St Mary's again

Posted on 9 May 2009, 12:17

Damaging my foot last Saturday meant that I didn’t really get to have a weekend: but by today it was feeling better – I could at least walk on it – so I thought a day off and a short trip to St Mary’s was in order.

I got the tide all wrong and arrived as it was reaching its height.

Not the end of the world – it would go back out – but in the mean time the birder in me was pleased to find a First Winter Little Gull among the gulls in the South bay (I got a record shot – it ain’t pretty, but you can see why they’re called “Little” Gulls).

I knew there’d be Whitethroats and other warblers about in the trees around the wetland, along with the usual suspects like Reed buntings and Stonechats.

Yes, they were about, but the gusty strong wind made them most uncooperative. Still, while talking to a birding mate called Brian at the South Bay and waiting for the tide to turn, I got a nice enough image of a male Swallow to remind me that Summer’s coming:

Swallow, St Mary's Swallow

I then wandered up to the North Bay to see what was going on, and decided to settle down on the small amount of beach still available, to wait for the waders to arrive – I was in the mood for some Summer Plumage Turnstones and Sanderling.

Sure enough, after about 45 minutes of patient waiting, they started to drift in – and at that precise moment, a big daft Labrador came pounding down the beach, scattering the bloody lot…

Worse, it then decided that I wanted to play with it, and every time I tried to “persuade” it to go (I wouldn’t do anything to hurt it, but tried some fairly “robust” body language to persuade it that it wasn’t welcome) it got more excited by the game.

At that moment its owners appeared on the skyline – two airhead lasses who (I’m not proud to admit) got the loudest, most foul-mouthed roasting they’ll probably ever be on the receiving end of.

Mind you, I felt pretty justified in letting loose when one of them whined that “there’s nothing we can do about it…” while holding the dog’s frigging lead in her hand…

I stomped off in a huff, and returned to the North Bay.

And in less than half an hour, shot 2gb on the Sanderlings there..!

Now most of these are heavyish crops – they were a bit flightly – but the light, the (for a change) clean sand and the birds’ colours made me pretty happy with results.

No apologies for “Sanderling Overload” here – I like these guys!

Sanderling, St Mary's Sanderling
 
Sanderling, St Mary's Sanderling
 
Sanderling, St Mary's Sanderling
 
Sanderling, St Mary's Sanderling
 
Sanderling, St Mary's Sanderling
 
Sanderling, St Mary's Sanderling
 
Sanderling, St Mary's Sanderling
 
Sanderling, St Mary's Sanderling
 
Sanderling, St Mary's Sanderling

And – just to round things off – one of a few Dunlin that were about:

Dunlin, St Mary's Dunlin

If anyone is interested, these are all converted in Raw Therapee where I add some “capture” sharpening, adjust the highlights and shadows, and tweak the White Balance if necessary. I save as a jpeg at highest quality/lowest compression.

The file is then opened in Paint Shop Pro X2 where I crop and resize, apply sharpening (with the excellent “Focus” sharpening algorithm, which I honestly believe is the best sharpening tool available anywhere) and adjust saturation and Levels as needed – and I’ll adjust the White Balance here if I think it needs it. Although I agree with the Received Wisdom that this is best done at the RAW conversion stage, PSP X2 does this job perfectly well too.

Finally, I send the file to Neat Image which I use, not for noise reduction per se but to soften the background and increase separation between it and the subject – a faux shallow Depth Of Field effect. I also add a tiny bit (typically 15% out of 100%) of sharpening using the rather nice Sharpening tool in NI – it adds a nice little bit of “sparkle” to images.




What do you think?

  1. Alan Tilmouth wrote on 10 May, 10:33 PM:

    Hi Keith,

    About to dive in to the market for a Canon in the next few weeks. Have been considering the 50d because of the extra megapixels but these shots are persuading me I can get good enough results with a 40d and presumably the 100-400 lens that I think youre using?
    One question are you using a converter? and if so have you had issues with AF? That’s two questions.

    Rgds
    Alan




  2. Keith Reeder wrote on 12 May, 04:18 PM:

    Hi Alan,

    one big thing the 50D has over the 40D is availability – the 40D’s becoming harder to track down now because it has either been withdrawn as a current product, or is about to be (depending on who you ask).

    I don’t think there’s any major down-side to ending up with a 50D though – personally I’m not that interested in the “improvements” it brings to the table, but it’s still a very good camera. Art Morris for example is raving over its AF, even though as far as I can tell there’s no Real World difference between the AF in the 40D and 50D – they feel identical to me.

    You’re right that I’m using the 100-400mm with my 40D (it’s a very nice combo, I have to say), but I found out very early on (back in September 2007 in fact) that the 40D does not play well with a 1.4x converter between it and the 100-400mm: the 30D used to work really well (with the pins taped) but the 40D + TC will simply not AF on the centre AF point unless I pull the zoom back to about 300mm – which kinda defeats the object of the exercise…

    Bizarrely, it will AF on the peripheral AF points at full zoom.

    I don’t know if the 50D is any different in this regard, but I don’t get any sense that it is – the ability to AF reliably on the centre point with a TC would be enough for me to have a 50D.

    I should add that some folk have had success in using TCs with the 40D and 400mm f/5.6 lenses, but they’re very thin on the ground.

    As to the crop “advantage”: I’m really not persuaded by this, Alan.

    There’s a decent amount of extra “real estate” in a 50D file compared with a 40D file, but (and I’m going to write an article about this) when you’re in a situation where the ability to crop would make or break an image, you’re probably talking about a dot in the frame, and getting an accurate AF lock on the subject is much more likely to be an issue than how deeply you can crop.

    All those extra megapixels will get you, as like as not, is a bigger out of focus bird image!

    And sadly, I have the soft, dot-in-the-frame Sedge Warbler shots to prove the point (sob!)...

    No matter how big I was able to make these images they’d still be soft and OOF because there simply wasn’t enough contrasty detail for the AF to lock solidly onto, and foliage between me and the bird distracted the camera too. This would be as true of the 50D as the 40D.

    More “croppability” isn’t a reason not to have a 50D of course, I’m simply not convinced that in itself it’s a compelling reason to buy it. I don’t know how big (or if) you print, but 10mps is plenty for my purposes; and I do believe that the 50D takes a noise “hit” from those extra pixels.

    I wouldn’t be broken-hearted if someone gave me a 50D but I’m going to see what the 60D has to offer.





my details

Formatting: _italic_ = italic, *bold* = bold.

  (Please note that all comments are moderated.)

Images, content and design © 2010 Keith Reeder                                                                                           A Textpattern website