Bird photographers like to know why certain elements of their images are soft (blurry) when others are not because it helps them to evaluate their settings and technique. It’s usually an issue of either insufficient depth of field or shutter speed but telling which one is the culprit can be difficult, especially since the effects of the two can meld together.
The following image is not my best flight shot of a Burrowing Owl but due to a camera setting mistake I made it allows us some pointers about determining the source of the softness when it’s in the wingtips of a bird in flight.
1/5000, f/6.3, ISO 1600, Canon 7D Mark II, Canon EF500mm f/4L IS II USM +1.4 tc, canvas added for composition, not baited, set up or called in
The first thing I notice when I look at this image is that the head and body of the owl are sharp but the wingtips are not and I immediately wonder why. It could be either depth of field or insufficient shutter speed (motion blur). The image was taken couple of weeks ago very soon after dawn (6:37 AM) and the light was becoming more intense by the second so when this owl took off I had much more shutter speed than I needed (I shoot in aperture priority), largely because my ISO setting was too high for the conditions at the moment.
But this unusually fast shutter speed would even have frozen the wings of a hummingbird so I know that it’s a depth of field issue, since the head is sharp. I can rule out shutter speed.
At this focal length I have relatively little depth of field. When I use this depth of field calculator for my gear, settings and at the distance I was from the bird I find that my “acceptable” total depth of field is barely more than 9″ and that explains why these wingtips are soft because I had less than 5″ in front of and behind the head that would be acceptably sharp. These owls have very long wing spans even when they’re not fully extended.
Shooting at a significantly lower ISO and perhaps at f/7,1 or f/8 would have given me more depth of field so the wingtips would have been sharper and I’d have had the additional benefit of better image quality because high ISO’s introduce noise or grain into the image.
I’ve covered this subject before but one of the ways we all learn is by repetition so I thought it deserved another go. Sorry for the photo-geekiness of this post – back to our regular programming tomorrow…
Ron
Note: soft wingtips of a bird in flight, whatever the reason for them, are not necessarily an image killer. Wing motion blur can be perfectly acceptable as long as the head and body of the bird are sharp. Like so many things it’s often a matter of taste.
Although I’m not a photographer, your posts have taught me some things about how to look at photos. I was amazed when I received a calendar that had a cover photo which was not sharp. Without your photo-geekiness posts, I would not have noticed any problem with the very cute photo.
Pam, The poor quality of many calendar bird photos is mind boggling IMO. It’s amazing what some people will plop their money down for…
I LOVE this photo just the way it is. The wing position and the wing tips being out of focus gives a sense of three dimensionality and movement. Thanks for sharing.
Thank you, Rachel.
“back to our regular programming tomorrow…”. Well Ron, for me, trying to figure out the “tech” side of bird photography is a real challenge. After viewing the awesome photo or photos of the day I study the camera settings to try figuring out what role they each played in the image. Not an easy task when your a newbie bird photographer and used to shooting slower and more predictable critters. So, I love your tech talk as well as your regular programming. Thanks for today’s lesson teach.
Thanks, Sterling. I wish we’d had a chance to gab on the island this morning but we could see that you were set up on something with your gear so we didn’t want to ruin whatever you had going. Hope you got some good shots, whatever it was.
Ron, what I should have said was with my luck, I would have missed focus completely. Canon cameras, I believe have a better focusing/tracking system than my Nikon has. I did not mean to imply you were not skilled at your craft. Anyone following your blog over the years would know you are an exceptional photographer.
Don’t give it a second thought, John. I didn’t take it that way. And there’s no question that luck played a part in getting that head sharp, especially with the way it’s tucked in there between the wings.
Thanks for the enlightenment of shutter speed and depth of field and the effect of distance. I know you really don’t like blurred feathers but I actually like this photo a lot. The position of the wings, the detail and shape of the secondaries, and the sharpness of the beak and eye in contrast all make this a winner for me. And just the right amount of blur to give it a wonderful sense of flight.
Thanks, Larry. Yup, personal preference plays a huge role in the blurred vs sharp wingtip debate. To me blurred wings often (though not always) distract my eye from other things about the image. Motion blur bothers me the least in hummingbird images but I’m not sure why that’s the case -possibly because the wings of hummers are so fast that my brain just expects them to be blurry…
Ron, I think you might be lucky the head of this owl was in focus and not just its wingtip. I personally feel the blurred wingtip provides a certain sense of motion to the image, which I feel is a good thing. To each their own.
John, Lucky or not, I’ll take it. Luck often plays a significant role in bird photography but to a large degree we also make our own luck.
And I agree – “to each his own” regarding wingtip sharpness. As I said in my post, motion blurred wingtips are a matter of taste. Some really like them but in my experience more folks prefer sharp wings in most situations. I’m in the latter group.
