Help me improve, please.

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

J

Joanne

New member
Member's gallery
I have been using a Nikon D500 for almost a year. Until recently, this has been paired with a Nikon 200-500mm lens. I have just acquired a Nikon 500 PF and have been using it with my Nikon 1.4 TC. I have been following Steve's suggestions for setup, BBF, Manual with auto ISO, shoot in raw, etc. I have read his books. I think I have too high a shutter speed for the overcast conditions and I am blowing my whites and details. Please review the photos and let me know what I need to improve my technique. Thank you in advance.

Nikon D500, 500PF lens with Nikon 1.4 TC: 1/2500, f 8, ISO 400, EC +1

Jan-9_6214_Male-Kestrel.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


Nikon D500, 500PF lens with Nikon 1.4 TC: 1/2500, f 8, ISO 4000, EC - .3
Two-Pair-Buffleheads_4039.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
A lower (slower) shutter speed would blow them even more if aperture and ISO remained the same. The kestrel itself is well exposed, and it would be difficult to do much with the sky without underexposing the bird. Reducing overall exposure on the buffleheads would keep the whites from clipping which could be done with negative exposure compensation.
 
Member's gallery
aolander said:
A lower (slower) shutter speed would blow them even more if aperture and ISO remained the same. The kestrel itself is well exposed, and it would be difficult to do much with the sky without underexposing the bird. Reducing overall exposure on the buffleheads would keep the whites from clipping which could be done with negative exposure compensation.
Click to expand...
So would you increase the EC to minus 1 for the Buffleheads?
 
Member's gallery
Are you making use of the "blinkies"? If you are not aware of this feature or just not using it you can find out about it in your D500 manual. Nikon refers to it as "highlights". It's not much use for a brief opportunity but it can be useful for a shot of the buffleheads you posted. Once you have it set up, a simple down arrow press on the multi selector ring shows you the over exposed highlights. i use it a lot. There's more but it's all in your manual.
 
Member's gallery
I don't understand what's going on with the Buffleheads. The exposure info below the pic indicates an exposure compensation of -3, and yet the whites are blown out. Something funny is going on, here. 4000 ISO is pretty high, especially with a -3 exposure compensation. What were the conditions when you shot this?

As Alan said, it's tough not to blow out the sky when the subject is backlit like this Kestrel is.
 
Member's gallery
In the first image, the Kestrel (?) looks to be either back-lit or nearly back-lit side-lighting; this creates a situation where, if you expose for the bird, you are almost bound to blowout the background. It's a tough lighting situation unless you expose more toward the sky and then lift the shadows in post, but that can give you issues with noise in some instance; at an ISO of 400 in that image, I don't think it would have been something that couldn't be controlled. Like the previous poster, I'd like to know more about why you choose those settings; the birds aren't flying so you probably didn't need 1/2500 for your shutter speed; ISO 4000 with a -3 exposure compensation has me confused as well.
 
I'm curious how you metered the second one? Matrix? Spot? Also random thought, are you sure the meter was awake, not timed out?
 
Member's gallery
In digital, unlike film, you shoot based on highlights and process based on shadows (film was the exact opposite, although slides were the same as digital). Put your focus point on the whitest, brightest part of the image to get the correct exposure.
 
What gets me is the EC is set to -3 from metered, and still the whites are blown, so what was being metered or how did that happen?
 
Member's gallery
Woodyg3 said:
I don't understand what's going on with the Buffleheads. The exposure info below the pic indicates an exposure compensation of -3, and yet the whites are blown out. Something funny is going on, here. 4000 ISO is pretty high, especially with a -3 exposure compensation. What were the conditions when you shot this?

As Alan said, it's tough not to blow out the sky when the subject is backlit like this Kestrel is.
Click to expand...
It was a VERY overcast day, hence no shadows. I should not have been using my 1.4 TC under these conditions so that I could have been at 5.6 instead of f 8.
 
