HMMMM, GUESS WHO'S BACK ???

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Annika1980, Jul 29, 2005.

  1. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    Annika1980, Jul 29, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Annika1980

    Pete D Guest

    Pete D, Jul 29, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Annika1980

    Old Bugger Guest

    On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 11:55:02 GMT, "Pete D" <> wrote:

    >Why do hummimg birds hum?
    >
    >
    >
    >Because they forgot the words.


    I thought it was because their vibrators had flat batteries. ;-)
     
    Old Bugger, Jul 29, 2005
    #3
  4. Annika1980

    Pete D Guest

    "Old Bugger" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 11:55:02 GMT, "Pete D" <> wrote:
    >
    >>Why do hummimg birds hum?
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>Because they forgot the words.

    >
    > I thought it was because their vibrators had flat batteries. ;-)


    Disaster!
     
    Pete D, Jul 29, 2005
    #4
  5. Annika1980

    Bob Williams Guest

    Annika1980 wrote:
    > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/46864136/original
    >
    >
    > Business is about to pick up!
    >


    Very nice shots!
    Re: YUMMY.
    Even though you used flash on all of your pictures, it was not enough to
    stop the wing motion, especially on YUMMY.
    Was the ambient light just so strong that it overrode the freezing
    capability of the flash?
    Or was the distance so great that the contribution from the flash was
    negligible?
     
    Bob Williams, Jul 30, 2005
    #5
  6. Annika1980

    wavelength Guest

    I dunno, maybe the 1/100s speed was the culprit? Ya think? I have
    trouble freezing my kids well at 1/100.

    The most you could hope for is a slow synch freeze with that speed and
    the movement of a hummingbird wing. Thats 60-80 full beats every
    second. Thats full up and down mind you. For a test, try going out and
    taking a picture of a car on the highway moving about 75mph and see if
    you freeze it. Full dark maybe, but in daylight or even dusk? I dunno.

    But at f/5.6 and 400mm, you can only ratchet up the exposure so much to
    compensate for movement. Short of popping a spotlight out of his arse,
    this guy did pretty dang good. If he did this without a tripod, all the
    more (which I doubt but with VR/IS lenses is possible I guess).
     
    wavelength, Jul 30, 2005
    #6
  7. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    Very nice shots!
    Re: YUMMY.
    Even though you used flash on all of your pictures, it was not enough
    to
    stop the wing motion, especially on YUMMY.
    Was the ambient light just so strong that it overrode the freezing
    capability of the flash?
    Or was the distance so great that the contribution from the flash was
    negligible?
    ===================

    The distance wasn't a problem ... probably 20 feet or less.
    There was very little ambient light to speak of. It's always pretty
    dark on my back porch, especially at dusk.
    You'll have a hard time freezing the wings of a hummingbird with any
    flash. I can get close at 1/8000, but the background will be jet black
    even in broad daylight.
     
    Annika1980, Jul 30, 2005
    #7
  8. Annika1980

    Bob Williams Guest

    Annika1980 wrote:
    > Very nice shots!
    > Re: YUMMY.
    > Even though you used flash on all of your pictures, it was not enough
    > to
    > stop the wing motion, especially on YUMMY.
    > Was the ambient light just so strong that it overrode the freezing
    > capability of the flash?
    > Or was the distance so great that the contribution from the flash was
    > negligible?
    > ===================
    >
    > The distance wasn't a problem ... probably 20 feet or less.
    > There was very little ambient light to speak of. It's always pretty
    > dark on my back porch, especially at dusk.
    > You'll have a hard time freezing the wings of a hummingbird with any
    > flash. I can get close at 1/8000, but the background will be jet black
    > even in broad daylight.
    >

    Since the Guide Number of the 20D's flash is only 43 at ISO 100
    (GN=60@ISO 200),
    the proper f-stop for correct exposure at 20 feet is f=3.0 (~2.8).
    Since you shot at f=5.6, the contribution of the flash was 2 stops
    underexposed. The ambient light probably contributed much more to the
    exposure than the flash, so wing motion was about the same as if you had
    not used flash.
    To stop the wing motion you really need a much more powerful external
    Flash unit, e.g. GN about 160 @ ISO 100 (226 @ ISO 200). A powerful
    external flash may typically have a duration of 1/2000. Then at 20 feet
    you could shoot at f=11 at your fastest sync speed (1/200sec). Then the
    contribution of the flash would be MUCH greater than that of the
    ambient light at dusk and flash duration of 1/2000 would slow down those
    wings quite a lot.
    Bob Williams
     
    Bob Williams, Jul 30, 2005
    #8
  9. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    To stop the wing motion you really need a much more powerful external
    Flash unit, e.g. GN about 160 @ ISO 100 (226 @ ISO 200). A powerful
    external flash may typically have a duration of 1/2000. Then at 20 feet

    you could shoot at f=11 at your fastest sync speed (1/200sec). Then
    the
    contribution of the flash would be MUCH greater than that of the
    ambient light at dusk and flash duration of 1/2000 would slow down
    those
    wings quite a lot.
    ========================

    I was using the 550EX flash. And even with a duration of 1/2000 it
    isn't gonna stop the wings.
     
