Hairy Woodpecker

Very nice Steve. The pose is perfect showing all elemants well. Exposure looks good in lights and dark areas. The overall image looks a tad dark but that might be my monitor. Pehaps someone else will confirm. Well done though.

Nice shot. Love the details and perch. Another difference between Hairy and Downy woodpeckers is that the Hairy is 1 1/2 times the size of the Downy. The over all image could be lightened a bit as Clayton suggested but I like the 'deep woods' feel of it as posted.

I hadn't heard that explanation on the names - interesting.

There's not as much detail in this as I'd like to see for a bird so large in the frame, and there is amount of noise present in throat and throughout the gray areas of the white feathers.

Well since you put it that way, I'd say this is a fairly hefty crop-there's some noise in the bg. But it doesn't take away from the image at all for me. Love the colors, Steve.

There are never enough woodpecker images for me. I like the head position allowing you to see the red on the head. I do think the overall image is a little dark and I might relax the crop a little-regardless of the %.

Nice pose and perch. I like the square crop

Thank you all for your comments. Just for clarification: by asking you to disregard the crop in your assessments I meant disregarding the extent of the crop (% crop) not the type of crop (nearly square in this case and quite close to the bird). Even with this small sample of comments I found a real improvement in my understanding of your assessments The lack of "good for a large crop" comments were replaced by comments on noise level and level of detail. The two comments on noise level had me returning to the diagnostic tools in Topaz DeNoise 5 to see if I could find the noise. (I tried other methods of detecting noise too but they were not as good.) Anyway, yes there is noise present and I can remove it without damaging detail. Only Richard mentioned that the detail was less than he expected for a bird so large in the frame. The original image (after cropping) was 2446 pixels x 2483 pixels or 6.1 MP. At 300 pixels/inch that could easily make an 8 x8 inch print. However, percent-wise it is a large crop (38%) and the composition does have the bird large in the frame (which relates to composition and to Angela's comment) . No doubt cropping does make noise more visible by magnifying it and does provide a closer look at the detail present in the original image. However, the origin of the noise is not the cropping. In this case it was an overcast day and the dark areas of the image showed the noise. Regarding level of detail (and overall exposure too), well that is up to each of us to decide what we consider acceptable for a beautiful image. Myself, I enjoyed your comments, but I am happy to see that they were quite diverse because I like this image as is. So, this was fun. I'll keep at it. Thank you all again.

Compare your 6.1 MP crop to my 6 MP full frame D70 shot of an American Coot posted yesterday. Notice the extensive feather texture in the coot and compare that to the plumage on your woodpecker where the black feathers show only hints of the edges and no texture in the feathers themselves. Even the white feathers on the woodpecker show this lack of texture.

Whatever texture existed in the woodpecker plumage hasn't been captured (missed critical focus, light too flat, slight camera/subject motion, whatever), it has been masked by the noise at the high 1250 ISO setting, or it has been removed by the application of noise reduction.

The two comments on noise level had me returning to the diagnostic tools in Topaz DeNoise 5 to see if I could find the noise.

You shouldn't need diagnostic tools to find the noise - it should be visible to your eye jut by looking at the image.

you can safely assume that all of my images have been subject to NR

Why? I almost never use NR and I doubt if many others here at NPN make it a regular step in their image processing. There's none applied in my coot image as it wasn't needed: a modest ISO 400 in decent light and an exposure that didn't need to be boosted in raw conversion.

Just because you end up with the same number of pixels after cropping that I started with using the old D70 doesn't mean that you get the same resolution. By cropping you are asking more of your optics: effectively lowering the resolution of the lens by making it deliver the image you use to a smaller sensor. By shooting at a rather high ISO you further reduce overall resolution of your system. By using NR on the image to eliminate even more resolution.

Steve, I like your overall comp. The look back by the bird is nice too. To me, this image is a bit dark on my calibrated NEC IPS monitor. I can see noise in the BG and in the bird, which was magnified by the large crop. The "coarseness" of the feather detail, especially in the head area, speak to the large crop as well IMO, as large crops magnify not only noise, but even the slightest bit of motion blur or missed focus. If this were mine, I would backoff on the crop and lighten the entire image a bit to improve the overall look of the image. Depending how how much this image has been lightened already, upping the exposure even more may make the noise in the bird too much. If you captured this in RAW then the exposure issue might be more easily dealt with.

