Hummingbird colors with flash

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Olin K. McDaniel, Aug 20, 2004.

  1. This may have been discussed many times in the past, but if so I
    missed it. For several years I've been doing some "digiscoping" of
    wildlife, mostly birds. I use both Nikon CoolPix 950 and 995s, with a
    Swarovski AD-80-HD spotting scope, which forces (or allows) me to take
    shots out 40 or more feet from the camera. Thus, using the flash on
    the camera is a waste of time and I've been limited to using available
    light. This works fine for most birds, but almost always gives
    blurred or underexposed shots of humming birds due to their constant
    and rapid movements.

    Recently, I tried a totally different approach with some equipment
    I've owned for years but rarely use. Instead of the spotting scope, I
    used a Nikon "TC-3E ED" tele-extender lens and set up the camera
    etal on a tripod just inside a full glass door. I mounted a secondary
    (slave) flash unit outdoors at about 45 degrees off to the side, just
    about 4 feet from the humming bird feeder, and set it so the camera's
    flash would trigger that slave. For the first time, I'm now able to
    get some sharp and stopped motion images at 1/1000 sec. shutter speed.


    However, another problem has arisen. The iridescent feathers around
    the neck of the male Ruby Throated Humming bird are not red, rather
    they look like a very dark purple or even black. I've read enough to
    believe the slave flash may be the root cause, but the first attempt
    to solve it was a failure. I moved the flash so it was aimed very
    close to and parallel to the axis of the light from the subject to the
    lens. This made essentially no difference in the iridescence of the
    neck feathers, although it did intensify the iridescence of the green
    wing and back feathers, somewhat.

    Can anyone suggest a solution, or even a sensible explanation of the
    cause. I know enough about refraction gratings, etc. to grasp the
    concept, if someone can give me a logical answer. Or, could it be the
    light energy of this flash unit does not include the necessary
    wavelengths to cause the reddish iridescence? Or is the double pane
    glass door acting as some sort of filter, of these specific
    wavelengths? Remember, the flash is outside, the camera is inside this
    door. Finally, is this specific to digtal camera spectral
    sensitivities, versus films? (That's a stretch, since it shows other
    reds very well.) HELP! Please.

    Olin McDaniel
    To reply by email, please remove "abcd" from Return address
    -----------------------------------------------------
    "Ignorance is treatable, Stupidity is incurable. Sometimes
    the difference is hardly distinguishable, however."
     
    Olin K. McDaniel, Aug 20, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Olin K. McDaniel

    dicko Guest

    http://www.shawcreekbirdsupply.com/hummingbird_color.htm

    "The resulting colors are amazingly vivid, but, unlike pigmented
    colors, can be seen only when the light is hitting the feathers at
    precisely the right angle. Thus, a hummingbird can shift its position
    just a little, and what was once black will become blazing red."

    My guess is the camera is not within the proper viewing angle with
    respect to the flash in order to see the red color.

    dickm


    On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 21:26:28 GMT, (Olin
    K. McDaniel) wrote:

