More Harris Hawks

[Wulff 0]

I've been gettng really frustrated with the weather lately. The last time I saw any sunlight while out shooting at all was Dec 01st. Murphys law, that virtually every opportunity to do some shooting has been washed due to the weather.

 

That said and out of the way heres a bunch of Harris Hawk images taken over the last month, all at ISO 1,000 or 1,600. Oh well, it makes for good practice. Most are full frame with no cropping.

 

ISO 1,000 1/160th flashed

 

ISO 1600 1/500th no flash

 

ISO 1600 1/200th no flash

 

ISO 1600 1/600th

 

More ISO 1600

 

ISO 1600 full frame

 

ISO 1600, 1/500th

 

Woohoo ISO 800

 

My favorite probably from the last month

 

1/50th

 

And finally run forest run. This guy managed to elude the Harris (she didnt see it bolt) and live another day.

[Redwings1 0]

I can't get enough hawk shots...they always look so wicked!

Great stuff, thanks for sharing.

[letumgo 0]

I was looking at each of your fabulous photos in awe, thinking to my self "I can't pick a favorite...they are all amazing...". However, when I got to that last photo and saw the hare bolting for the woods, I broke into a huge smile and though "that's my favorite". Absolutely wonderful photography, and the layout told a story beautifully. Thanks for taking us along with you.

 

Oh, I also appreciate your listing of the camera settings above each photo. I find that very helpful as I try to learn D-SLR photography. I had understood that an ISO setting of 1000 or 1600 would result in a grainy photo. Seeing your photographs shows that this is incorrect. I will not shy away from the high ISO settings in the future.

[Wulff 0]

Ray. On ISO settings and resultant noise. There are alot of factors at play. Most commonly and at its simpleiest resultant noise is a product of the body you use. I use a pro body and while its not the best at controlling noise its one of the better.

 

Photosites: doo-dads on your sensors that capture the light also have an impact. All else being equal the larger the photosite the less noise created. In short, the larger your sensor, the larger your photosites. Thus Full frame sensors like the 5D and 1DS will produce less noise than 1.3 crop cameras ( like my 1DMKIIn) and the 1.3 crop cameras will produce less noise than 1.6 crop cameras like XTs, 30Ds etc and why any DSLR will produce less noise than any PnS..>The sensor is larger.

 

All else being equal the more you crop in post processing the more noticable the noise. These are all for the most part as shot (no cropping).

 

Post Processing:

theres some noise but due to the above and some other factors the noise was fairly light and a light treatment of noise removal got it, such that the image you see is more than acceptable.

 

J

[letumgo 0]

Thanks, John. Your a great teacher.

[Mokai 0]

Great stuff John..

 

I also think that the # of megapixles has some to do with noise as well, being the more you have the higher the possibility of noise..

[Graham 0]

Absolutely beautiful and stunning images Wulff, great technique capturing these images so clearly.

 

I don't think the number of MP makes much difference with respect to noise and grainyness, instead it's the size of each photon receptor on the image capturing sensor. Larger receptors, such as Canon's and Nikons full frame verion have less noise becasue more detailed information is gathered with less spill over. Sort of the equivalent of filling rows of buckets with water. Wider buckets allow for easier and more precise filling when compared to rows of little buckets, which really need to be filled slower to prevent spillage. My camera has little buckets, which restricts using ISO settings above 400 without noise, or spill over.

 

I think there are many factors that contibute to noise, with shutter speed being one of them. Slow shutter speeds used for long exposure shots can also introduce noise even at low ISO settings.

[Ashby 0]

As always, the hawk pictures are beautiful. We have a ton of them around our house here. It's nothing to count 15 or more between my house and the front gate of the base where they are just sitting on fence posts, trees, electric poles etc. They are just all over the place around here. Very nice pictures, and thanks for the ISO lesson. Graham, I didn't know that about long exposures allowing for more noise, good to know.

 

Ashby

[Jason 0]

Sweet pics. Thanks for sharing. Where were these photos taken?

[Harold Ray 0]

Wulff,

 

You get some of the most beautifully stunning in-flight images of raptors I've ever seen. I work with a lot of birds, mostly in the Psittacine (parrot) family, but only a small number of hawks and owls that have been hit by cars or damaged in some way. I love working with any of them, and I really love spectacular pictures of the raptors in flight. A hawk in motion is a symphony in flight.

