After a day of shooting, the fun really starts...the time
to decide what images to keep and what images to delete.
When that time has come I use two programs, both from the
company Breezesys. They are Downloader Pro and BreezeBrowswer.
When setup correctly, DownloaderPro will automatically copy
my images from the CF card to a directory. All I have to do
is specify a job code. The job code is my description of the
images I just shot. For example it might contain the date of
the shoot and the place. All of that information is then appended
to the actual file name.
Now it comes time to review, which I use BreezeBrowswer. This
app is great because it allows me to view the images in full
screen via slideshow while marking my favorites. At the end,
anything that isn't marked, gets deleted.
I perform a couple of rounds of culling. The first round I delete
the obvious out of focus shots. If the images aren't sharp now,
they're not going to be sharp later. The second round is where
I pay attention to the technical side. If the image has a bad
head turn, bad background...anything that I'm 100% positive I
can't fix in Photoshop gets trashed.
The final round is usually marking the images that I think are
the best of the best. These will be the ones I'll give the most
attention to since they could end up in a frame or something.
The second best images if you will, are my backups, to be used
when I might need more down the road.
If I'm lucky, I'll have around 80-100 keepers out of a couple
hundred that were deleted. Now you hopefully understand better,
hopefully, why I'm so picky in the field (from my earlier blog).
I don't know about you, but I'd rather go thru 300 or 400 images
vs 1000-1500 images. Yikes!
After all of that I then move my remaining images to their own
directory. Me, I have a folder for each place I've visited. Then
that folder is broken down by year, then by RAW, TIF and JPG folders.
I know it might be hard to delete an image, especially if you've fallen
in love with the species. But this is where you have to separate yourself
from the others. You have to remove emotion out of the equation. I'd
rather see one great bird photo vs 10 below par images.
Friday, June 13, 2014
Sunday, June 8, 2014
North Chagrin Reservation - Lost Cause
I think it was last year, at about the same time this year actually, I wrote
about how North Chagrin Reservation was going down hill.
A year later, it not only has gone hill, it's freaking dead.
Let's start with Sunset Pond. Today I'd call it Sunset Pit. The water level
is low. It's filled with mud and algae. I know if I was a duck, I wouldn't
want to swim in that crap. Oh wait, they don't. You see, once famous for
their Wood ducks, I counted one. Mallards? I counted 0. In fact, the only
animal I saw in the mud pit was a bunch of Geese.
Now we move toward the back where the feeders are. Well, I think there
are feeders. I say that because the grass and weeds are so high, if Kareem
Abdul-Jabbar stepped in there, you wouldn't be able to see him. He'd
disappear.
Somewhere in that high grass are beautiful perches. Heck, there's even a
pond. But it's all hidden now. It's like that area has been abandoned.
Can't they even afford a weed whacker?
I keep bringing this up, but it's obvious nobody cares.
Whoever this somebody else, he's probably sitting behind a desk in
his air conditioned office reading a magazine gathering a paycheck
while ignoring what's happening (or should I say not happening) outside
his window.
about how North Chagrin Reservation was going down hill.
A year later, it not only has gone hill, it's freaking dead.
Let's start with Sunset Pond. Today I'd call it Sunset Pit. The water level
is low. It's filled with mud and algae. I know if I was a duck, I wouldn't
want to swim in that crap. Oh wait, they don't. You see, once famous for
their Wood ducks, I counted one. Mallards? I counted 0. In fact, the only
animal I saw in the mud pit was a bunch of Geese.
Now we move toward the back where the feeders are. Well, I think there
are feeders. I say that because the grass and weeds are so high, if Kareem
Abdul-Jabbar stepped in there, you wouldn't be able to see him. He'd
disappear.
Somewhere in that high grass are beautiful perches. Heck, there's even a
pond. But it's all hidden now. It's like that area has been abandoned.
Can't they even afford a weed whacker?
I keep bringing this up, but it's obvious nobody cares.
Whoever this somebody else, he's probably sitting behind a desk in
his air conditioned office reading a magazine gathering a paycheck
while ignoring what's happening (or should I say not happening) outside
his window.
Friday, June 6, 2014
Zones
After a morning of photographing lots and lots of Baltimore
and Orchard Orioles, the one photographer next to me remarked
how he snapped off 800 images. Then he asked me. I told him
around 300. He was surprised to find out I pulled the trigger
for that low of a number.
How? Why?
Simple. I shoot in what I call photography zones. Basically
I have two zones...