    >
    >This may have been discussed many times in the past, but if so I
    >missed it. For several years I've been doing some "digiscoping" of
    >wildlife, mostly birds. I use both Nikon CoolPix 950 and 995s, with a
    >Swarovski AD-80-HD spotting scope, which forces (or allows) me to take
    >shots out 40 or more feet from the camera. Thus, using the flash on
    >the camera is a waste of time and I've been limited to using available
    >light. This works fine for most birds, but almost always gives
    >blurred or underexposed shots of humming birds due to their constant
    >and rapid movements.
    >
    >Recently, I tried a totally different approach with some equipment
    >I've owned for years but rarely use. Instead of the spotting scope, I
    >used a Nikon "TC-3E ED" tele-extender lens and set up the camera
    >etal on a tripod just inside a full glass door. I mounted a secondary
    >(slave) flash unit outdoors at about 45 degrees off to the side, just
    >about 4 feet from the humming bird feeder, and set it so the camera's
    >flash would trigger that slave. For the first time, I'm now able to
    >get some sharp and stopped motion images at 1/1000 sec. shutter speed.
    >
    >
    >However, another problem has arisen. The iridescent feathers around
    >the neck of the male Ruby Throated Humming bird are not red, rather
    >they look like a very dark purple or even black. I've read enough to
    >believe the slave flash may be the root cause, but the first attempt
    >to solve it was a failure. I moved the flash so it was aimed very
    >close to and parallel to the axis of the light from the subject to the
    >lens. This made essentially no difference in the iridescence of the
    >neck feathers, although it did intensify the iridescence of the green
    >wing and back feathers, somewhat.
    >
    >Can anyone suggest a solution, or even a sensible explanation of the
    >cause. I know enough about refraction gratings, etc. to grasp the
    >concept, if someone can give me a logical answer. Or, could it be the
    >light energy of this flash unit does not include the necessary
    >wavelengths to cause the reddish iridescence? Or is the double pane
    >glass door acting as some sort of filter, of these specific
    >wavelengths? Remember, the flash is outside, the camera is inside this
    >door. Finally, is this specific to digtal camera spectral
    >sensitivities, versus films? (That's a stretch, since it shows other
    >reds very well.) HELP! Please.
    >
    >Olin McDaniel
    >To reply by email, please remove "abcd" from Return address
    >-----------------------------------------------------
    >"Ignorance is treatable, Stupidity is incurable. Sometimes
    >the difference is hardly distinguishable, however."
     
    dicko, Aug 20, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Olin K. McDaniel

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >The iridescent feathers around
    >the neck of the male Ruby Throated Humming bird are not red,
    >rather they look like a very dark purple or even black.
    >
    >Can anyone suggest a solution, or even a sensible explanation of the
    >cause.


    You need a light on (or close to) the axis of the lens to pick up the
    iridescent colors. Light from an angle makes it look black.

    http://www.rpphoto.com/howto/hummer/humguide1.htm and go to part 3, then look
    for the section "Iridescence – Capturing the Light"

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Aug 20, 2004
    #3
  4. On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 21:26:28 GMT, (Olin
    K. McDaniel) wrote:

    >
    >This may have been discussed many times in the past, but if so I
    >missed it. For several years I've been doing some "digiscoping" of
    >wildlife, mostly birds. I use both Nikon CoolPix 950 and 995s, with a
    >Swarovski AD-80-HD spotting scope, which forces (or allows) me to take
    >shots out 40 or more feet from the camera. Thus, using the flash on
    >the camera is a waste of time and I've been limited to using available
    >light. This works fine for most birds, but almost always gives
    >blurred or underexposed shots of humming birds due to their constant
    >and rapid movements.
    >
    >Recently, I tried a totally different approach with some equipment
    >I've owned for years but rarely use. Instead of the spotting scope, I
    >used a Nikon "TC-3E ED" tele-extender lens and set up the camera
    >etal on a tripod just inside a full glass door. I mounted a secondary
    >(slave) flash unit outdoors at about 45 degrees off to the side, just
    >about 4 feet from the humming bird feeder, and set it so the camera's
    >flash would trigger that slave. For the first time, I'm now able to
    >get some sharp and stopped motion images at 1/1000 sec. shutter speed.
    >
    >
    >However, another problem has arisen. The iridescent feathers around
    >the neck of the male Ruby Throated Humming bird are not red, rather
    >they look like a very dark purple or even black. I've read enough to
    >believe the slave flash may be the root cause, but the first attempt
    >to solve it was a failure. I moved the flash so it was aimed very
    >close to and parallel to the axis of the light from the subject to the
    >lens. This made essentially no difference in the iridescence of the
    >neck feathers, although it did intensify the iridescence of the green
    >wing and back feathers, somewhat.
    >
    >Can anyone suggest a solution, or even a sensible explanation of the
    >cause. I know enough about refraction gratings, etc. to grasp the
    >concept, if someone can give me a logical answer. Or, could it be the
    >light energy of this flash unit does not include the necessary
    >wavelengths to cause the reddish iridescence? Or is the double pane
    >glass door acting as some sort of filter, of these specific
    >wavelengths? Remember, the flash is outside, the camera is inside this
    >door. Finally, is this specific to digtal camera spectral
    >sensitivities, versus films? (That's a stretch, since it shows other
    >reds very well.) HELP! Please.


