about the grip (if only to build more muscle, ha ha). I've only been shooting for a year. I picked up a refurbished Rebel kit last year, didn't even know you could put different lenses on it and was shocked you couldn't do little movies with it.

But an obsession was born. I got a copy of Understanding Exposure by Bryan Petersen and taught myself to shoot in manual mode within a few weeks and I absolutely love photography. I think I have the most photographed black lab in history.

Anyway, I'll definitely keep trying and posting -- I never knew the forums were so active with photograhers.

Thanks again for your comments and advice. Much appreciated!

Cheryl

[buzzsaw]

Hairy/Downy... such a subtle difference....

[Tom Wilson]

Buzz,

I'm guessing by your post that you know that's a Downy. If you've ever gotten to see them side by side--there really are some differences, but until you see then both sitting at one feeder and can compare them--they can be tricky. Once you've seen it though--you can tell them apart from clear across the yard.

Tom W

[buzzsaw]

Yes, you are correct.. I know the difference. The Hairy WP is just plain bigger, like 3 inches and their bills are larger/longer than the Downy's bill.

[full force five]

That is a downy woodpecker.

Hairy's a much bigger, it would dwarf the feeder.

[buzzsaw]

Quote:

---

Hairy's a much bigger, it would dwarf the feeder.

---

A Piliated may dwarf the feeder but not a Hairy, they are bigger, but only like three inches bigger than those Hairy WP's. I can check my archives to see if I have any good pics of hairy's on my feeder... if not, I will get one and post it when I can.

[Dotch]

Fer sure. Always have to adjust me bifocals and decide if the things are big enough to be a hairy or if they're the more pint sized downy. After awhile I make the call, as if it's that important. Always a treat to have either one. I have to visit my Mom in SE MN tho to see those giants, the pileated's.

[Tom Wilson]

Had to dig through the archives here at home, but I found a couple closeups here that show the differences pretty well. It seems obvious when you look at closeups, but these little dudes can be hard to ID sometimes.

Downy

Hairy

[The_Duckslayer]

Quote:

---

Had to dig through the archives here at home, but I found a couple closeups here that show the differences pretty well. It seems obvious when you look at closeups, but these little dudes can be hard to ID sometimes.

---

Yeah, your not kidding... had to look at the photos several times to tell the difference and don't know if I would remember which is which if I saw one in the field. Thanks for sharing! Have a good one././Jimbo