I have spent many hours photographing Burrowing Owls over the past two summers but it’s a real challenge to get clear shots of them as they typically stay on the ground and are usually at least partially obscured by vegetation. For me it’s a real coup to get one on an elevated, natural perch in good light.
Last week I had a wonderful opportunity with them and simply blew it. As we approached our “owl spot” we noticed that there were three of them perched up high on a sagebrush in beautiful early morning light. I maneuvered my pickup for the best light angle I could get and to obtain separation of the owls from each other. Everything perfect. And all three birds gave us a variety of interesting poses for several minutes.
I had noticed that the owl on the left was perhaps a foot (or slightly less) closer to us than the other two birds so I was concerned about depth of field. I seldom shoot multiple subjects and typically with only one bird I’m shooting at f/6.1 – f/8 depending on the situation. Knowing I needed more DOF here I dialed in f/13 thinking that would be plenty to get all three birds sharp. The image below is typical of the results I got.
Burrowing Owl – Canon 7D, 500 f/4, 1.4 tc, 1/200, f/13, ISO 500, cropped to 77% of original image
The owl on the left is noticeably soft. That is quite apparent at a larger image size, say 1200 pixels, though not quite so obvious at this size. I’m very disappointed as I had three great subjects in excellent light, on a natural perch, with a wonderful background and good poses. I don’t think the cause of the softness was motion blur, even at 1/200 second, because the birds mostly held still and it was always the same bird that was soft. While I was shooting I tried to focus at a mid-point in depth between the birds at times but it didn’t seem to make a lot of difference.
I’d guess that I was about 35 feet from the birds. If anyone reading this has an educated estimate of what aperture I should have been at in this situation to get all three birds sharp I’d appreciate your thoughts. I don’t want to muck up a similar opportunity again!
Ron
Such a great blog, Ron! On this particular image I wonder if taking three images and combining them would work. That “focus stacking” approach is increasingly common now in macro photography. Usually with birds we can’t do it because the birds don’t stay still for long. However, these three look pretty stationary! Also, with the frame rate of the 7D and using servo mode in the autofocus you could likely obtain enough of a variety of images to have three worth combining. I’ve encountered a similar problem with groups of swimming ducks. The slight movement of the ducks makes things a bit more difficult then. Such a fun picture here regardless!
Steve
Thanks for the tip Dietmar. Actually, since I made this post, I’ve spent some time with dofmaster and it has helped to give me a better feel for DOF. Big lenses just don’t give you much “wiggle room” and that sure can be frustrating at times.
@Ron, a bit late, but maybe still interesting for you.. maybe it helps to play with the DoF-calculator on http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html to get an understanding what certain stop/focal length/distance-combinations will achieve.
I was surprised on how big the f-numbers need to be in macro-photography to bring a decent DoF
cheers,
Dietmar
Our photographic mistakes are opportunities, we learn from them.
A definite bummer, but I’m not sure you could have managed enough DOF to cover all three owls even at the minimum aperture of your lens.
In such situations I always check the shot with my depth-of-field preview button to see if I’ve got enough DOF. It takes a bit of practice to get comfortable as the DOF preview darkens the viewing image.
But, more often, I realize I’m not going to pull it off so I’ll make sure the closest bird is in focus and demote the more distant birds to a supporting role.
@ron:
No problem. We’re all here to help one another get great shots. It’s hard when you’re in the field to remember all of the settings and what to do, but take your time, focus on what you most want to do with the shot and get yourself in position for that shot. Sometimes what you want to do isn’t possible so you have to go for what’s next best (i.e., only two owls in the photo).
One more suggestion would be to bracket your exposures. Don’t know how long you’ve been in the game, but bracketing was very common in the film days. Shoot with the settings you think are right and then take exposures on each side of those settings. In this case, shoot one at f/22, one at f/16, and one at f/11.
This will give you a greater choice than just shooting a bunch of images at one setting that you think might be right. Hope this helps.
Thank you very much jbhaferkamp.
The next time I’m in a similar situation I’ll attempt both of your suggestions – stopping down to f/22 or greater and maneuvering myself into a position where I can get as many of my subjects as sharp as possible without having seriously OOF birds in a position where they can’t be pleasingly cropped out.
I appreciate your advice!
@ron:
I think it was a pretty good effort at trying to get all three in focus. If only our lenses could do what our eyes do!
I would say that if you know they’re at different depths, close up your lens as far as it will go (f/22 or greater). You will have to face the consequence of slowing the shutter speed or bumping up the ISO. It’s one of the evil truths of shooting things on different planes.
I know the three owls together is a good catch (and rare) but you might also just have to crop out the bird that you can’t get in focus and create the photo around the birds that are in focus. Unless you can move yourself and creatively control the depth of field, this would be the right compromise. At least you would have a good, sharp photograph.
On the critical side, I would say that you shouldn’t put them all out of focus. One out of focus is better than three. They all look a little unsharp in my opinion. This could be blur or it could be that you were focusing in the middle of the three. The advice above would serve you well the next time you have to make a choice like that.