    The direction of light hitting the irridescent feathers and the
    direction to the camera both have to be right for the color to show.
    If you understand gratings you really know that already.

    December before last, we had an immature Callipe hummer in lower
    Manhattan for a week or so. It had only a few of its magenta throat
    feathers, with most still to grow in.

    I am sure I watched it for at least 10 or 15 minutes before I saw the
    magenta flash. I am also willing to bet that those trying to
    photograph it never caught it.


    >
    >Olin McDaniel
    >To reply by email, please remove "abcd" from Return address
    >-----------------------------------------------------
    >"Ignorance is treatable, Stupidity is incurable. Sometimes
    >the difference is hardly distinguishable, however."


    Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC


    We have achieved faith-based science,
    faith-based economics, faith-based law
    enforcement, and faith-based missile
    defense.
    What's next? Faith-based air traffic control?
     
    Rodney Myrvaagnes, Aug 21, 2004
    #4
  5. Olin K. McDaniel

    louis xiv Guest

    Shoot it, stuff it and then shoot it?

    "Rodney Myrvaagnes" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 21:26:28 GMT, (Olin
    > K. McDaniel) wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >This may have been discussed many times in the past, but if so I
    > >missed it. For several years I've been doing some "digiscoping" of
    > >wildlife, mostly birds. I use both Nikon CoolPix 950 and 995s, with a
    > >Swarovski AD-80-HD spotting scope, which forces (or allows) me to take
    > >shots out 40 or more feet from the camera. Thus, using the flash on
    > >the camera is a waste of time and I've been limited to using available
    > >light. This works fine for most birds, but almost always gives
    > >blurred or underexposed shots of humming birds due to their constant
    > >and rapid movements.
    > >
    > >Recently, I tried a totally different approach with some equipment
    > >I've owned for years but rarely use. Instead of the spotting scope, I
    > >used a Nikon "TC-3E ED" tele-extender lens and set up the camera
    > >etal on a tripod just inside a full glass door. I mounted a secondary
    > >(slave) flash unit outdoors at about 45 degrees off to the side, just
    > >about 4 feet from the humming bird feeder, and set it so the camera's
    > >flash would trigger that slave. For the first time, I'm now able to
    > >get some sharp and stopped motion images at 1/1000 sec. shutter speed.
    > >
    > >
    > >However, another problem has arisen. The iridescent feathers around
    > >the neck of the male Ruby Throated Humming bird are not red, rather
    > >they look like a very dark purple or even black. I've read enough to
    > >believe the slave flash may be the root cause, but the first attempt
    > >to solve it was a failure. I moved the flash so it was aimed very
    > >close to and parallel to the axis of the light from the subject to the
    > >lens. This made essentially no difference in the iridescence of the
    > >neck feathers, although it did intensify the iridescence of the green
    > >wing and back feathers, somewhat.
    > >
    > >Can anyone suggest a solution, or even a sensible explanation of the
    > >cause. I know enough about refraction gratings, etc. to grasp the
    > >concept, if someone can give me a logical answer. Or, could it be the
    > >light energy of this flash unit does not include the necessary
    > >wavelengths to cause the reddish iridescence? Or is the double pane
    > >glass door acting as some sort of filter, of these specific
    > >wavelengths? Remember, the flash is outside, the camera is inside this
    > >door. Finally, is this specific to digtal camera spectral
    > >sensitivities, versus films? (That's a stretch, since it shows other
    > >reds very well.) HELP! Please.