Not sure why you would need to use NR on all your images, especially when you are shooting the Mark IV. I have shot at ISO 1600 with the Mark IV and not needed to use NR as long as I did not crop down to less than 60% or so of the original frame and the exposure was good. I shoot ISO 800 a ton and even with 45% crops I don't use NR. Now, I do shoot a bit on the bright side to help the noise issue as any underexposure will bring out more noise when you bring the exposure back up to the correct level in post processing. You might want to try shooting a bit bright to help reduce your need for NR. Just a suggestion.

Thank you both for your interest in this and for taking the time to comment. Herre are my responses:
a. Richard
i. Your Coot shot is really beautiful. There is a better chance of course of having more detail visible because you have more bird pixels at full frame. However, as you mention, it ain't necessarily so. Lighting, camera settings, etc. come into it too. Also, an American Coot is not a Hairy Woodpecker. We know that some birds show better feather structure in an image than others. Hairy Woodpeckers have been posted often on this website. I like shooting these fellows and would like to know your ideal of what good detail represents for them. Can you point to any full frame (or otherwise) shots of this species that you prefer for detail?
ii. Regarding noise, since this image looks fine to me from a noise viewpoint and not fine to some of you, I obviously need to increase my ability to see noise. Also, I like the advantages that large crops offer and want to figure out how best to overcome problems associated with them. The tools offered in the software that I mentioned accomplish that. I just need to take the trouble to use them more extensively.
iii. Regarding the application of NR: the software allows me to tailor the NR from almost nothing to very significant. I can judge noise and effect on detail very well. We know that the eye is very sensitive to color noise in particular and that there are so many variables affecting noise level. So, what I normally do is, if I see nearly no noise (I think I can usually spot something that looks like noise), I run the lowest possible NR setting. I then check the detail and invariably see no effect. It seems to be working well for me, Richard. I know that you don't like this shot but I have published some that you seem to like and that originated from this approach.
iv. Regarding resolution after cropping and post-processing: Well I guess the proof is in the pudding. Cropping give me flexibility in composition and allows me to hike carrying a reasonably light lens. It goes without saying that I always try to get close to the birds. However, they don't always cooperate….. So, sometimes it has to be a highly cropped, interesting image or a dull distant one. Analogous things can be said of my use of high ISO. I've tried to minimize the limitations with the best equipment that I can obtain.

Ron B

i. I've noted before how I do tend to post darker images than perhaps I should. My monitor is calibrated too. I think I likely just prefer them. However, I'll try to pay more attention to that aspect in future.
ii. I don't feel the same aversion to NR as you (and Richard) do when used as I describe above. I normally shoot Raw and I see no reason to depend only upon hardware and settings to provide minimum noise. I understand the concern for image degradation due to NR. However, I think I'm doing more good than harm with my approach. I'll keep monitoring it though and, especially with these comments from you two, will be even more wary.
iii. Incidentally, I took your previous comments to heart, Ron, and tried shooting to the right more often. However, in this case full aperture (f/8.0) was what I was stuck with because it was such an overcast day.

Thank you both again. I do welcome your very constructive and very helpful comments. To be continued...

Steve, You got a nice head turn that still shows off the red well. I like the debris on the bill and the natural setting. I'm sorry to hear that you will no longer include crop percent in your image comment.

Ron, thank you for your comment. With regards to stating % crop, I'm just conducting a little experiment: I think that there is a traditional vision of a highly cropped image as always being one of unacceptably inferior quality That may have been true a few years ago. However, I'm hypothesizing that it's not always true now. This vision is really a motion picture: there have been, and continue to be, so many hardware and software developments. The only way I know of overcoming this bad reputation for a posted image, and obtaining an informative view of image quality, is to not state the % crop……or at least to not state it until the reviews of image quality are completed. I think it would be great if everyone would do this. Judging by the number of posts that don't state percent crop and by those who make vague statements about how much their image was cropped, I doubt that I'm alone in this sentiment.

You and I obviously disagree strongly on this issue Steve. Nuff said I guess...

A lot to respond to. Please continue to accept this in the helpful way it is intended.

i. Your Coot shot is really beautiful. There is a better chance of course of having more detail visible because you have more bird pixels at full frame. However, as you mention, it ain't necessarily so. Lighting, camera settings, etc. come into it too. Also, an American Coot is not a Hairy Woodpecker. We know that some birds show better feather structure in an image than others. Hairy Woodpeckers have been posted often on this website. I like shooting these fellows and would like to know your ideal of what good detail represents for them. Can you point to any full frame (or otherwise) shots of this species that you prefer for detail?

