Whatbird.com

Hi everyone,

I've been feeling discouraged with my photography more and more lately. I recently went to photograph a Least Tern (I love them) in flight and was happy with my pictures until I went online and saw what other photographers could accomplish - sharper, closer pictures to be exact. I work really hard to get action shots, but they never come out the way I had hoped - I feel like I have to be practically breathing on my subject to get a sharp image. I don't often use a tripod because I mostly like action shots and / or want subjects that are prone to staying still for only a few seconds, but I figure a tripod would help otherwise. I have a very limited income and originally bought my camera based on it's zoom capabilities (12X optical) and intended to use it to ID birds only. NOW I've been bitten hard by the photography bug and want to know if it's me or my camera.

I'm using a Canon S3 IS without the tele-extender. Would a D-SLR make a difference you think? I have a gallery on What Bird, some of the pictures are blurry and awful but were posted for ID purposes only and are labeled as such. If it IS me, can anyone recommend any resources that I can use to improve my photography? I think I'm feeling down because I got ambitious and entered a world wide photography contest... and now that I've really looked at some of the previous winners and honorable mentions... I feel way out of my league!!!

Thanks so much in advance,

Dovekie

My gallery

http://www.whatbird.com/forums/photos/dovekies_photo_gallery/default.aspx

 

P.S. I'm also very frustrated with the amount of noise in my pictures. I try to keep my ISO set to 80 or 100 except for a few rare instances, but I still get noise. I also have a lens cleaning kit and try to keep it free of dust and smudges.

A DSLR like Canon Rebel XTI (which I have) or Nikon D200 will be much better, especially on flight photos. You can have up to 400 ISO on DSLRs without much noise.
If you end up getting a Canon XTI I would suggest a 70-300 Canon IS lens. It has two Image Stabilization settings and one is better for flight photography. Also there is a better auto focus setting for flying birds as well. It is much easier to change settings faster. However it does cost more than your Canon S3 did. I don't use a tripod either.

BTW, I think you photos are fairly good for the camera you are using (not that I think it is a bad camera, I think it is just hard to get good flight or action shots with it and it is a pretty noisy camera).

I know what you mean about feeling out of your league! It is simply amazing the shots the other people are able to get. Sometimes I think Wow, I just got a really good shot and then I look at what other people got of the same bird and I say I don't think I will ever get a shot that good.

If you are interested here is my gallery on flickr (some shots are fairly good but I am sure others (and probably you) could do better with what I have):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cnybirder

---

2008 Yard List: 118
Recent: Hooded Warbler, Black-billed Cuckoo
Highlights: Hoary Redpoll, Golden Eagle, Fish Crow
2008 Year List: 181
Recent: Alder Flycatcher, Green Heron
Highlights: Cackling Goose, Black Vulture, Merlin

hey Dovekie...actually your camera is rated the number one point and shoot (non-DSLR) camera....by several top raters...but it is still a point and shoot...your pictures are very good, many are as good as you can get... a few quick hints...shoot continous..in bursts ( the small button right behind the shutter button)...use a tripod, use AWB, "p" setting, spot metering... try to fill the frame with the subject, but dont go above the line on the zoom,  set the stablizer on "panning"..hold the button  1/2 way down til it focuses, and shoot 4-5 shots....focus on the eyeball if possible...on the seagull, aim at the brightest spot, 1/2 depress the button and hold, then move up to the eye...this is how i do it ...i love this camera...but it is still a point and shot...have you tried the invaluemeter? (sp) great tool...keep shooting

Dovekie

Here is my take on the matter

it doesn't matter what kind of digital camera you have a cheap one use throw away or a $5,000 DSLR they will all do the same thing that is soften the image this is due to the image processing of the camera.

So this is how the experts deal with it they always shot in digital raw format so if your camera has raw use that.They use editing software mostly adobe photoshop and camera raw. It is what I use.

When they actually shot an image of a bird they put the focus on the head and eyes.

They will take as I do a number of shots of the same subject sometimes I can take 10 shots one after another just to get one good shotsometimes I don't get any good shots at all.

Then comes the editting the sharpening cropping etc in photoshop that can be an involved process unless you have a basic understanding of photoshop layers smartobjects etc.

What I am saying is don't epect an image to come from the camera to the web and look sharp as a tack as it wont. One other thing alot of people don't change the colorspace for web and they resize using auto save for web applications both are bad to do it The later will remove all the exif data from the photo.

Now for your photos in your gallery they are good they could do with a little editting.