    >
    > The direction of light hitting the irridescent feathers and the
    > direction to the camera both have to be right for the color to show.
    > If you understand gratings you really know that already.
    >
    > December before last, we had an immature Callipe hummer in lower
    > Manhattan for a week or so. It had only a few of its magenta throat
    > feathers, with most still to grow in.
    >
    > I am sure I watched it for at least 10 or 15 minutes before I saw the
    > magenta flash. I am also willing to bet that those trying to
    > photograph it never caught it.
    >
    >
    > >
    > >Olin McDaniel
    > >To reply by email, please remove "abcd" from Return address
    > >-----------------------------------------------------
    > >"Ignorance is treatable, Stupidity is incurable. Sometimes
    > >the difference is hardly distinguishable, however."

    >
    > Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC
    >
    >
    > We have achieved faith-based science,
    > faith-based economics, faith-based law
    > enforcement, and faith-based missile
    > defense.
    > What's next? Faith-based air traffic control?
     
    louis xiv, Aug 21, 2004
    #5
  6. Olin K. McDaniel

    dicko Guest

    I had heard that thats what Audobon used to do and thats why many of
    his drawings show birds in really weird positions.

    dickm

    On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 11:44:32 GMT, "louis xiv"
    <> wrote:

    >Shoot it, stuff it and then shoot it?
    >
    >"Rodney Myrvaagnes" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 21:26:28 GMT, (Olin
    >> K. McDaniel) wrote:
    >>
    >> >
    >> >This may have been discussed many times in the past, but if so I
    >> >missed it. For several years I've been doing some "digiscoping" of
    >> >wildlife, mostly birds. I use both Nikon CoolPix 950 and 995s, with a
    >> >Swarovski AD-80-HD spotting scope, which forces (or allows) me to take
    >> >shots out 40 or more feet from the camera. Thus, using the flash on
    >> >the camera is a waste of time and I've been limited to using available
    >> >light. This works fine for most birds, but almost always gives
    >> >blurred or underexposed shots of humming birds due to their constant
    >> >and rapid movements.
    >> >
    >> >Recently, I tried a totally different approach with some equipment
    >> >I've owned for years but rarely use. Instead of the spotting scope, I
    >> >used a Nikon "TC-3E ED" tele-extender lens and set up the camera
    >> >etal on a tripod just inside a full glass door. I mounted a secondary
    >> >(slave) flash unit outdoors at about 45 degrees off to the side, just
    >> >about 4 feet from the humming bird feeder, and set it so the camera's
    >> >flash would trigger that slave. For the first time, I'm now able to
    >> >get some sharp and stopped motion images at 1/1000 sec. shutter speed.
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >However, another problem has arisen. The iridescent feathers around
    >> >the neck of the male Ruby Throated Humming bird are not red, rather
    >> >they look like a very dark purple or even black. I've read enough to
    >> >believe the slave flash may be the root cause, but the first attempt
    >> >to solve it was a failure. I moved the flash so it was aimed very
    >> >close to and parallel to the axis of the light from the subject to the
    >> >lens. This made essentially no difference in the iridescence of the
    >> >neck feathers, although it did intensify the iridescence of the green
    >> >wing and back feathers, somewhat.
    >> >
    >> >Can anyone suggest a solution, or even a sensible explanation of the
    >> >cause. I know enough about refraction gratings, etc. to grasp the
    >> >concept, if someone can give me a logical answer. Or, could it be the
    >> >light energy of this flash unit does not include the necessary
    >> >wavelengths to cause the reddish iridescence? Or is the double pane
    >> >glass door acting as some sort of filter, of these specific
    >> >wavelengths? Remember, the flash is outside, the camera is inside this
    >> >door. Finally, is this specific to digtal camera spectral
    >> >sensitivities, versus films? (That's a stretch, since it shows other
    >> >reds very well.) HELP! Please.