6MP is 6MP; at least I thought that was the point you have been trying to make for some time, and that's why I made the comparison of my 6MP coot to your 6MP woodpecker. Forget the feathers for the moment and compare any part of your 6MP image to any part of my 6MP image for detail and amount of noise.

All pixels are not the same. The D70 spreads its 6MP over a sensor 23.7mm by 15.6mm; your 2446x2483 crop from a 27.9mm x 18.6mm sensor means you have effectively used a sensor that measures 13.9mm x 14.1mm. That cuts down the resolution of your lens (line pairs per millimeter) and makes the inherent noise of the smaller photosites more prominent.

Yes, feather structure is different for some birds: Cedar Waxwings almost always show little feather texture while Verdins are at the other extreme and show a very coarse texture.

A quick search in the Avian Gallery for Hairy Woodpecker brought me to this one from Jim DeWitt. Hand held, 600mm, 1/50th second, dim light, smaller sensor. I think it shows better feather detail. More noise as well, but more texture with it.

ii. Regarding noise, since this image looks fine to me from a noise viewpoint and not fine to some of you, I obviously need to increase my ability to see noise. Also, I like the advantages that large crops offer and want to figure out how best to overcome problems associated with them. The tools offered in the software that I mentioned accomplish that. I just need to take the trouble to use them more extensively.

I agree there are many advantages to large crops: you don't need to get as close physically or optically and I know how seductive that can be. But I don't think there are software tools that will overcome the disadvantages of large crops: loss of detail and increased noise. There's no way to put back detail that wasn't captured originally, and I don't know of any NR application or plugin that does an effective job of taking out noise while leaving detail intact. The only way I know to overcome the downside of massive cropping is to get closer to the subject and not do the massive crop.

iii. Regarding the application of NR: the software allows me to tailor the NR from almost nothing to very significant. I can judge noise and effect on detail very well. We know that the eye is very sensitive to color noise in particular and that there are so many variables affecting noise level. So, what I normally do is, if I see nearly no noise (I think I can usually spot something that looks like noise), I run the lowest possible NR setting. I then check the detail and invariably see no effect. It seems to be working well for me, Richard. I know that you don't like this shot but I have published some that you seem to like and that originated from this approach.

I don't know of any NR application or plugin that does an effective job of taking out noise while leaving detail intact. For me. NR is a last resort when I've been forced to use an ISO setting higher than my camera should use, or when I've screwed up my exposure and needed to pump it up in raw conversion.

iv. Regarding resolution after cropping and post-processing: Well I guess the proof is in the pudding. Cropping give me flexibility in composition and allows me to hike carrying a reasonably light lens. It goes without saying that I always try to get close to the birds. However, they don't always cooperate….. So, sometimes it has to be a highly cropped, interesting image or a dull distant one. Analogous things can be said of my use of high ISO. I've tried to minimize the limitations with the best equipment that I can obtain.

I agree: the proof is in the results. I would not be satisfied with results in my images as seen in this woodpecker post.

There's a third choice you've not mentioned with your "highly cropped" or "distant subject" pair and that's "no image at all." Its the choice I make when I can't get close enough to my intended subject.

iii. Incidentally, I took your previous comments to heart, Ron, and tried shooting to the right more often. However, in this case full aperture (f/8.0) was what I was stuck with because it was such an overcast day. --

This comment only made sense to me if you had been shooting in shutter priority, and checking your EXIF on the large image I see that is the case. You could have given more exposure at f/8 simply by changing the shutter speed from 1/1000th second to 1/500th second.

Thank you so much for taking the time to do this Richard. Here are my responses:

i. I think that you've misunderstood the point I've made in the past: I've noted that the more pixels that represent the bird the finer the detail that can potentially be resolved. However, sometimes we don't need that many pixels to see observable detail. And, as we noted, the visibility of detail and noise depends on several variables (including the species of bird). Resolution is not the whole story. All I am asking is that we keep an open mind about the quality of highly cropped images. We can say that, all other things being equal, then a full frame image is potentially always of higher quality than a highly cropped image (although the quality difference may not be discernible). However, in practice, all other things are not equal. Your American Coot image might be showing low noise and high detail more because of lighting than anything else. Also, I expect that often the highly cropped image can well provide a perfectly acceptable image and one that the majority of NPN photographers would consider high quality. By not stating the percent crop, even for highly cropped images, until the conclusion of reviews we can test this idea.
ii. You're point about cropping making the noise of the sensors more prominent is interesting but puzzling to me. I'm not cropping by reducing sensor size (as in a non-full frame camera for example); I'm cropping by snipping some of the image away. The various origins of noise have already done their work. By cropping, I'm just looking at the image with a magnifying glass. Maybe I'm missing something here. So, don't hesitate to send me more info on this, Richard. If I'm wrong I'll add it as a comment here. By the way, I do agree that all sensor elements are not equal amongst different cameras and have previously made that point in objecting to depending only on percent crop to indicate image quality.
iii. Thank you for finding Jim's woodpecker shot. They are very close…….and I do see better detail in the black tail.……due to cropping….or lighting…..or what….Anyway, I'm happy to see a woodpecker image that you consider superior to mine (but I like mine better……[smile, Richard]).
iv. Have a look at Topaz DeNoise 5 and listen to the two part in-depth video tutorial on their website (by the author of the software I think). You may become a convert.
v. Sorry you don't like my woodpecker image, Richard. I hope that, if future, you will continue to et me know when you do like one………even though it may be a highly cropped image that you are looking at!
vi. It was shutter speed priority. Especially with woodpeckers, I like to operate at 1/1000 s. This fellow sat pretty still. So, it is true that I could have switched to manual or aperture priority……but there wasn't much time…..and I liked the results. I think 1/500 s would have resulted in motion blur…..from me holding the 560 mm lens.

Thanks again, Richard. This is sure giving this old brain of mine a good workout!

Hi Steve,
Nice image of this Hairy. I would brighten this up a bit. To my eye the sharpest part of the plumage is the head which looks very good. The detail in other parts - particularly the back doesn't look as good. This and the fact that you were shooting wide open leads me to believe it may well have been a depth of field issue rather than a crop and/or noise reduction issue. This often happens to me if I shoot wide open and focus on the head. That's why I like to stop down a little bit even when I'm working in low light but I do understand you are shooting handheld and wanted to keep your shutter speed up as well as the fact that the light was limited as shown by your iso. So given your shooting style this was probably about as well as you could have done given the conditions and it's a good but by no means perfect image.

I use noise reduction on images when it is needed and if it improves the image. If done skillfully and correctly it can remove very little detail. I know you shoot handheld in the woods on a regular basis and that being the case you are going to need to keep your shutter speed up and shoot at high isos sometimes. Hence the need for using noise reduction often. It's certainly much better to have a sharp image that you run a bit of noise reduction on than an out of focus one. This is certainly different than someone who, for example, shoots in a sunny, open environment with a tripod.

I certainly have no problem with you not posting the crop percentage. It's not and never has been required by the posting guidelines. I do think it's generally helpful for avian image critique but you've certainly explained your reasoning well. And there are plenty of areas to focus on in critique which are important to the image besides feather detail including composition, brightness, color rendition, action (or lack thereof). In the end if you feel you are getting more out of the critiques by not posting your crop percentage, then that's great, more power to you.

Cheers,
Nate

Thank you, Nate.

Your reminder of the wide diversity of photographers represented here really does help us to better understand the attitudes expressed here and the differences in preferred approaches.

Regarding % crop: before deciding to omit it from my figure caption I checked the posting guidelines quite carefully and examined many posted images. However, it's good to know that, as moderator, this is also o.k. with you. Also, please note that, as I did with this image, I'm willing to specify the percent crop at the end of the review period. To reiterate: the idea here is to have assessments of any properties of the image (including, maybe even especially, feather detail) without the bad reputation of large crop images affecting the assessments. I think that we will all learn more this way.

Your comment regarding a possible DOF effect is exactly the kind of comment that's particularly helpful: it specified the properties of the image and proposed a plausible reason. I sure try to make such comments and I hope that this interchange over specifying % crop does not discourage anyone from making such comments about any aspect of my images. I think that feather detail is one of the most important of all properties and certainly the one I am particularly interested in preserving after a large crop.

So, we shall see……

To me, this is all just silly. I say, provide all the information you can about your image, so people viewing your image can learn from it and thus become better photographers. That is one of the main purposes of NPN critique forums. The sole purpose is not to make sure you get a completely unbiased critique of your own image. By not providing certain information (crop size, use of NR, etc) and thus making people guess or asked a bunch of questions that could be easily answered up front you reduce the value of these forums IMO because people have less information available to them and thus cannot learn as much. Heck, if you want an unbiased critique of your images then why post any tech information at all. Stating that you used a high ISO is just as likely to bias a person's thoughts about your image as crop size does. Shutter speed and camera brand too.