    Annika1980, Jul 30, 2005
    #9
  10. Annika1980

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >Annika1980 writes ...
    >
    >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/46864136/original
    >Business is about to pick up!


    While in Santa Fe last week I noticed dozens of hummingbirds around a
    feeder at the far end of Canyon Rd and set up a 500 f/4 w/ 1.4x
    converter (about 910 mm equiv with the 1D M II) and took several
    hundred flight shots, with a few successes (it's tough to focus on them
    mid-air with 900+ mm since they are constantly fighting with each other
    and zipping around). No flash, just natural light so the wings are
    blurred ... here are three, if I have time I'll post a few others since
    we caught other species as well (including a couple of Calliope's and
    one with a dark purple neck I couldn't ID without a guide book) ...
    enjoy, if you like this kind of stuff ...

    http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/broadtail_1.jpg
    http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/rufous_75.jpg
    http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/rufous_19.jpg

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Jul 31, 2005
    #10
  11. Annika1980

    George Kerby Guest

    Very nice, Bill. The last one (19) appears to be somewhat surreal - overly
    defined - like a weatherman against a greenscreen, esp along his chest. Is
    the air that hazy brownish there as well? Good work!


    On 7/31/05 11:06 AM, in article
    , "Bill Hilton"
    <> wrote:

    >> Annika1980 writes ...
    >>
    >> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/46864136/original
    >> Business is about to pick up!

    >
    > While in Santa Fe last week I noticed dozens of hummingbirds around a
    > feeder at the far end of Canyon Rd and set up a 500 f/4 w/ 1.4x
    > converter (about 910 mm equiv with the 1D M II) and took several
    > hundred flight shots, with a few successes (it's tough to focus on them
    > mid-air with 900+ mm since they are constantly fighting with each other
    > and zipping around). No flash, just natural light so the wings are
    > blurred ... here are three, if I have time I'll post a few others since
    > we caught other species as well (including a couple of Calliope's and
    > one with a dark purple neck I couldn't ID without a guide book) ...
    > enjoy, if you like this kind of stuff ...
    >
    > http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/broadtail_1.jpg
    > http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/rufous_75.jpg
    > http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/rufous_19.jpg
    >
    > Bill
    >



    _______________________________________________________________________________
    Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
    <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
     
    George Kerby, Jul 31, 2005
    #11
  12. Annika1980

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >George Kerby wrote ..
    >
    >Very nice, Bill


    Thanks George.

    >The last one (19) appears to be somewhat surreal - overly defined
    > - like a weatherman against a greenscreen, esp along his chest. Is
    >the air that hazy brownish there as well?


    No, the air is pretty clean up in Santa Fe ... the brown background is
    actually a stucco wall that's at an angle so it looks dark even in
    direct sun. From where I was shooting it was the best choice of
    backgrounds (I'm very picky about backgrounds, hate it when they are
    too busy and detract from the main subject).

    My wife, who is an excellent photographer, managed to get a bit
    different angle at another time (looking into some vegetation with a
    bit of side-lighting) but the long lens tends to blur a busy background
    too if the tonality is similar enough and it's far enough back from the
    focus point ... here are some of her shots from the same place, the
    first three with a lighter vegetation background and the fourth a nice
    shot of a wasp and hummer on the same feeder ...
    http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/rufous_U8507.jpg
    http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/fem_8881.jpg
    http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/rufous_fem_8840.jpg
    http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/rufous_wasp_U8647.jpg

    .... and here are three more from me, with two different species
    (Black-chin male and a hard-to-get Calliope male) and one final one
    showing the stucco wall going from shadow to light ... enjoy.

    http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/blackchin_2042.jpg
    http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/calliope_2108.jpg
    http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/rufous_check_2050.jpg

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Jul 31, 2005
    #12
  13. Annika1980

    Guest

    Bill Hilton wrote:

    > http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/rufous_U8507.jpg
    > http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/fem_8881.jpg
    > http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/rufous_fem_8840.jpg
    > http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/rufous_wasp_U8647.jpg
    >
    > ... and here are three more from me, with two different species
    > (Black-chin male and a hard-to-get Calliope male) and one final one
    > showing the stucco wall going from shadow to light ... enjoy.
    >
    > http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/blackchin_2042.jpg
    > http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/calliope_2108.jpg
    > http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/rufous_check_2050.jpg


    Well done, Bill! Love the wasp shot...

