white on white

[nartreb]

My turn. Fire away...

300mm (470 equiv) handheld (balanced on log over thin ice), exposure priority 1/640 -> f/7.1 at ISO 200. Cropped and resized for display online, no other adjustments.

Come to think of it, a tripod wouldn't have broken the ice, & it would have helped a lot!

 

[kmorgan]

This is with levels and curves adjustments applied (hope you don't mind).

Kevin

 

[Mark Schaefer]

I like that you got a moment of interaction between the swans. There is also some nice detail in the feathers which is attractive. Your image is fairly sharp for being hand held, though the tripod would increase the sharpness. This is a subject where you will want to keep shooting until you are satisfied that you have captured the best possible image, making a tripod more desirable to ward off muscle fatigue in holding a telephoto lens.

One of the primary rules in animal portraits is to include at least one eye of your subjects. With a large group you might get away without seeing the eyes, but the smaller the group the more important it becomes. Ideally we should see an eye on both birds, and the eye should be well lit with a highlight in the eye. A fill flash can sometimes be used to supply the highlight if the available light is insufficient, however, you may too far from your subject for the flash to reach. In this photo one of the birds is backlit, and the one whose head is well lit is seen largely from behind. It would be better if both swans were seen from the side or front, and both well lit.

It is also generally better to avoid overlaps between multiple subjects, unless it is necessary to capture a great moment of interaction. Both necks are a little tense and straight. With swans a more relaxed curved neck is generally preferable. When humans first approach swans often become a bit wary, but in time they will relax as they become convinced you mean then no harm.

The white on white became a bit gray on gray. Camera meters generally try to produce a tonal range of 12% (often misquoted at 18%) gray. A scene which is nearly all white will be delivered 12% gray. I see Kevin has already done a correction to get back to white on white.

 

[w7xman]

Nice shot,

I agree with Mark about the grey/grey thing, and a little levels (but to a lesser extent than the other leveling) should bring this out.

My thoughts are immediately on the fine composition and crop. I love the layers and texture of the ice/water within the swan's habitat. All compliment the swans well, but your eye focuses right on the birds. Exactly what you want! Ideally, yes, you'd want less overlap, more eyecontact, but I think this does convey a great moment for you. I think this would be an interesting study in Black and White conversion as well!

To improve the shot, shoot more of it. Put your camera on machine gun mode if it has one, or just keep shooting. You have a great scene, and great interplay, don't wait for the action, capture it all.

Thanks for sharing!

 

[darren]

I agree with most of what has been said. Change the greys to whites and it is a big improvement. I like the inersections of the swan's necks and how they almost form a heart. Almost. Fractions of a second or angle from being a real keeper.

One thing that I will question is the sharpness. It seems pretty soft. Did you crop it from a very small portion of the original shot? That would explain some softness. I noticed that you said you shot at 300mm eqiv 470mm at 1/640 sec. So your shutter speed was certainly fast enough to give you a sharper shot. You might need to work a little on your handholding technique.

One other thing is that if you were using a zoom lens that ends at 300mm (XXmm-300mm zoom) and you shot it all the way at 300, you will not get the best performance of your lens. You will get better performance if you zoom out just a little to around 280mm. Just a guess, I don't know what lens you used.

- darren

 

[nartreb]

Yeah, this shot was all the way out at 300mm with a 28-300mm Tamron. I cropped out about half the area of the resulting shot; initially the swans were dead center. I usually do back the zoom off a little but they were pretty far away; any smaller in the viewfinder and I wouldn't have been confident I had them in focus. I don't think it's motion blur, though I'd been in an uncomfortable crouch for a while (waiting for the birds to move out from directly in front of the sun glare) and my fingers were getting cold. I suppose I might have simply mis-focussed (I was using manual focus), or it could be the lens. Anybody wanna buy me a sharper lens and we'll find out?
I took a couple dozen frames, this was one of the best - one of very few where *both* birds are tolerably well-positioned and well-lit, and close to each other.

 

[Mark Schaefer]

I believe the unsharpness in your photo is camera shake. I could not see any point in the water reflections, either in front or behind the swans where there is a sharp focus. Even with a fast shutter speed you can occasionally experience camera shake. A tripod with a cable release would improve your chances. You would not want to use the camera's timer to reduce the camera shake, as you would miss the critical moment.

I was also thinking of the heart shape that Darren mentioned. It is a bit of a cliche, but that just means it is a subject that works well. Most stock houses prefer no overlap in the swans. Ideally you want a very close juxtaposition, with a minimal separation. Below are some stock house links illustrating the cliche. Many are Photoshop composites using a single swan and its reversed image. But there are a few examples where the photographer executed the cliche legitimately. Most have a slight separation, though some (even one of the composites) have a slight overlap. Also the curved neck is very essential.

http://www.dreamstime.com/swanheart-image696560
http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?searchterm=swan+heart&forward=1

 

[forestgnome]

Nice image...nice interaction and nice soft light.

Very educational thread.

Happy Trails

 

[darren]

Mark - great info.

Nartreb - one other question, what is the minimum f stop of that lens at 300mm? 5.6 or 6.3? If it is 6.3, then you might have to stop the lens down more than 7.1 to make the lens work it's best. You might have to go to f 8 and up your ISO to 400 to get a fast enough shutter speed to hand hold. Depending on the ability of your camera sensor to handle noise at ISO 400, you might get a better shot with that lens at f8 instead of of f7.1.

Just to review for everyone, zoom lenses tend not to work well at their extreme ends. A 28-300mm lens is a very wide zoom range. It will not work well at 28 or 300. It is better to shoot at 280mm and crop the shot on a computer than to shoot at 300. Also, lenses will not perform at their best wide open (smallest f #). If the lens is a f 2.8 then you will get better performance at f3.5. A f6.3 lens will shoot better at f8. I am not talking about increased depth of field, I'm talking about chromatic abberations etc.

- darren

 

[nartreb]

It lists as f6.3, but BobAtkins.com says it's "closer to 7.1" (also more like 280mm). (This doesn't prevent him from shooting test shots at f6.3 for side-by-side comparisons with a Canon EF75-300/4-5.6 IS. [The Canon comes out on top: "slightly better" at 300mm, "clear[ly]...sharper" at 100mm.])

My sensor is a Canon Digital Rebel XT. I've heard good things about Canons and noise performance but have yet to try it at higher ISO.

By the way, the "interaction" of the swans is a trick of perspective. The swan on the right (presumed female) is at least a body-length closer than the swan on the left.

 

[darren]

It lists as f6.3, but BobAtkins.com says it's "closer to 7.1" (also more like 280mm).

Ah, that makes sense. Try shooting at f 8 and see how you do. Bump up to ISO 800 if you have to. I have been getting suprisingly good results at 800 on my Canon 20D.

Lots of good info in this thread. Me likey likey this forum.


- d