    >>
    >> The direction of light hitting the irridescent feathers and the
    >> direction to the camera both have to be right for the color to show.
    >> If you understand gratings you really know that already.
    >>
    >> December before last, we had an immature Callipe hummer in lower
    >> Manhattan for a week or so. It had only a few of its magenta throat
    >> feathers, with most still to grow in.
    >>
    >> I am sure I watched it for at least 10 or 15 minutes before I saw the
    >> magenta flash. I am also willing to bet that those trying to
    >> photograph it never caught it.
    >>
    >>
    >> >
    >> >Olin McDaniel
    >> >To reply by email, please remove "abcd" from Return address
    >> >-----------------------------------------------------
    >> >"Ignorance is treatable, Stupidity is incurable. Sometimes
    >> >the difference is hardly distinguishable, however."

    >>
    >> Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC
    >>
    >>
    >> We have achieved faith-based science,
    >> faith-based economics, faith-based law
    >> enforcement, and faith-based missile
    >> defense.
    >> What's next? Faith-based air traffic control?

    >
     
    dicko, Aug 21, 2004
    #6
  7. dy (Bill Hilton) wrote in
    news::

    > You need a light on (or close to) the axis of the lens to pick up the
    > iridescent colors. Light from an angle makes it look black.
    >
    > http://www.rpphoto.com/howto/hummer/humguide1.htm and go to part 3,
    > then look for the section "Iridescence ƒ " Capturing the Light"


    Hmmmmm ... is this not really faking the color of the bird?
    I mean ... how often do you look at a hummingbird and having the
    sun light spot on? All those fantastic colorful pictures
    of hummingbirds - do they not show how they really look?


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Aug 21, 2004
    #7
  8. Olin K. McDaniel

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >> dy (Bill Hilton) wrote
    >>
    >> You need a light on (or close to) the axis of the lens to pick up the
    >> iridescent colors. Light from an angle makes it look black.
    >>
    >> http://www.rpphoto.com/howto/hummer/humguide1.htm and go to part 3,
    >> then look for the section "Iridescence Æ’ " Capturing the Light"


    >From: Roland Karlsson
    >
    >Hmmmmm ... is this not really faking the color of the bird?


    Of course not, those colors are inherent in the bird's feathers.

    >I mean ... how often do you look at a hummingbird and having the
    >sun light spot on?


    Every time the light is behind you? Actually as the bird hovers in mid-air and
    turns his body you can see the colors change.

    >All those fantastic colorful pictures
    >of hummingbirds - do they not show how they really look?


    Look up what 'iridescent' means and how iridescent colors are generated. By
    definition the colors look different from different angles. The photos you
    refer to show what they look like from a particular angle which shows the
    colors the best.

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Aug 21, 2004
    #8
  9. dy (Bill Hilton) wrote in
    news::

    >>Hmmmmm ... is this not really faking the color of the bird?

    >
    > Of course not, those colors are inherent in the bird's feathers.
    >
    >>I mean ... how often do you look at a hummingbird and having the
    >>sun light spot on?

    >
    > Every time the light is behind you? Actually as the bird hovers in
    > mid-air and turns his body you can see the colors change.
    >
    >>All those fantastic colorful pictures
    >>of hummingbirds - do they not show how they really look?

    >
    > Look up what 'iridescent' means and how iridescent colors are
    > generated. By definition the colors look different from different
    > angles. The photos you refer to show what they look like from a
    > particular angle which shows the colors the best.
    >


    I know what it mean. And I know how it works.

    Yes - the colors look different from different angles. And you
    can see lots of variations.

    But - if you use flash it seems like the colors are at a
    rather extreme maximum. Those very clear colors are not at
    all easy to catch without a flash, if possible at all. Thats
    what the poster say and thats what the article on the web page
    says. Therefore, it seems to be with those extreme clear
    colors just like red eyes - it is just an artefact of flash
    photography. Spectacular - but not true to what you normally
    see.

    Now - I am not familiar with humming birds - living in Sweden
    where there are none. So, correct me if I am wrong. Is the
    article and the previous poster wrong - is it possible to
    get those bright colors without a flash?