Member's gallery
DripDryMcFleye said:
Are you making use of the "blinkies"? If you are not aware of this feature or just not using it you can find out about it in your D500 manual. Nikon refers to it as "highlights". It's not much use for a brief opportunity but it can be useful for a shot of the buffleheads you posted. Once you have it set up, a simple down arrow press on the multi selector ring shows you the over exposed highlights. i use it a lot. There's more but it's all in your manual.
Click to expand...
Yes, I have several things set up to check when I take a photo including histogram and blinkies.
 
Joanne said:
It was a VERY overcast day, hence no shadows. I should not have been using my 1.4 TC under these conditions so that I could have been at 5.6 instead of f 8.
Click to expand...

The tc was not the problem. There is too much exposure already.
 
Member's gallery
I'm pretty sure the bufflehead image was EC -.3 not -3. A full 3 stop underexpose would have left the water and the other parts of the ducks muddy or just black.

RE: the Kestrel image, I hate to be the one to say it, but you will never get an "Audubon" cover shot with that particular image. Overcast and blown out sky, and what may be quite a bit of sharpening applied. It is a very nice ID shot of a male American Kestrel. I think the photo accomplished all you can realistically accomplish with a bird against a featureless and gray (exposed to white) sky. I cannot really offer any improvements for the image, it is good for what it is and I have dozens of similar photos in my library. Not because they are artistic masterpieces but because they bring back fond memories of where I was and who I may have been with when I captured the image.

The buffleheads, as others have said, have the whites blown out. I do find buffleheads hard to photograph due to the extreme contrast between the whites and iridescence of the dark feathers. As others have said, expose for the whites and then boost the shadows in post. As for composition, not a lot to add. I probably would have positioned the ducks toward the bottom of the frame since the choppy water didn't really leave sharp or interesting reflections. If there was something interesting in the background, even totally out of focus, perhaps widen the crop out just a bit to include more of the environment (assuming they were not just out in the middle of a lake which is usually where I find them).|
Overall, the exposure discussions above but composition, as wildlife photographers, we take what we can get and I think you made the best out of the situation.

Jeff
 
Joanne said:
Matrix metering. If you are holding down the BBF, wouldn't the metering be activated? I have never considered that the metering would "Time out"!
Click to expand...

Yes holding the bbf should keep the meter awake. Matrix metering should never be so far off that -3 EC still results in overexposure.
 
jeffnles1 said:
I'm pretty sure the bufflehead image was EC -.3 not -3. A full 3 stop underexpose would have left the water and the other parts of the ducks muddy or just black.

RE: the Kestrel image, I hate to be the one to say it, but you will never get an "Audubon" cover shot with that particular image. Overcast and blown out sky, and what may be quite a bit of sharpening applied. It is a very nice ID shot of a male American Kestrel. I think the photo accomplished all you can realistically accomplish with a bird against a featureless and gray (exposed to white) sky. I cannot really offer any improvements for the image, it is good for what it is and I have dozens of similar photos in my library. Not because they are artistic masterpieces but because they bring back fond memories of where I was and who I may have been with when I captured the image.

The buffleheads, as others have said, have the whites blown out. I do find buffleheads hard to photograph due to the extreme contrast between the whites and iridescence of the dark feathers. As others have said, expose for the whites and then boost the shadows in post. As for composition, not a lot to add. I probably would have positioned the ducks toward the bottom of the frame since the choppy water didn't really leave sharp or interesting reflections. If there was something interesting in the background, even totally out of focus, perhaps widen the crop out just a bit to include more of the environment (assuming they were not just out in the middle of a lake which is usually where I find them).|
Overall, the exposure discussions above but composition, as wildlife photographers, we take what we can get and I think you made the best out of the situation.

Jeff
Click to expand...

The exif says -3, is that an error?
 
Member's gallery
coachjohn57 said:
In the first image, the Kestrel (?) looks to be either back-lit or nearly back-lit side-lighting; this creates a situation where, if you expose for the bird, you are almost bound to blowout the background. It's a tough lighting situation unless you expose more toward the sky and then lift the shadows in post, but that can give you issues with noise in some instance; at an ISO of 400 in that image, I don't think it would have been something that couldn't be controlled. Like the previous poster, I'd like to know more about why you choose those settings; the birds aren't flying so you probably didn't need 1/2500 for your shutter speed; ISO 4000 with a -3 exposure compensation has me confused as well.
Click to expand...
Frankly, that is likely my inexperience. Which is why I posted the questions. I adore birds in flight photos, and as the Kestrel or Buffleheads could take flight, I was setting it higher for that possibility. I was also trying out a 1.4 TC (when I REALLY should not have been using it under the lighting conditions. Once again, inexperienced). In the back of my mind was a recent video of Steve's which suggested that when using a TC that an increase in speed was needed.