Ron,
If you want to debate what info to provide and what not to provide in the post please do so in the discussion forum. Steve has explained his reasons (which he didn't even have to do) and he has every right to disclose or not disclose the crop size as he sees fit. It's his post and if he feels he's getting more out of it by providing or not providing any info that is the member's discretion, not the people critiquing it.

This thread has just been brought to my attention.

Steve, I think asking how much of the original frame is represented in a photo is 100% fair game;

1. Based on the focal length used, it will allow other members to get a feel for how close you were to the subject. After all, field craft skill and the ability to get close to a subject (in an ethical manner) is an important part of wildlife photography!

2. By specifying how much of a crop, it will allow those providing a technical critique to properly frame their comments. For example, the noise and "muddy detail" (for lack of a better way to describe what I see in this photo) tells me that based on the equipment used, this is a substantial crop. My comment on this photo might be - "I'd like to see another crop with the bird smaller in the frame." If we're not going to take crop into account, I wouldn't be able to offer that suggestion.

Finally, and this is just my own personal opinion and FWIW, major-crop photos of wildlife is sort of "gaming" the true intent of this gallery - learning and discussing all the skills/techniques of wildlife photography to produce great photos. I could theoretically take a shot from the side of the road in my car with a 100MP camera of a distant subject, crop the heck out of it and make it appear that I actually used field craft skill to closely approach the subject. I know this is somewhat a far-fetched point, but if we all began to take this approach, the person with the biggest camera and best PS skills would have a significant and IMO a somewhat pointless advantage. Luckily, at least at this point in the evolution of digital technology, major crops remain apparent in most cases.

I do not wish to make "percentage of crop" a requirement in the Posting Guidelines, but on the other hand I agree that it is a fair and useful point to consider when assessing a wildlife photo. I'm inclined to agree that when asked "how much of a crop" the photo represents, that the OP be forthcoming with that information.

O.K., Jim. I understand. Judging from the many arguments against the idea, it looks like I was wrong on this one. I'll return to stating percent crop in the techs. My goal is just to become the best nature photographer that I'm capable of, contribute positively to this community and have fun doing it. Thank you all for participating in this discussion.

Steve,
I wanted to show this image http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/ic.cgi?a=vp&pr=169828&CGISESSID=852b1d06327a20e722924306fc276393&u=15342 as a reference frame for your shot.

I calculated the exact crop percentage on this and this is 44% of full frame (I had estimated 50%). It's taken with the same camera and teleconverter as your woodpecker shot. It was taken with a 500 F4 as opposed to a 400 F5.6 and it was at 800 iso. I did use noise reduction on the whole image during ACR conversion with settings of amount 25 and retain detail 90. So there are some differences in techs and equipment between our shots but they are not huge. One big difference is that I stopped down 1 full stop. I find with that camera or the Mark III which I usually shoot with and a teleconverter that I get sharper images if I stop down to at least 2/3 of a stop even if I'm handholding and it means a slighly slower shutter speed or having to increase my iso.

With the Mark IV and some of the other newer cameras it's certainly possible to get crisp, well detailed images at crops of greater than 50%. I personally think the image quality is much higher on a file that is 50% of the Mark IV (8 megapixels) than a full frame Canon 20D file taken at the same iso. I am confident my findings would be the same if I compared a Nikon D3 or D700 file at 50% to a full frame D70 file taken at the same iso. So there is certainly some legitamacy to what you say about the camera or equipment used making a difference.

All that being said I certainly strive to get full frame or close to full frame shots whenever I photograph birds because obviously then the detail and file will be even better and I get satisfaction from getting a good full frame image.

Thank you, Nate. Beautiful shot and interesting, helpful comment as usual. I think that, qualitatively, we are in agreement with respect to the effect of technology advances on crop quality. It's similar to the situation in their impact on ISO. A few years ago, obtaining high quality images at ISO values of 1000 or more would not have been expected. However, ISO only relates to light intensity, not nearness to the subject. I do see a time when we have 100 MP cameras that can yield image quality from large crops that can even exceed the quality of today's full frame images. However, with Jim Erhardt's comment, that development became irrelevant to my efforts to become a better nature photographer. An important part of his definition of a nature photographer is someone who could get close to the bird (in an ethical manner). Once I saw that comment, many of the other comments made much more sense to me. My efforts to obtain high quality from high crops appear as efforts to "game the system". So, to develop as a nature photographer, I'll use his definition as an objective. I'll do the best I can with all this and see where it goes.