1. Shoot Zone. Anything that flies or lands in this zone I know
for 100% fact will be a keeper because the sun is at the
right angle and my foreground and background are perfect.
Of course an image could still get deleted due to lack of
sharpness, head angle, etc.
2. No Shoot Zone. I don't care how rare a bird might be, if it
lands in this zone, I don't snap the trigger. The reasons are
pretty much the opposite of above...the background could be
cluttered, the sun angle wrong, etc.
I determine these zones as soon as I've established my shooting
position. Through the viewfinder I'm determining what will and
what will not make a good shot (I'm also taking test shots to
determine exposure).
What are the advantage? Two that I can think of.
1. Less culling and more time. For every bad shot I don't take in
the field, that's one less image I have to review after I get
home. When you're talking about hundreds of images, that's a lot
of time I'm saving...time that can be used toward my keepers.
2. Less lens travel, increased chances of success. Since I know my
zones, there's no need for me to be swinging my lens left/right,
up/down, etc. I can focus on one area. This increases my success
tremendously because there's little to no wasted time of trying
to acquire the image, focus and change any needed exposure settings.
So while the photographer next to me is capturing a bird buried
deep in branches of a tree, I'm capturing something right in front
of me.
I also don't turn my shutter into a machine gun. I still shoot on high
speed, but my average bursts are 3, with the most being 5. I can do this
because I've gotten to the point where I can predict what the bird's
behavior is going to be.
Another reason for the 3 to 5 burst is the last thing I want to do is
look and stare at 10 to 15 almost identical shots, trying to determine
which one is the sharpest. That would drive me insane.
The last reason is buffer. While the guy next to me has to wait a second
or two for his buffer to clear, I'm ready to go and catch the next shot
that he'll miss.
This next image was caught on a boat of about 6 photographers. I'm
the only the got the shot because I knew what the best angle was and
by studying the Loons behavior, knew when/where he would pop out
of the water next...
I hate to brag, but I will, but every time I've entered this in a contest, it has
always placed.
I guarantee that if you try this and have the patience and resolve,
you'll gain an extra keeper or two that you would've normally missed.
and Orchard Orioles, the one photographer next to me remarked
how he snapped off 800 images. Then he asked me. I told him
around 300. He was surprised to find out I pulled the trigger
for that low of a number.
How? Why?
Simple. I shoot in what I call photography zones. Basically
I have two zones...
1. Shoot Zone. Anything that flies or lands in this zone I know
for 100% fact will be a keeper because the sun is at the
right angle and my foreground and background are perfect.
Of course an image could still get deleted due to lack of
sharpness, head angle, etc.
2. No Shoot Zone. I don't care how rare a bird might be, if it
lands in this zone, I don't snap the trigger. The reasons are
pretty much the opposite of above...the background could be
cluttered, the sun angle wrong, etc.
I determine these zones as soon as I've established my shooting
position. Through the viewfinder I'm determining what will and
what will not make a good shot (I'm also taking test shots to
determine exposure).
What are the advantage? Two that I can think of.
1. Less culling and more time. For every bad shot I don't take in
the field, that's one less image I have to review after I get
home. When you're talking about hundreds of images, that's a lot
of time I'm saving...time that can be used toward my keepers.
2. Less lens travel, increased chances of success. Since I know my
zones, there's no need for me to be swinging my lens left/right,
up/down, etc. I can focus on one area. This increases my success
tremendously because there's little to no wasted time of trying
to acquire the image, focus and change any needed exposure settings.
So while the photographer next to me is capturing a bird buried
deep in branches of a tree, I'm capturing something right in front
of me.
I also don't turn my shutter into a machine gun. I still shoot on high
speed, but my average bursts are 3, with the most being 5. I can do this
because I've gotten to the point where I can predict what the bird's
behavior is going to be.
Another reason for the 3 to 5 burst is the last thing I want to do is
look and stare at 10 to 15 almost identical shots, trying to determine
which one is the sharpest. That would drive me insane.
The last reason is buffer. While the guy next to me has to wait a second
or two for his buffer to clear, I'm ready to go and catch the next shot
that he'll miss.
This next image was caught on a boat of about 6 photographers. I'm
the only the got the shot because I knew what the best angle was and
by studying the Loons behavior, knew when/where he would pop out
of the water next...
I hate to brag, but I will, but every time I've entered this in a contest, it has
always placed.
I guarantee that if you try this and have the patience and resolve,
you'll gain an extra keeper or two that you would've normally missed.