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Aug 21, 2004
    #9
  10. Yep, that was my first presumption also. My second paragraph in the
    original post mentions relocating the flash so it was almost on the
    same axis as the image coming into the camera. (Actually, just barely
    out of the field of view of the camera.) And as stated, there was no
    improvement.

    Olin


    On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 17:15:02 -0500, dicko <>
    wrote:

    >http://www.shawcreekbirdsupply.com/hummingbird_color.htm
    >
    >"The resulting colors are amazingly vivid, but, unlike pigmented
    >colors, can be seen only when the light is hitting the feathers at
    >precisely the right angle. Thus, a hummingbird can shift its position
    >just a little, and what was once black will become blazing red."
    >
    >My guess is the camera is not within the proper viewing angle with
    >respect to the flash in order to see the red color.
    >
    >dickm
    >
    >


    To reply by email, please remove "abcd" from Return address
    -----------------------------------------------------
    "Ignorance is treatable, Stupidity is incurable. Sometimes
    the difference is hardly distinguishable, however."
     
    Olin K. McDaniel, Aug 21, 2004
    #10
  11. As I just replied to Dicko, my original post (second paragraph)
    describes doing exactly what you now suggest. And I further stated it
    had no effect on the red neck feathers, but did intensify the
    iridescence of the wing and back feathers.

    Olin


    On 20 Aug 2004 22:42:22 GMT, dy (Bill Hilton)
    wrote:

    >>The iridescent feathers around
    >>the neck of the male Ruby Throated Humming bird are not red,
    >>rather they look like a very dark purple or even black.
    >>
    >>Can anyone suggest a solution, or even a sensible explanation of the
    >>cause.

    >
    >You need a light on (or close to) the axis of the lens to pick up the
    >iridescent colors. Light from an angle makes it look black.
    >
    >http://www.rpphoto.com/howto/hummer/humguide1.htm and go to part 3, then look
    >for the section "Iridescence – Capturing the Light"
    >
    >Bill
    >
    >


    To reply by email, please remove "abcd" from Return address
    -----------------------------------------------------
    "Ignorance is treatable, Stupidity is incurable. Sometimes
    the difference is hardly distinguishable, however."
     
    Olin K. McDaniel, Aug 21, 2004
    #11
  12. Olin K. McDaniel

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: Roland Karlsson

    >Yes - the colors look different from different angles. And you
    >can see lots of variations ... is it possible to
    >get those bright colors without a flash?


    Yes, if you have the angle of the sun right. I see hummingbirds all the time
    and in certain lights you do see those colors. But it's difficult to get a
    shutter speed fast enough to freeze the wings, which is the other reason flash
    is so popular with hummer photographers.
     
    Bill Hilton, Aug 21, 2004
    #12
  13. Roland,

    Thanks for your insightful comments. I've taken many, many telephoto
    shots of these birds with my spotting scope, at distances of roughly
    40 feet. I can see the ruby throat (red) on many of the males, even
    though the feeders were in deep shade, thus ruling out the need for
    direct sunlight to generate this effect. (Incidentally, I want to
    correct a word I used in the original post - I should have said
    "diffraction grating" rather than refraction.) As originally stated,
    because of the low light level and the reduced light gathering due to
    the telescope, the shutter speed is simply incapable of stopping the
    motion, resulting in unacceptable blurring. So, I want to get better
    photos, and again with the ruby iridescence included, as well as sharp
    images.

    The real challenge, as I see it is - people many years back used all
    sorts of strobe lights to stop the motion of these birds, and used
    film cameras, of course. They got many shots with the brilliant ruby
    colors. Dr. Crawford Greenwalt, former Chairman of the DuPont Co.
    published at least one book with these type photos, one in 1960. His
    pictures are the standard that people today are still trying to equal,
    including me! So is there a difference in type of strobe lighting, or
    just what is the secret?

    Thanks again to all who've taken time to reply.