    Ben
     
    , Jul 31, 2005
    #13
  14. Annika1980

    George Kerby Guest

    Agreed. You two are a very talented couple. I REALLY like the wasp. Looks
    like a 'threat' to the hummer-but I know it is not. Great juxtaposition,
    though. The stucco shadow explains it all as well. Thanks for sharing...


    On 7/31/05 4:48 PM, in article
    , "Bill Hilton"
    <> wrote:

    >> George Kerby wrote ..
    >>
    >> Very nice, Bill

    >
    > Thanks George.
    >
    >> The last one (19) appears to be somewhat surreal - overly defined
    >> - like a weatherman against a greenscreen, esp along his chest. Is
    >> the air that hazy brownish there as well?

    >
    > No, the air is pretty clean up in Santa Fe ... the brown background is
    > actually a stucco wall that's at an angle so it looks dark even in
    > direct sun. From where I was shooting it was the best choice of
    > backgrounds (I'm very picky about backgrounds, hate it when they are
    > too busy and detract from the main subject).
    >
    > My wife, who is an excellent photographer, managed to get a bit
    > different angle at another time (looking into some vegetation with a
    > bit of side-lighting) but the long lens tends to blur a busy background
    > too if the tonality is similar enough and it's far enough back from the
    > focus point ... here are some of her shots from the same place, the
    > first three with a lighter vegetation background and the fourth a nice
    > shot of a wasp and hummer on the same feeder ...
    > http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/rufous_U8507.jpg
    > http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/fem_8881.jpg
    > http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/rufous_fem_8840.jpg
    > http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/rufous_wasp_U8647.jpg
    >
    > ... and here are three more from me, with two different species
    >
    > (Black-chin male and a hard-to-get Calliope male) and one final one
    > showing the stucco wall going from shadow to light ... enjoy.
    >
    > http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/blackchin_2042.jpg
    > http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/calliope_2108.jpg
    > http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/rufous_check_2050.jpg
    >
    > Bill
    >



    _______________________________________________________________________________
    Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
    <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
     
    George Kerby, Aug 1, 2005
    #14
  15. wrote:
    > Bill Hilton wrote:
    >
    >>http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/rufous_wasp_U8647.jpg
    >>

    > Well done, Bill! Love the wasp shot...
    >

    And Carolyn.... Both sets are great, and if I didn't know better, I'd
    think the images were photoshopped a lot, what with the nigh perfect
    backgrounds, although I don't care for the adobe/stucco brown, the birds
    are superbly isolated.

    Did you do any other photog. in SF?

    Used to roam there a lot.

    --
    John McWilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Aug 1, 2005
    #15
  16. Annika1980

    Bill Hilton Guest

    > John McWilliams writes ...
    >
    > ... if I didn't know better, I'd think the images were
    >photoshopped a lot, what with the nigh perfect
    >backgrounds, although I don't care for the adobe/stucco brown


    You are the 2nd or 3rd person to mention this so for grins I
    "Photoshopped" (I guess it's now a verb :) the calliope shot just to
    see how easy it is to 'cheat' and add a blue sky instead of the yucky
    brown stucco background ... I grabbed the jpeg, used Select/Color Range
    to select the background color, saved the selection as an alpha channel
    (Select/Save Selection), brushed over the areas on the bird that were
    selected because they were the same color as the background with black
    to fine tune the mask, reloaded the selection (Select/Load Selection),
    made an Adjustment Layer of type Hue/Sat (which picks up the selection
    as a layer mask) and changed the Hue to get a blue (sky) background.
    This took about 45 seconds ... here are the original and the cheat
    version, the cheat version has a splotchy sky because I used the jpeg
    as a starting point, I'm pretty sure if I go back to the original and
    spend a bit more time on this I could have done the sky so well you
    couldn't tell with certainty which version was real.

    http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/calliope_2108.jpg
    http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/calliope_2108_cheat.jpg

    >Did you do any other photog. in SF?


