In bird photography a variety of factors can cause our birds to appear soft when they’re actually sharp or at least sharper than they appear to be.
1/6400, 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
This photo of a male Common Goldeneye was taken two years ago at a local pond. In some ways I suppose it’s a rather pedestrian shot, a duck on the water, ho-hum, but he’s a colorful and handsome duck and I like how I caught him passing through the dark reflection on the water.
Each of us has our own methodology for judging sharpness in photos. Typically the first thing I check is the eye. Most photographers agree that the eye is the most important thing to get sharp – in fact most of us instinctively place our active focus point on the eye when we’re taking the photo. But what if the eye is actually sharper than it appears to be?
In my experience the pupils of some duck species with colorful irises (both species of goldeneyes are prime examples) have less than crisp margins within the iris. The edges of the pupil are somewhat diffuse within the iris so there’s no way to get those margins crisp and sharp. When I look at this goldeneye’s eye it appears slightly (it’s subtle) soft, in part because the pupil isn’t sharply defined, but the rest of his head is actually reasonably sharp as is the rest of his body. The “problem” becomes even more acute in closeups.
But in the case of this particular photo there’s something else going on that contributes to the apparent softness of the eye. It may be difficult to see at this resolution but there’s actually two tiny catch lights in his eye – one at the top edge of his pupil (originating directly from the sun) and a smaller one at the bottom edge of his pupil (a reflection off of the water).
When I crop more tightly on the bird both catch lights become much easier to see. Each of them contributes to the apparent softness of the eye because they interrupt the margins of the pupil making it even less distinct.
Different species exhibit other traits that contribute to apparent (false) softness in their plumage rather than their eyes. For example, fine detail can be difficult to see in the feathers of many owls because their feather structure is unusually fine. If we can’t see fine detail our brain can interpret it as softness. Among photographers both species of waxwings (Cedar and Bohemian) are notorious for the same thing.
All this is likely far more than many of my readers want to know about judging sharpness but it’s important to me so I decided to run with it.
Ron
Notes:
- As far as I know the indistinct pupil of some ducks isn’t an established anatomical fact. It’s just something I believe I’ve observed over many years of trying to get sharp photos of birds. It may be that many or even all birds have what I call “indistinct pupils” but since most birds have dark irises their black pupils are just difficult or impossible to see
- If you’re using a small screen (cell phone for example) the softness will likely be less apparent.
- My camera settings for this photo were a mistake. There’s no way I needed such an astronomical shutter speed for a slowly swimming duck.
Wow, to think I wouldn’t have been able to see any of that before last Spring. He is a handsome duck and glad you showed the close-up where I can see not only the catch lights but also the the water droplets.
Spent some considerable time this past summer shooting Northern Shoveler ducks at our local wildlife preserve .(its only 4 miles down the road )The Northern Shoveler has a red patch on both sides,that no matter how sharp the rest of the duck is,always appears soft. Fortunately the large yellow eyes of the male have a lot of texture in the iris and large pupils to lock on the cross-type focus points. MY my most difficult eye has been the red eye of the Western Grebe.
Nothing pedestrian about this duck — he’s swimming! 😉 (I’ll show myself out now…)
Because of the general/basic structure of the iris, I’m not surprised that there isn’t always a “crisp” border between iris and pupil. I find the effects of the dual catchlights to be interesting — I wonder if the size of the pupil in a particular shot plays a role in any apparent “indistinctness.” Once again, you’ve made me think, Teach. 🙂
Ha, I’m surprised I didn’t think of that pedestrian bit, Marty. But I didn’t.
Very interesting observation, Ron. I’ll have to try to get close to a Goldeneye or Merganser(?) with my scope to observe the fuzzy iris/pupil (I know, good luck with that).
Lyle, I’m betting it would be difficult to see, even with a good scope. I typically don’t notice it through my lens – only when I’m processing the image on my big screen.
The eyes are key aren’t they! They tell you so much. Most interesting post today. For me, I find myself checking the shape of the catch light if I’m not satisfied with the sharpness. Sometimes the weight of my lens will cause a slight tremor towards the end of the day if I am hand-holding rather then using my noodle. I notice at those time the catch light will be more squarish or even a slight rectangle rather than a nice round. It’s a good indicator for me that I was not holding steady.
It’s interesting to note what we each look for to judge sharpness. Thanks, Kathy.
Learning all the time.
Thank you Teacher.
Thanks, EC. As each days goes by I become more disturbed about what’s going on with your fires down there. I hope you live in a safe area!
Thanks Ron. Although our air quality has been assessed as the worst in the world over the last few days we are safe here for the moment. The next few days are expected to be dreadful so it is watch and wait.
And my heart is hurting (so badly) for the wildlife in the affected areas. Those that survive may be injured and will have very, very limited access to food and water.
Sounds as bad as I thought it was. I’m so sorry…
Your title prompted me to immediately look at the duck’s pupil and it did look soft to me. Your explanation and cropped image of the eye were very instructive. I will need to go back over my White-eyed Vireo shots but I thought the eyes were quite sharp most of the time.
Ken, maybe it’s only an issue with some of the light-eyed ducks. I don’t know. I’d be interested to know what you discover. I don’t really notice it in raptors with colored eyes.
Ron, I have about 400 photos of White-eyed Vireos on FLICKR. I ran through 30-40 of them. The margin between pupil and iris appears to be quite sharp in photos which are not soft all over. https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=14904010%40N02&sort=date-taken-desc&text=white-eyed&view_all=1
So, maybe it’s just an issue with certain ducks. I dunno. Thanks for reporting back, Ken.
Interesting! 🙂 I know owl feathers aren’t “shiny” but hadn’t thought of them being so fine the detail is hard to capture. I hadn’t thought about factors affecting how sharp the eye looked. the double catch light certainly could do it in this case and, probably others. Thx for the lesson and great photo, Ron!
I’m glad you found it interesting, Judy. Thanks.
In the cropped close up I can definitely see it Ron. With my almost 82 year old eyes I never would have noticed had I just been looking at the original photo. It is a very good photo of one of my favorite ducks. Also like the dark reflection in the water as well as his reflection in the water. I have always enjoyed duck photos when they also show a good clear reflection. I have always thought them to be very handsome ducks – both male and female. Thanks for starting off 2020 with such an attractive and colorful Goldeneye photo.
Oh, and almost forgot – definitely sharp enough.
“definitely sharp enough”
Yup, sharpness is definitely a matter of degree – there’s nothing black and white about it. Thanks, Everett.