Thanks so much Ron–all very useful and interesting! I find that with each passing day, I have more to learn about so many things–your posts always help 😉 I agree–wingtip blur is most definitely a matter of taste for sure–but it’s hard not to like all of your Burrowing owl images. I’m finding it a real challenge to deal with fading and/or increasing light and adjusting my ISO accordingly as I push myself to shoot during early morning and late afternoon (not always easy with my work schedule and with the fact that I’m not a “morning person!”). I’m also finding that I get frustrated with my 7D and it’s limited low-light abilities, but THEN I remind myself that you worked with a 7D for many, many years and have had great success. I wish that I had time to comment on all of your blog posts as I truly appreciate EVERY one of them. Happy trails!
Hi Christine, Yes, the photographer has to keep on the ball with his/her setting adjustments when shooting in changing light. And until doing so becomes second nature it can be a pain in the butt.
I loved my 7D’s (I’m still using both of them with other lenses) but like every camera it had its limitations. The two major improvements that I most appreciate with the 7D Mark II over the 7D are the improved noise performance at higher ISO’s and the significantly faster burst rate. Just those two alone are worth the price of admission and there are many more.
I’d estimate that 95% of my shooting is done in the early morning. About the only time I shoot in the evening is on camping trips but the light can be great then too. IMO shooting midday is mostly a waste of time…
Technical stuff aside, I find rhis shot interesting because the image of the bird is so compact…they usually seem so elongated with those long legs. I don’t think it’s possible for you to get a “bad” shot of a Burrowing Owl….
“I don’t think it’s possible for you to get a “bad” shot of a Burrowing Owl”
Ha, if anyone could do it, I could, Patty. And I have. More times than I care to remember…
Stop boasting!!!
As usual, Patty has taken the words out of my mouth. With both comments.
Ron, Thanks for the reminder, however I have seen the conundrum of lower vs higher f-stop before. Some wildlife photographers prefer to shoot in lower fstops for most shotss (Tui de Roy, as an example- since I just returned from the galapagos), yet from experience, esp. using 500mm lens, I see other photographers prefer using in the 8-11 fstop range because of the big glass and depth of field. Do you have any guidelines? Maybe portraiture birds can take a lower fstop, but flying shots need a bigger range?? And yes, I agree, as the sun comes up, sometimes the intensity of shooting, we forget to lower the iso. And I have found that sometimes shooting early morning animals in the shade (where you have to pump up iso to 5000) maybe is better to just enjoy the animal b/c the shots don’t focus properly in that intense shade (even if the behavior is really fun and you “think” it is a good shot) What has your experience shown as to the above. Thanks for sharing –
“Do you have any guidelines?”
Barb, it’s hard to give guidelines because there’s so many different situations and styles of shooting. I tend to use faster shutter speeds and higher ISO’s than most bird photographers because I really like action shots so typically if I have some time with a perched bird I’ll shoot a few shots at whatever ISO will give me at least 1/1000 sec SS and an aperture that gives me enough DOF to get the entire bird sharp (that depends on how close I am to the bird and whether or not it’s broadside to me or not – long tails can be hard to get sharp when they’re facing you). Then I typically change my settings to get more SS for any action that may occur.
I usually don’t even push my shutter in poor light unless I’m documenting some interesting behavior or want an ID shot.
And you make reference to the f-stop preferences of “wildlife photographers”. That phrase often is applied to those who photograph vertebrates other than birds. Photographing birds is often very different from shooting other forms of wildlife because they’re so very, very fast in comparison.
You bring up some complex subjects that entire books have been written about so my short answer will likely not be extremely helpful. But I tried…
Hi Ron,
I love your photos, which are always great. I follow your blog because I am inspired by what you do and the helpful information you include. I have become a better bird photographer just by listening to you.
Many thanks.
Len
“I have become a better bird photographer just by listening to you.”
That made my day, Len. Thank you very much.
Very helpful post. Thanks for including the link to the Depth of Field calculator.
You’re very welcome, Ned. Thank you.
Good example. The 1/5000 and f/6.3 settings leave little doubt about the source of the wingtip blur.
I thought it was a good example too, Dave. Glad you agree.
Thanks for the refresher! You’ve pointed us to the depth of field calculator before, but I had forgotten about it. I really appreciate the tips!
Nice to know, Sharon. I’m happy to hear that the subject didn’t bore everyone…
Teachers know that repetition is the key to sustained knowledge and success. As a matter of fact, athletes and successful survivable animals know the same truths. Thank you for this lesson and I now have the DOF calculator entrenched on my computer screen. Maybe before I meet my maker i’ll figure it out!!
Ha, it won’t take you that long, Dick. I know you’re much smarter than that! 🙂
I don’t use that calculator often anymore but when you’re first learning just how limited your DOF is at long focal lengths it can be extremely helpful.
Even though I’ve never learned to use manual settings on a camera, a post like this is interesting, because it helps me to gain a little understanding of what the different settings do. Maybe one day there might be hope for me in understanding them…
“Maybe one day there might be hope for me in understanding them”
I agree, Susan – understanding them can be intimidating at first but soon it becomes almost second nature and the advantages of controlling your camera vs automatic mode can be a huge advantage in many situations.