This is the price I pay for my preferred style of bird photography. At times it can be a steep one.
Regular readers of Feathered Photography are well aware that when it comes to my bird photography I’m much more interested in action photos that involve behaviors, flight, takeoffs and other kinds of interesting action than I am in just “pretty bird pictures” (although I take both types). Birds are incredibly fast and those types of shots require fast shutter speeds to get them sharp so my default camera settings typically involve high ISO’s and apertures in the range of f/5.6 – f/6.3 (sometimes when I don’t have my teleconverter attached and the light is low I even open up to f/5 or f/4).
Those settings generally serve my preferred style of bird photography well for a variety of reasons but there’s a high price to pay in certain situations. At f/5.6 – f/6.3 my depth of field is very shallow so at my fairly extreme focal lengths, especially when I’m close to the bird, I often don’t get the entire bird sharp. In action shots it doesn’t matter so much but in those “pretty bird pictures” it can stand out like two sore thumbs and be more than aggravating.
Following is an example from yesterday morning in the Wasatch Mountains.
1/3200, f/6.3, ISO 800, Canon 7D Mark II, Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM + EF 1.4 III Extender, not baited, set up or called in
I usually sit at this spot for about an hour on each trip to the mountains and I often see and hear catbirds at a distance while I’m there but catbirds are extremely shy and elusive so they don’t like to come out and play. I’d estimate that on average it takes about 8-10 hours (8-10 trips) for every brief opportunity I get with a catbird up close and in the clear such as this fairly recently fledged juvenile (a young bird as evidenced by its prominent gape and the brownish wash over its plumage). I have few if any quality images of catbirds this age so this was an exciting moment for me.
But, and it’s a big “but”, I was close to the bird and at my default camera settings I only had enough depth of field to get the head sharp. Notice that sharpness falls off rapidly in this pose because the tail is much closer to me than the head so only the head is sharp enough and the tail is a blurry mess.
Yes, I could have taken the approximately two seconds required for me to change my aperture to something like f/14 and then refocus on the bird’s head but two seconds is an eternity with quirky, flitty and spooky songbirds so I decided to fire away and hope for a good head turn instead. I got the head turn but I still had a dreadfully soft tail. I’m happy to have the shot but I’d be much more pleased with it if the rest of the bird was sharper.
And no, results like this certainly don’t tempt me to abandon my default camera settings designed to capture behaviors and fast action. I have too many successes to even consider it.
But it still burns my butt when I have to pay the piper.
Ron
PS – Apologies for covering a subject I’ve covered before and especially for the photo-geekiness of this post which will have little interest for some of my readers. But photo-geekiness is how I get my images and I know that at least some photographers among my readers appreciate occasional posts like this one. Many of us learn from them, including yours truly.
Think of it as part of an intended artful vignette.
Seconds count, always a gamble.
I really like and agree with the comments by Marty and Frank below, very well stated.
I like the photo a lot and thank you for sending this our way Ron.
I appreciate your thoughts on the image, Dave.
Fantastic 6Ron!
Charlotte
Thanks, Charlotte.
Two seconds is an eternity some days. And most definitely when it comes to greased lightening birds. Add in their natural perversity and it is an eternity plus one.
Despite being a happy (and sometimes unhappy) snapper I really appreciate your geekiness. Learning all the time.
And I love this photo of your elusive cat bird. In some ways the less than tack sharp body throws that beautiful head into even stronger focus.
“Natural perversity” is a good way to put it when it comes to birds being photo subjects, EC.
I really like the composition of this shot. There’s a lot to drive my eye toward the bird’s cute little face — the angle of the wing and tail feathers, the soft tail, the branch, and the two pieces of foliage behind the bird — perfectly framed. I’m not sure this shot would be as endearing if the whole bird was sharp.
Keep the geekiness. One of these days, I might just try to pick up a camera. 😉
I think you’d make a great bird photographer, Marty. You pay attention, you’re smart, you have an eye for detail, you care deeply about the welfare of critters and you have a bit of an attitude. In my opinion all are prerequisites…
Aw, shucks. You’re making me blush. 🙂 One of these days…
Echoing Ron’s comment Marty. Loudly.
