Chickadee

Gallery: AvianPosted March 12, 2010101 views9 comments

Black-capped Chickadee (Parus atricapillus)

These little fellows have been very common around here all winter. They’re professional moochers as well as lively acrobats. So often one will land on a branch near me with an inquisitive look. A couple of times one even landed on my camera lens when I was focusing on another bird. Judging from the number of images of this species posted here, I expect that this behavior is not news to many of you!

I’m beginning to see our migrants returning now. However, this is the best shot I obtained yesterday and it seems like a nice parting shot to this winter.

I like the detail in this image. I did need to clone out some extra vegetation but it was well away from the bird. I applied selective NR to the sky. However, Dfine 2.0 had no effect. Neat Image did better but I still see some noise. Perhaps I’m expecting too much. I decided to stop NR efforts at that point and see your reactions.

I look forward to your comments.

EOS 7D, EF 400mm f/5.6, 580 EX II: ISO 500, 1/800 s, f/8.0, fill flash, image is 4063 x 3140 pixels (=12.8 MP or 71% of the 18 MP of the 7D)

Comments

9 comments

Comment posted by Ron Bielefeld on March 12, 2010 at 7:52 AM

Steve, I like the angle of this shot. I gives a good look at the bird, but is a bit of a change from the usual straight on perspective. I like the perch plant too. The bird looks nice and sharp with good detail. About the noise. The level of noise in the larger version is OK to me. Wondering, did you sharpen the bird and the BG or just the bird? As you probably know, sharping the BG will exacerbate any noise present and make it hard to remove using NR software.

Registered on December 6, 2008, 360 Posts, 7132 Comments

Comment posted by Steve Balke on March 12, 2010 at 9:05 AM

Thank you both very much for your comments. Ron, interesting question: In this case I did selective sharpening of the bird only (Sharpener Pro 3.0) and then later, NR of the sky only. I noticed that the workflow advised by Nik Software states NR first and sharpening later. However, I think that the selection process should have avoided the order problem. (I was very careful to use their image maps to judge selection and when I used Neat Image, the blue sky was easy to select.) I have experimented with this order on occasion with the idea that maybe sometimes sharpening can help make the noise more prominent and easy to remove. Also, sometimes, after sharpening, I spot a noisy area that I just can't resist reducing. With the evidence I have so far though, I agree with you and try to do all my noise reduction first. Right now I'm trying to figure out what is acceptable noise. Your comments and those of others on my images sure help!

Registered on June 18, 2009, 229 Posts, 2915 Comments

Comment posted by Luke Ormand on March 12, 2010 at 9:10 AM

I really like the perch and the detail. It sort of looks like there is a big halo around the bird/prech, but it is probably a distant cloud and it may have been exacerbated by the use of fill flash. I'm sure it looks better on my monitor at home vs. this work one

Registered on February 4, 2009, 1093 Posts, 7035 Comments

Comment posted by Nick Saunders on March 12, 2010 at 3:27 PM

The noise reduction worked wonders Steve, but I'm seeing what looks like a halo effect around the birds head which might just be the sky.
I've ended up completely ignoring birds up high now, as the lower angle is always more favorable, unless of course you're looking up at an Ivory-billed Woodpecker

Registered on February 6, 2008, 321 Posts, 3035 Comments

Comment posted by Steve Balke on March 12, 2010 at 5:19 PM

Thank you very much for the additional comments, Luke and Nick. Regarding the halo: I went back to the original and actually used CS4 to measure average luminosity from near the edge of the frame to near the bird. On the original it increases 4.3%. On the posted image it increases 9.6%. So, the blue sky background is not uniform to begin with (possibly due to a cloud) but post processing (apparently the increase in overall exposure) certainly increased the non-uniformity. Actually though I rather like the faint saintly look of this bird it provides......

Viewing angle is something that I'm just beginning to be more aware of. Thanks to the many comments here, I now have it in mind though and if I can just get those birds to cooperate a little more I'll do my part....

Registered on June 18, 2009, 229 Posts, 2915 Comments

Comment posted by Ron Dudley on March 12, 2010 at 8:07 PM

Steve, I like your exposure and comp but agree on the angle. It's just so much more pleasing to the eye to get the subject close to eye level in most cases, though not all. Like Nick, I typically ignore birds where the angle is quite steep - either high or low. I put your image through a threshold layer and it does seem to me to be a very broad halo around the bird.

Registered on March 30, 2007, 437 Posts, 10915 Comments

Comment posted by Mia McPherson on March 12, 2010 at 8:09 PM

Steve,

I actually do not mind the steepness of this this angle, though I might have preferred it if the bird had tilted its head downward slightly or to the side. Love the colors and texture of the branch this chickadee it perched on, the soft blue of the sky and the nice details in the bird's plumage.

Registered on June 25, 2007, 491 Posts, 12566 Comments

Comment posted by Cheryl Molennor on March 12, 2010 at 9:08 PM

Great detail Steve if only he could have droped his head a tad. I can't believe on landed on your lens. Thatt's pretty cool

Registered on June 30, 2009, 300 Posts, 5051 Comments

Comment posted by Steve Balke on March 14, 2010 at 11:11 AM

More interesting and perceptive comments! Thank you. Ron, the threshold layer is a good idea. After reading your comment I also subjected both the posted and original image to one. It confirms what I stated earlier: the original shows a halo (likely from a OOF cloud in the background); subsequent post processing (apparently the brightness increase) increased the intensity of the halo. I don't think I would consider its presence a deficiency of the image in this case. Thank you all again!

Registered on June 18, 2009, 229 Posts, 2915 Comments