 

I meant to post yesterday when I first saw these beautiful pictures but got busy at the clinic and completely forgot. Then I just saw them again. Boy, what a thrill!! You've got tremendous talent. Its wonderful to see the big birds in action and at the same time to be able to discern every feather visible in a wing or on their chest or head. Its a thrill for me.

 

Thanks for doing this, and I look forward to your next installment!

 

Ray

 

P.S.

 

And, boy, you ain't bad on rabbits in flight either, all feet off the snow and rollin' on!

[Wulff 0]

Thanks Ray.

Sooner or later Im going to be in the right place at the right time and get one of the Harris as they smoke a Rabbit. Its just a matter of anticipating sight lines and hoping a flushed prey bolts into the area for one of the hawks.

 

Jason, Im in Ontario.

 

 

[Will Milne 0]

John-

 

I've always been hugely impressed with your bird pics - I happen to think you seem to have a developed or natural talent for capturing "attitude/character" that you don't see in a lot of other bird work.

 

What strikes me about these ones is the depth of tone and colour , given the flat light.

 

Do you adjust in cam for the lighting? or are the adjustments to open things up done in post? If you care to share.

 

Will

 

 

[Wulff 0]

Thanks Will.

I *think* some of the richness ( what little there is ) is primarily due to the flash however not all images we're flashed. Most of these shots were done in AV at f5.6 with +1/3 exp comp. Im a beleiver of expose to the right.

 

With regards to in camra processing vs post its all post.

I shoot RAW 100% of the time and convert using ACR, which is arguably one of the best converters. I would say alot of credit is due to acr. Typically, I choose ACRs "auto" feature and then from there make adjustements by eye. Sometimes (often) I think ACR over does it on exp or brightness and contrast so Im usually scaling back its corrections. I prefer to err on the side of bing underdone, rather than over done.

 

White balance I normally leave as shot but occasionally set(change) WB either by eye if I want to intentionally warm or cool an image but more often than not I set WB by using the eyedropper on a part that I know is white. Again I double check vs what the as shot is and may decide to set it somewhere in the middle.

 

Last but not least I tweak ACRs "Vibrance, clarity and saturation levels. again preferrin err on the underdone side. Once Im happy with exp, white balance and sat levels I move to PS.

 

In PS its a bit more of the same.

I check highlight/shadows to see if I can or need to bring out more detail.

Check saturation but usually dont adjust.

Clone out any dust spots

Make my curves or levels adjustemnts. Usually I prefer to use Cruves as you can make an image pop more via curves.

 

Sharpening. Can be done in any number of ways from basic high pass of USM, to sharpening layers (light,dark,luminosity) to selective high pass where I select only the subject to sharpen etc.

 

Finlly if needed, a light pass with Neat Image to remove any noise.

 

By way of example.

Heres an as shot RAW file

 

Heres the finshed jpg and why I shoot raw all the time. Ive intentionally picked an image with a dramatic difference

 

Just a note. The AA filter in 1D bodies is pretty strong hence the huge difference in sharpness. All raw files require sharpening ad the stronger the AA filter, the more you need to do. In Canons white paper for 1D bodies tey recomend 300%, 0.3, 0.0

[Will Milne 0]

John

 

We have the same process/approach though I use Silkypix as my RAW convertor. Maybe a diff. between the Canon histograms and the Nikon. I quite often find even though I'm jammed as far to right as I dare , there is still some "room" left when I look at the RAW files in the convertor.

 

Are you using a Better Beamer/equiv. on the flash? I have a Nikon 300 mm f2.8 I use as a landscape lens and a little fill would often be handy. So I was considering a fresnel equipped snoot and thought you may have some experience with them?

 

Will

[Wulff 0]

Hi Will.

Yeah, I use a better beamer. I would have to say I find results inconsistant. Sometimes it seems to work perfectly, yet others it washes out the subject. I suspect it has to do with the distance to subject and ettl although consistantly getting good fill eludes me. So, anytime Im using the BB I always take two frames, that way one gets flashed and bfore the flash can recycle I get a second frame thats not flashed and can take my pick.

 

J

 

This shot shows almost perfectly.

 

ISO 800

400mm

f5.6

1/50th at +2/3 EV

Flashed at (i think) -2/3 FEC

Distance to target around 20 t 30feet, so definately a need for the BB to extend the output ( 400mm at iso 800)