I have been learning how to photograph birds now since Jan 2008 and I still have a very long way to go

Here is my gallery

http://www.whatbird.com/forums/photos/the_kiwis_gallery/default.aspx

---

Birds high above in the trees Serenade the flowers with their melodies

I am feelin' ya Doviekie!  I have to keep telling myself that I can't afford a better camera and to be content with what I have, which is quite difficult when you look at the awesome photos that some of the others are posting.  I need someone to tell me what settings to choose for birdwatching. 

I have an Olympus SP-550uz which is great for still shots but not so great for action shots.  it really has a shutter lag problem and even with 18x zoom has a lot of noise, as your were saying.  It really has too many setting options for me but I'm still shooting away everyday and every once in a while I'll get a great shot that encourages me enough to keep taking pics.

So, don't give up, Keep "shooting"!!  I am!

---

Matthew 6:26

Dovekie

Here is what I have done to help explain what I mean

I have uploaded 2 images to my website they are the same image it is not a good image it is soft in focus  there are 2 links to the image on this page http://thekiwi.org/before_after.html   the first link is the before or as the image came off the camera the second link is after editing in Photoshop

Peter

---

Birds high above in the trees Serenade the flowers with their melodies

personally, i would prefer to see photos like your first example.  , shows the  real problem with over-processing photos with photoshop until the true colors, contrast , and edges get lost and distorted. and look un-natural...you can tell who processes after the camera, and those who let the camera do it...(the exception is shooting "raw" of course, but her camera doesnt give you that option)...moderation in all things 

thekiwi:

Dovekie

Here is my take on the matter

it doesn't matter what kind of digital camera you have a cheap one use throw away or a $5,000 DSLR they will all do the same thing that is soften the image this is due to the image processing of the camera.

I disagree with this statement. If you ever tried taking an action shot with the S3, it is almost impossible to get it focused on the bird. By the time it focuses you lose the bird. And the shots I have got with it are always less than what I would like and with my DSLR I often get photos that are satisfying to me.
There is image processing on all cameras but the image processing on DSLRs is much better. It is much easier and faster to get a good shot.
I never shoot in raw. Perhaps I should but the card won't hold as many and I need all the space I have. Maybe I'll try an experiment and try raw for a few days and see what happens.

I do agree with you that you should try and take at least a few photos of each subject, I have taken 75 or 100 before of just one bird (and you will almost always be able to get a great shot).

---

2008 Yard List: 118
Recent: Hooded Warbler, Black-billed Cuckoo
Highlights: Hoary Redpoll, Golden Eagle, Fish Crow
2008 Year List: 181
Recent: Alder Flycatcher, Green Heron
Highlights: Cackling Goose, Black Vulture, Merlin

Ok here the is bully on that statement I made It doesn't matter how expensive the digital camera is they all will soften the image this is due to the process of Bayer Demosaicing which is the process of coverting the light the sensor sees into something that you saw. here is a tutorial in just what it is http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-sensors.htm  so what I was saying is regardless of what camera you have you cannot expect to go from the camera to web and expect excellent results without any post editing work.

Of course it goes without saying that you spend the big bucks on a dslr and again huge bucks on glass then you will get or you should get great result but then it is also dependent of the person using the camera as well.

Peter

---

Birds high above in the trees Serenade the flowers with their melodies

Hi Dovekie, don't be so hard on yourself... You have some mighty fine pictures there....

If your looking to get pics BIF,(Birds In Flight)  you'll definitely need a good camera to do it, with fast glass to boot...  A good DLSR is the way to go and Canon is known for it's low noise...  I know of a guy in Florida that has an Canon XTI that shoots like he's got a $5,000 camera...  His bird shots are outstanding... Basically, it's all in the glass...  The old adage is get a good camera but get better glass...

I wanted a good camera that would take bird pics (BIF) well, albeit with a fast lense... I initially was shooting for a Canon 30D but for a few hundred more the 40D became available and that is what I got.. My first lens was for family and close shots of pets and I opted for the Canon 17-40mm L lens... I am now saving for a 70-200 f/4 L with a tele-converter as well...  My ultimate bird lens is a Canon 100-400mm but is a bit too expensive for my blood right now...

So set your priorities of what you'd like in a camera and then the lens that will help get you there...  You'll no doubt have to do alot of reading on those subjects... I cannot tell you how many hours I spent researching and asking questions which led me to my decisions...

 So it all comes down to what can you afford to spend...  I saved for 6 months to get my camera and I'm very happy I was patient enough to do so...  My birding lens is awaiting me, hopefully soon, still saving...

Here's a site you can look at if your interested in a Canon...  http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ 

 And if want to see what those lenses can do, click on the lens of your choice here.. http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=141406 

Good luck and if you have any questions at all, I'm sure many will chime in here to help.... Were all here to help each other in any way we can....