So, would you suggest starting at 500-1000 for a still bird or the birds swimming on the water, if you are at f 8, with auto ISO?
 
Member's gallery
Joanne said:
Frankly, that is likely my inexperience. Which is why I posted the questions. I adore birds in flight photos, and as the Kestrel or Buffleheads could take flight, I was setting it higher for that possibility. I was also trying out a 1.4 TC (when I REALLY should not have been using it under the lighting conditions. Once again, inexperienced). In the back of my mind was a recent video of Steve's which suggested that when using a TC that an increase in speed was needed.

So, would you suggest starting at 500-1000 for a still bird or the birds swimming on the water, if you are at f 8, with auto ISO?
Click to expand...
Every situation will be different. I know that when shooting BIF (and I’ve only been doing that for the past two or three years) I try to keep my shutter speed above 1/2000, preferably 1/2500 or better. When I was shooting BIF with my D500 I always used shutter priority and let the camera manage the aperture, and I generally shot at an ISO of somewhere between 400 and 1200, preferring to keep it at 800 or lower. Having read Steve’s guides, and now shooting with the Z9 where AF tracking is improved, I plan to shoot next summer with auto-ISO for the first time. For static subjects, the question becomes more of what are you comfortable handholding and what shutter speed is really needed. With the 500 PF without the TC, I would be easily comfortable at 1/500 for a perched bird or a wading birds that were standing still; for birds floating on the water it would depend on whether they were moving fast enough for me to pan or not. The TC is going to change things a bit…it not only magnifies your image, but any shake/vibration is also magnified. Take your time, don’t be afraid to experiment and learn from the photographers here while relying on your own experience as well. The more you shoot the more it becomes second nature.
 
Member's gallery
jeffnles1 said:
I'm pretty sure the bufflehead image was EC -.3 not -3. A full 3 stop underexpose would have left the water and the other parts of the ducks muddy or just black.

RE: the Kestrel image, I hate to be the one to say it, but you will never get an "Audubon" cover shot with that particular image. Overcast and blown out sky, and what may be quite a bit of sharpening applied. It is a very nice ID shot of a male American Kestrel. I think the photo accomplished all you can realistically accomplish with a bird against a featureless and gray (exposed to white) sky. I cannot really offer any improvements for the image, it is good for what it is and I have dozens of similar photos in my library. Not because they are artistic masterpieces but because they bring back fond memories of where I was and who I may have been with when I captured the image.

The buffleheads, as others have said, have the whites blown out. I do find buffleheads hard to photograph due to the extreme contrast between the whites and iridescence of the dark feathers. As others have said, expose for the whites and then boost the shadows in post. As for composition, not a lot to add. I probably would have positioned the ducks toward the bottom of the frame since the choppy water didn't really leave sharp or interesting reflections. If there was something interesting in the background, even totally out of focus, perhaps widen the crop out just a bit to include more of the environment (assuming they were not just out in the middle of a lake which is usually where I find them).|
Overall, the exposure discussions above but composition, as wildlife photographers, we take what we can get and I think you made the best out of the situation.

Jeff
Click to expand...
Jeff, you are absolutely right about it being an ID photo, cute, but far from a "wow" shot. I live in Northern California, and we have been inundated with dark overcast skies and rain since the arrival of my Nikon 500 PF. I have been out in far less than-ideal, or interesting, lighting when there has been a break in the rain. The Bufflehead male's white breast was the brightest thing my camera had been pointed at for two weeks. I had been photographing with a Nikon 200-500mm, so the lighter and more water-resistant 500 PF lens was too tempting not to go out and try it on anything. Your critic is honest and spot on. Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top