    Olin

    On 21 Aug 2004 15:06:56 GMT, Roland Karlsson
    <> wrote:

    >
    >I know what it mean. And I know how it works.
    >
    >Yes - the colors look different from different angles. And you
    >can see lots of variations.
    >
    >But - if you use flash it seems like the colors are at a
    >rather extreme maximum. Those very clear colors are not at
    >all easy to catch without a flash, if possible at all. Thats
    >what the poster say and thats what the article on the web page
    >says. Therefore, it seems to be with those extreme clear
    >colors just like red eyes - it is just an artefact of flash
    >photography. Spectacular - but not true to what you normally
    >see.
    >
    >Now - I am not familiar with humming birds - living in Sweden
    >where there are none. So, correct me if I am wrong. Is the
    >article and the previous poster wrong - is it possible to
    >get those bright colors without a flash?
    >
    >
    >/Roland


    To reply by email, please remove "abcd" from Return address
    -----------------------------------------------------
    "Ignorance is treatable, Stupidity is incurable. Sometimes
    the difference is hardly distinguishable, however."
     
    Olin K. McDaniel, Aug 21, 2004
    #13
  14. Olin K. McDaniel

    Annika1980 Guest

    Annika1980, Aug 21, 2004
    #14
  15. On 21 Aug 2004 15:06:56 GMT, Roland Karlsson
    <> wrote:

    > (Bill Hilton) wrote in
    >news::
    >
    >>>Hmmmmm ... is this not really faking the color of the bird?

    >>
    >> Of course not, those colors are inherent in the bird's feathers.
    >>
    >>>I mean ... how often do you look at a hummingbird and having the
    >>>sun light spot on?

    >>
    >> Every time the light is behind you? Actually as the bird hovers in
    >> mid-air and turns his body you can see the colors change.
    >>
    >>>All those fantastic colorful pictures
    >>>of hummingbirds - do they not show how they really look?

    >>
    >> Look up what 'iridescent' means and how iridescent colors are
    >> generated. By definition the colors look different from different
    >> angles. The photos you refer to show what they look like from a
    >> particular angle which shows the colors the best.
    >>

    >
    >I know what it mean. And I know how it works.
    >
    >Yes - the colors look different from different angles. And you
    >can see lots of variations.
    >
    >But - if you use flash it seems like the colors are at a
    >rather extreme maximum. Those very clear colors are not at
    >all easy to catch without a flash, if possible at all. Thats
    >what the poster say and thats what the article on the web page
    >says. Therefore, it seems to be with those extreme clear
    >colors just like red eyes - it is just an artefact of flash
    >photography. Spectacular - but not true to what you normally
    >see.
    >
    >Now - I am not familiar with humming birds - living in Sweden
    >where there are none. So, correct me if I am wrong. Is the
    >article and the previous poster wrong - is it possible to
    >get those bright colors without a flash?
    >

    It is possible to see them without the flash. I have not photographed
    one with or without flash. The Ruby throats that are common in the
    northeastern US I have seen since childhood. The effect does depend on
    angle, as it does with grackles and the heads of Mallard drakes.



    Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC


    We have achieved faith-based science,
    faith-based economics, faith-based law
    enforcement, and faith-based missile
    defense.
    What's next? Faith-based air traffic control?
     
    Rodney Myrvaagnes, Aug 21, 2004
    #15
  16. Roland Karlsson, Aug 21, 2004
    #16
  17. On 21 Aug 2004 17:27:28 GMT, (Annika1980) wrote:

    >Here's one I took this week:
    >http://www.pbase.com/image/32711446
    >


    I agree with Roland. That is impressive. I've got some that I
    thought were good, regardless of iridescence, but not that sharp nor
    as fully stopped of all motion. Only today did I find that my CP-995
    really does not have a 1/2000 sec. shutter speed as it leads me to
    believe, rather the fastest It will ACTUALLY shoot seems to be 1/1000.