    Yes, we were actually up there for a week photographing other things
    and just happened to see the hummingbirds the afternoon we arrived,
    before we got really started with other stuff. Luckily we just
    happened to have a 500 f/4 handy :)

    >Used to roam there a lot.


    Great place if you can afford to live there ... otherwise a nice place
    to visit.

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Aug 1, 2005
    #16
  17. Hi Bill.
    After seeing Bret's, Bill's and Carol's excellent hummingbird photos,
    it inspired me to go back and dig out some I did on Mt Evans, Colorado
    in 2003. These are with a Canon 10D and a 500 f/4 which has a very
    narrow depth of field. The backgrounds are pine trees maybe 40 feet
    away, so the background is smooth and varies from greenish to
    brownish depending on if trunk or branches are in view.
    These are mostly full frame crop (maybe 10% cropped out).
    While the wings are not perfectly frozen, there is only small
    blur with 1/1500 to 1/2000 second exposures.

    http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW/web/humming_bird.c05.29.2003.IMG_4126.b-700.html

    http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW/web/humming_bird.c05.29.2003.IMG_4142.b-700.html

    http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW/web/humming_bird.c05.29.2003.IMG_4107.b-700.html

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Aug 6, 2005
    #17
  18. Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
    > Hi Bill.
    > After seeing Bret's, Bill's and Carol's excellent hummingbird photos,
    > it inspired me to go back and dig out some I did on Mt Evans, Colorado
    > in 2003. These are with a Canon 10D and a 500 f/4 which has a very
    > narrow depth of field. The backgrounds are pine trees maybe 40 feet
    > away, so the background is smooth and varies from greenish to
    > brownish depending on if trunk or branches are in view.
    > These are mostly full frame crop (maybe 10% cropped out).
    > While the wings are not perfectly frozen, there is only small
    > blur with 1/1500 to 1/2000 second exposures.
    >
    > http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW/web/humming_bird.c05.29.2003.IMG_4126.b-700.html
    >
    >
    > http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW/web/humming_bird.c05.29.2003.IMG_4142.b-700.html
    >
    >
    > http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW/web/humming_bird.c05.29.2003.IMG_4107.b-700.html
    >


    Excellent, also.

    I am wondering, tho, if a perfectly smoothed out bg is as aesthetically
    pleasing as one where there's some vague notion of trees or buildings in
    the bokeh (if that's a right way to use the term.) Or, put it this way-
    I am pretty sure I'd prefer it, but perhaps for other reasons, a totally
    smooth bg is the accepted norm.

    Just to be sure, these are fantastic images.....

    best wishes,

    --
    John McWilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Aug 6, 2005
    #18
  19. Annika1980

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >Roger Clark writes ...
    >
    > ... dig out some I did on Mt Evans, Colorado in 2003.


    Hi Roger,

    First two are male Broad-tailed Hummingbirds. Third one is a female,
    likely a Broad-tailed but according to the guide books it's very
    difficult to distinguish between female Broad-tail, Rufous and Calliope
    Hummingbirds ... we had all three species of females coming to the
    feeders at Santa Fe and it was tough to tell them apart ... I don't
    think the Calliope is found in the area you took your shots though.

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Aug 6, 2005
    #19
  20. Annika1980

    Ed Ruf Guest

    On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 07:58:34 -0700, in rec.photo.digital John McWilliams
    >I am wondering, tho, if a perfectly smoothed out bg is as aesthetically
    >pleasing as one where there's some vague notion of trees or buildings in
    >the bokeh (if that's a right way to use the term.) Or, put it this way-
    >I am pretty sure I'd prefer it, but perhaps for other reasons, a totally
    >smooth bg is the accepted norm.


    Sometimes you don't have a choice if you need your lens wide open to keep
    the shutter speed up and the background is appreciably farther away than
    your subject.
    ----------
    Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ()
    See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
    http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html
     
    Ed Ruf, Aug 6, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. ñKs

    hmmmm

    ñKs, Dec 6, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    660
    Some1
    Dec 6, 2003
  2. Mick Sterbs

    Hmmmm, most interesting...

    Mick Sterbs, Jun 28, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    284
    Lionel
    Jun 29, 2004
  3. Hmmmm....

    , Jun 30, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    530
    Rutger
    Jul 1, 2006
  4. Beverly

    Calling ID, hmmmm

    Beverly, Mar 30, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,471
    Beverly
    Mar 30, 2007
  5. Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    Hmmmm...

    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Apr 8, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    50
    Views:
    1,732
    Bette Noir
    Apr 14, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page