Hi Ron, Here is my $.02. I agree with you about the distraction of having the tail of the Catbird pointing almost directly at you and out of focus. If you had sufficient dof to get the entire bird in focus, it might show better. But it makes me think of a shot I got recently of a Red Winged Blackbird with the bird perpendicular to my focus plan but the tail off the focus plane to the rear. The tail feathers are soft due to the shallow dof. But the tail is pointing away from me, deeper in the image and actually, with the birds head and body sharp and the tail softening up, I like the image. Brings more attention to the birds head and eye. I don’t think the image would be nearly as good if the tail were in focus. Anyway, to me, sometimes not having the entire bird in focus can provide a different affect to for some may be beneficial. Anyway, just some thoughts.
Some interesting points, Frank. I agree that it’s usually far less of a problem when the out of focus tail is on the far side of the bird than it is when it’s between the bird and the viewer.
What a wonderful little subject you had! I understand your frustration, but I’d much rather see this little guy with a blurry tail than not at all. As to the photo-geekiness, these posts help me appreciate even more the skill, dexterity, and experience that goes into every shot you bring us. Also, I forward these posts to a budding nature-photographer friend who gets a lot out of them.
Glad to hear your friend appreciates posts like this one, Robyn. Thanks very much.
Anyone who has ever taken a photo of a bird of any kind can attest to what can go wrong in 2 seconds especially with birds that tend to be skittish. Can’t even begin to count the times that I lost a shot during 2 seconds while I tried to adjust something or reposition myself or even tried to shoo off a fly. The Catbird’s head and eye are absolutely perfect and that is what immediately catches your eye – at first you don’t notice the softer tail. I think everyone reading this post wants Dominique to come back and explain “Focus Puller.” 🙂
Everett Sanborn, Prescott AZ
…or reach for a sip of coffee, or scratch my nose or even blink! I swear, birds watch for things like that and take advantage of them at our expense. I can take 20 shots in two seconds so that’s a lot of opportunities lost.
See my response to Gary Carlson below for the definition of a focus puller in the film industry.
Love the photogeekness – keep ’em coming. Tis good to learn from other’s trials and tribulations. Thanks so much for the education.
I’ll never run out of trials and tribulations. Thanks, Joanne.
I appreciate a good story. 🙂
Thanks, Arwen. I hope this one qualifies.
Ron, Please continue this type of post. I learn a little more every day from you !!.. What the heck is a “focus puller” ??
Thanks for the encouragement, Gary.
This from Wikipedia about focus pullers: “A focus puller or first assistant camera (1st AC) is a member of a film crew’s camera department whose primary responsibility is to maintain image sharpness on whatever subject or action is being filmed.”
“Pick your poison” so to speak! 😉 Still love that you got the head sharp and a great look at the whole bird…….:)
Pick your poison is right! Thanks, Judy.
Nice to see one at this age..(.I’ve never seen a youngster) so its interesting to see that they don’t have their darker head yet; I can’t tell from your photo if it has the rufous butt yet. Why are these birds so elusive? I ask myself that question every time I hear them and hear is the operative word. I enjoy the ‘geeky’ posts…I find them to be a good learning source for me so keep it up! 🤓 As a side note I’ve enjoyed the posts of the chicks the past two days but being in Mi. didn’t have time to post. I tried to get photos of the chicks of Soras and Virginia Rails this season but no luck. I guess there are other elusive birds out there to makes things challenging to prode us along. ☺️
Thanks, Kathy. Yes, I believe even juveniles have the “rufous butt”.
Catbirds are very elusive. And sneaky. I watch for them carefully but more than once one of them has sneaked up on me when I didn’t see it and then I eventually spot it looking at me from up close. But as soon as I make eye contact they’re gone.
As you mention, soras and rails are also known for being highly elusive.
Funny – I saw 2 catbirds just a little bit older on the morning of the 17th. In Wisconsin, there are all kinds of fledglings everywhere right now. Your photos and teaching over the years have helped educate me on what to look for to tell if the bird is young. Thanks.
Having spent 20 years in the film business as a “focus puller” I appreciate your deilemma in this situation (and the photo-geey post).
I like the style of this shot very much. It’s an action shot. The sharp eye, the head turn, the softness all around, there is movement in the shot!
“Focus puller” – that’s a new one for me, Dominique. I like it.