Sunday, June 1, 2014
My Never Ending Search for the Perfect Flight Lens
When it comes to hand holdable bird flight bird photography
I'm always looking (and evolving) for the better lens.
When I first started in bird photography my lens of choice
was the Canon 100-400. This was a very sharp and versatile
lens to use in the field.
Did I say 'sharp'? You've probably heard from the experts
who claimed this lens was soft and pretty much unusable.
Of course if you ask these 'experts' if they ever used one
the answer is usually a no. In the right hands, any lens
can be sharp, otherwise its usually operator error.
The lens was versatile because of the zoom. It was nice to
catch a bird at 100mm and zoom into 400mm as it flew in
closer.
I also used my 70-200 on the beach mainly due to the birds
were so close the shooter zoom was the best way to go.
But, as times change, so do my lenses. As I was studying
my flight shots I noticed that pretty much all of my captures
at 400mm.
So if that was the case, why not go prime? My next purchase
was the world famous Canon 400 F5.6 made famous by Arthur
Morris. Then lens was non-IS, but if you've followed my work,
my 600 is a non-IS lens and I've done pretty well with that.
After switch to the 400 I was a little worried I'd miss the
zoom action of the 100-400, but never did. I fell in love
with the 400 instantly.
Besides, if I needed anything less, I had the 70-200 and for
even more options the 1.4x. So I was covered from 70 to 400mm.
Then a few years after that Art wrote about the Canon 300mm F4
being a better alternative than the 400 F5.6.
Why better? Two reasons mostly. One is the addition of image
stabilization. The second was that by adding the 1.4x the 300
was now a 420mm, giving the photographer an extra 20mm.
Of course there are always the misinformed who complained the
lens and teleconverter combination was to slow, which was probably
due to using a consumer type of Canon and/or not knowing how to
use the settings/lens in the first place.
Never satisfied, I'm moving on again. My latest purchase is the
older version of the 300mm F2.8 lens. When this lens first came
out is was regarded as one of the sharpest. That's a good thing.
I also gain a stop of light because its a 2.8 vs 4, another good
thing.
Besides becoming my flight lens, it will also become my 600 substitute
when I don't feel like hauling 16+ pounds around. From what I've
heard from the people I actually trust, the lens works great with
the 1.4x II teleconverter and with the 2x III teleconverter.
I plan on this being my last lens for flight.
Yeah, right :)
I'm always looking (and evolving) for the better lens.
When I first started in bird photography my lens of choice
was the Canon 100-400. This was a very sharp and versatile
lens to use in the field.
Did I say 'sharp'? You've probably heard from the experts
who claimed this lens was soft and pretty much unusable.
Of course if you ask these 'experts' if they ever used one
the answer is usually a no. In the right hands, any lens
can be sharp, otherwise its usually operator error.
The lens was versatile because of the zoom. It was nice to
catch a bird at 100mm and zoom into 400mm as it flew in
closer.
I also used my 70-200 on the beach mainly due to the birds
were so close the shooter zoom was the best way to go.
But, as times change, so do my lenses. As I was studying
my flight shots I noticed that pretty much all of my captures
at 400mm.
So if that was the case, why not go prime? My next purchase
was the world famous Canon 400 F5.6 made famous by Arthur
Morris. Then lens was non-IS, but if you've followed my work,
my 600 is a non-IS lens and I've done pretty well with that.
After switch to the 400 I was a little worried I'd miss the
zoom action of the 100-400, but never did. I fell in love
with the 400 instantly.
Besides, if I needed anything less, I had the 70-200 and for
even more options the 1.4x. So I was covered from 70 to 400mm.
Then a few years after that Art wrote about the Canon 300mm F4
being a better alternative than the 400 F5.6.
Why better? Two reasons mostly. One is the addition of image
stabilization. The second was that by adding the 1.4x the 300
was now a 420mm, giving the photographer an extra 20mm.
Of course there are always the misinformed who complained the
lens and teleconverter combination was to slow, which was probably
due to using a consumer type of Canon and/or not knowing how to
use the settings/lens in the first place.
Never satisfied, I'm moving on again. My latest purchase is the
older version of the 300mm F2.8 lens. When this lens first came
out is was regarded as one of the sharpest. That's a good thing.
I also gain a stop of light because its a 2.8 vs 4, another good
thing.
Besides becoming my flight lens, it will also become my 600 substitute
when I don't feel like hauling 16+ pounds around. From what I've
heard from the people I actually trust, the lens works great with
the 1.4x II teleconverter and with the 2x III teleconverter.
I plan on this being my last lens for flight.
Yeah, right :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)