This is one of those shots where I’m glad the entire bird isn’t sharp.
1/8000, f/6.3, ISO 800, Canon 7D Mark II, Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM + EF 1.4 III Extender, canvas added for composition, not baited, set up or called in
I photographed him in the Wasatch Mountains nine months ago soon after he took off. I’ve never posted the shot before because doing so meant I’d have to add canvas on the left for composition and I don’t like to do that. But last night I stumbled across the image again and decided to play with it to see what the processed photo would look like and in the end I chose to use it to make a point about sharpness.
Typically in my photos I prefer the entire bird to be sharp, including the wings when it’s in flight. But in this shot his head is in front of part of his right wing and both are the same color of blue which has the potential to keep his head from standing out very well. Blue On Blue might have worked well for Bobby Vinton but it can be a problem in bird photography. However in this case the bird’s body, including his head, is very sharp but the wings are soft and that disparity in sharpness helps his head to stand out against the similar blue behind it.
All this begs the question, why does that disparity in sharpness exist? In bird photography softness is usually caused by one or more of the following: a poor quality lens, imprecise focusing, insufficient shutter speed for the situation (motion blur) or insufficient depth of field (DOF). In this shot I’m using a high quality lens, my focusing was precise as evidenced by the sharpness of the bird’s head and body and I had oodles of shutter speed, much more than I actually needed, to prevent motion blur.
In this case the culprit (or hero, depending on how you look at it) is a shallow DOF. At f/6.3 I was close enough to the bird that my limits of “acceptable sharpness” didn’t extend as far as either wingtip and that was a good thing.
Yes, the “blue on blue” in this photo might still be a bit of a problem but it isn’t nearly as severe as it would have been if the right wing had been sharp.
Ron
PS – Apologies for the photo-geekiness of this post. But some of us need to know this stuff…
This was a really useful post. I wish I’d read it before last Sunday, when I drove myself nearly to distraction trying to photograph a yellow flower that carries multiple blooms. I couldn’t find a way to get everything perfectly in focus, and even when I came close, the yellow on yellow made the image a little soft and the individual flowers weren’t as distinguishable as I would have liked. If I’d gone the other way, and softened the blooms in the background, the image might have been better. It’s a tip I’ll keep in mind.
As for the bluebird — well, what’s to say? It’s a beautiful creature, beautifully photographed.
Wow, fantastic shot!
Thanks, Jean.
You and your damn earworms! 😉 Love this shot — that blue is AMAZING! I find the photogeekiness very interesting, as I live vicariously through you and Mia with respect to photography. (I tried taking some of the dog photos for the shelter a while back and they were pretty bad, even though I had a very nice camera to work with — definite ABC errors.) There’s one bluebird (I’m guessing a Western Bluebird) that’s hanging around our neighborhood. I’ve seen him a couple of times on the street sweeping sign in front of our house. His colors are nowhere near as striking as this fella’s, though.
Ha, I had that damn song in my head all the way to Antelope Island this morning!
Could your bluebird be a female?
Quite possibly — the blue is a little more muted, but there’s definitely the red throat and chest. I can differentiate the bluebird from the House Finches which must have just moved into the neighborhood, because there are now several HFs hanging out in both the front and back yards. I checked with my neighbors and the HFs do appear to all of us to be new — maybe they’ve come over here thanks to all the rain we’ve had.
First Roger Burnard’s owl and now your Mountain Bluebird…Don’t think I can take much more of this amazing, amazing beauty twice in a row!!!Can’t explain why, but slightly out of focus right wing seems to add something really nice and exceptionally pleasing to the over all image…at least from and artistic point if view, if not from a phinicky photographer’s…. WOW!!!!!!!
I’m glad you like it that much, Patty. Thanks.
Count me in for all the photo-geekiness you can provide. The way you explain those things is remarkable.
Thank you.
I appreciate the kind words about my explanations, Jorge. Thanks.
Remaining in the geeky mode I was looking at this Depth of Field calculator, that shows how in credible shallow your DOF is when the subject is close.http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html Thanks, John
John, I’ve actually included that same link in several of my older posts.
DOF is the silent killer of sharpness that many don’t think about. I have a full slide dedicated to DOF in the chapter on sharpness I teach. I learned the hard way on a pheasant I was shooting up close with the 600 f/4. Great tip and a beautiful bird Ron 🙂
Thanks, Zaph. Yes, at those focal lengths there’s very little DOF when the subject is close.
Beautiful shot…Thanks for the tutorial…DOF can be so hard to figure out sometimes you just want to pull your hair out in frustration..(but then remembering I only have about 3 or 4 hairs left on my head I don’t)…Thanks again Ron
Your photo is more than acceptable. Most of us bird photographer would give our right arm for it.
Len
In my limited experience with a camera I have a tendency to go for maximum DOF. This is a great explanation for why that shouldn’t always be the goal. Might not your image also show two kinds of DOF effects: the one you point out and the bokeh of the larger background? A beautiful photo, in any case.
Thanks, Lyle. I don’t think there’s enough detail in the background for it to be a great demonstration of the bokeh produced by my lens.
I have to chuckle at how you tear apart your photos that I view as exceptional! I always learn something from you, and I truly appreciate all the details you list of how you took your photo (shutter speed, lens selection, etc.)
Good to know that you appreciate the image techs I usually provide, Heidi. Thank you.
I’m with Kathy. 3D for me as well. It’s poetry in motion. 😉 Or so Mr. Tillotson might croon.
Actually, Poetry In Motion was one of my favorites! I like it much better than Blue on Blue.
I can’t look at an image of a Mountain Bluebird without it bringing back delightful memories of the first ones I saw in Yellowstone! Had three on a wire in the town. Beautiful shot!
For some unknown reason I’m back, can’t guarantee the Ides of March won’t take me down.
Good to see you, Dick! 🙂 VBG! 😀
Delighted to have you back, Dick. Hope it lasts!
Beautiful bird, Ron! So glad this one made the cut!
Thank you, Diane.
Very attractive photo Ron. I like the way the softer right wing makes the head appear that much sharper. And thanks for the tech info, I must admit I am not sure if I ever have fully understood DOF.
Everett Sanborn, Prescott AZ
I probably don’t “fully” understand it either, Everett. But every little bit helps…
What a beautiful, powerful and graceful image.
Keep that photo-geekiness coming.
I’ll take all the learning I can get and try to hang onto as much as possible.
I appreciate that encouragement, Dave. Many readers aren’t very interested in the nuts and bolts of bird photography and that’s understandable but others are bird photographers who appreciate knowing such things.
Beautiful the way the head stands out against the blurred wing and excellent demonstration of how depth of field “works”(or doesn’t) in a given situation. 🙂 Thx for posting the photo and the tutorial. It would have taken me while to figure that one out!
Thanks, Judy. The saving grace was that I was close to the bird. If I’d been much further away my DOF limits would have included the wings so they’d have been sharp too.
This is stunning to me. I have the feeling of 3D here. I especially like the color range of the wing feathers against the muted green background and soft green leaves. Stunning.
Thanks very much, Kathy.