    Olin McDaniel
    To reply by email, please remove "abcd" from Return address
    -----------------------------------------------------
    "Ignorance is treatable, Stupidity is incurable. Sometimes
    the difference is hardly distinguishable, however."
     
    Olin K. McDaniel, Aug 22, 2004
    #17
  18. Rodney Myrvaagnes <> wrote in
    news::

    > It is possible to see them without the flash. I have not photographed
    > one with or without flash. The Ruby throats that are common in the
    > northeastern US I have seen since childhood. The effect does depend on
    > angle, as it does with grackles and the heads of Mallard drakes.
    >


    We have Mallard Drakes in Sweden, we call them "gräsänder". No
    grackles I think - but several crow birds - some with colorful
    interference areas.

    Now - lets say that you have humming birds. Those birds show
    at certain angles colorful flashes. The actual nature of the
    colors depends on the angle. Lets further say that a certain
    kind of color effect, a very strong color effect, can be obtained
    by lighting the bird from the same angle that you look. Then
    this very strog color effect is a flash artefact, not really
    seen so often in real life. Personally I think it is more
    interesting to do like Annika1980; take a very good picture
    of the humming bird - than trying to get the most colorful shot.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Aug 22, 2004
    #18
  19. Olin K. McDaniel

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: Roland Karlsson

    >Now - lets say that you have humming birds. Those birds show
    >at certain angles colorful flashes. The actual nature of the
    >colors depends on the angle. Lets further say that a certain
    >kind of color effect, a very strong color effect, can be obtained
    >by lighting the bird from the same angle that you look. Then
    >this very strog color effect is a flash artefact, not really
    >seen so often in real life.


    Nonsense. I've seen thousands of hummingbirds and hundreds of photos of
    hummingbirds and I've never seen a color in a photo that I haven't seen on an
    actual bird. The idea that the flash causes something like red-eye in the
    feathers (which you said in an earlier post) is silly. If anything the actual
    birds look more brilliant because they gleam as they change position in
    mid-air.

    You should actually look at some hummingbirds in flight sometime, then you'll
    see :)

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Aug 22, 2004
    #19
  20. dy (Bill Hilton) wrote in
    news::

    > Nonsense. I've seen thousands of hummingbirds and hundreds of photos
    > of hummingbirds and I've never seen a color in a photo that I haven't
    > seen on an actual bird. The idea that the flash causes something like
    > red-eye in the feathers (which you said in an earlier post) is silly.
    > If anything the actual birds look more brilliant because they gleam as
    > they change position in mid-air.
    >
    > You should actually look at some hummingbirds in flight sometime, then
    > you'll see :)


    OK - maybe you are right. I have not really seen hummingbirds
    in real life. But I have seen lots of pictures of hummingbirds.
    There are lots of very nice ones - impressive ones - both with
    and without spectacular colors.

    But there is a kind of pictures you see sometimes. Taken with flash
    and with one very strong color - often at the throat part. Those
    pictures do not look real IMHO. Thats the kind of pictures I am
    rather sceptic about.

    I have no doubt that actual hummingbirds where the color is changing
    and flashing look more brilliant. Not at all. But I am talking about
    still photos. It is not likely that a flash straight on will give you
    a natural look; it never does. And in the case of colors made by
    interference - it cannot be correct.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Aug 22, 2004
    #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. daytripper

    Re: HUMMINGBIRD PRACTICAL JOKES !!!

    daytripper, Jul 31, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    572
    daytripper
    Jul 31, 2003
  2. Bryce

    Re: HUMMINGBIRD PRACTICAL JOKES !!!

    Bryce, Jul 31, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    588
    Bryce
    Jul 31, 2003
  3. Annika1980

    HUMMINGBIRD QUESTION

    Annika1980, Aug 27, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    640
  4. Annika1980

    THE KILLER HUMMINGBIRD !!!

    Annika1980, Sep 9, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    938
    Eric Miller
    Sep 9, 2003
  5. All these hummingbird photos...

    , Aug 23, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    28
    Views:
    864
Loading...

Share This Page