 Norman

---

Did they get you to trade, your hero's for ghosts?

My 2 Cents on the subject is just this.  Pro bird Photographers use VERY expensive equipment and it shows in the quality and sharpness of the pictures.   A Canon EOS 1Ds MARK III and a 500mm lens will top pretty much anything us amateurs can afford. I say just be happy with the fact that you were able to record a moment of your life and enjoy the memory.

Dear Dovekie,

 (Forgive me if I ramble.)

I really like your photos, and it looks to me like you handle the camera real well. Point-and-shoot cameras are noisier, that's just how it is. Capturing birds in flight is an art in itself, and a difficult one. If I shoot a hundred frames of flying birds I'm lucky if one turns out.

I've been at it for about three years and travel all over the country photographing birds. Now I'm using some nice (but far from the most expensive) SLR equipment (Nikon D80 with 300mm f4 lens, usually with 2x teleconverter).  But for the first year, I used a camera much like the one you are using now (Panasonic FZ80: a great camera, but even noisier), and I had a blast. Many of the photos I took with that first camera are still my favorites. In my gallery these are any photos before July 06. If you want to see the difference between point-and-shoot and SLR, compare any of the older photos to later ones. (Keep in mind, all my photos are processed quite a bit in Photoshop). http://www.whatbird.com/forums/photos/nieblas_gallery/default.aspx

Like you, I get pretty serious about my hobbies, but the bottom line: I photograph birds for fun. I'm a self-taught amateur just like you. I get many compliments on my gallery, but I would never kid myself: my amateur photos don't compare to the pros.

Why should they? Pros have made photography their life's work and many use equipment that costs more than a new car. The photos of the pros give me something to shoot for, but competing with them would just ruin the joy.

What's fun for you? 

There will always be trade-offs. Buying the SLR equipment meant doing without some other things. Also, I found I could no longer hand-hold the camera with my (much heavier) 300 mm (non-stablized) lens. So I lug a tripod with me whenever I'm in the field. But for me it's worth it.

On the other hand, I sometimes see bird photographers with $10,000 (or more) in lenses alone: outfits so large they can't carry them; they have to break them down and load them in the car every time they move. They might spend all morning to get one publication quality shot of one bird. For me that just wouldn't be fun. I need to move around and photograph lots of birds, I often  shoot 600-800 frames and a couple dozen different birds in a day. Out of those, on a good day, half a dozen might be keepers.

You are taking really nice photos, and seeing a lot of interesting birds. From another amateur who has been doing this for a few years, I'm really impressed with your work.

---

Chris from Denver

This is particularly helpful for me to read, because I've struggled with wanting better pictures and wondering if the way to get there is with better equipment (I'm still 'point-and-shoot').  I'm like others - I take countless shots at any given time, and hope to come out with a few that are worth keeping.  I wish I wouldn't miss shots due to limits of the zoom I have, or the noise, or what-not.  But on the other hand, there's a certain advantage to being able to grab the camera off the table and simply "point and shoot" when a photo-worthy subject is nearby.  I think I'd scream more about missing shots because the bird took off well before I could get the camera set up with tripod (no doubt I'd keep the expensive equipment zipped away and stowed properly, versus just leaving it out on the table).  This has been a timely discussion given I've fantasized about upgrading, and appreciate all the viewpoints.

Hi Geminiluna

I agree with you a handy camera is a good camera

Although I use a Canon 10D dslr  I have attached to that a 70- 300mm lens I wish I could afford the 3,000$ for a canon L series IS lens but I can't so I have to make do with what I have.

I leave my lens attached to my camera body and when I see an op for a decent shot I take up the camera and the heating pad it is filled with bean type things place that on a surface and rest my camera on that  that way I don't have to set up a tripod. then I focus and shoot in burst mode then hope I got one decent shot out of them.

Camera shake and improper ISO and exposure settings are all killers in taking photos so read the book and get to know your camera what everything setting and button does and you will be happy  with the results you get but again I am pressing this issue there will still be post edit work to be done so look at getting a good edit software Photoshop is tops but expensive adobe puts out a lite version it is known as elements look into that

---

Birds high above in the trees Serenade the flowers with their melodies

you raise an interesting deal here...if you post a over-edited photo from photoshop, and display the EXIF info, that information is totally useless...no, you dont have to do any editing at all for most camera shots...picassa offers and excellent FREE viewer/editor which should suit most users needs....looking "good" is one thing, but learning to shoot it look good is quite another ...choose the latter...