camera settings for static birds

[BackdoorArts]

for the hawk: i would've used sp at 1/2500s, max iso 1600, spot metering. I always snag air shots easily with good contrast.

for the Eurasian Nuthatch (Kleiber, id est, climber), i will try the following:
1/800-1/1250s, max iso 1250, spot.
otherwise, i'll use the auto and macro which always snag the shot for me even with a cheap compact digital camera.

l8er.

I've been sitting on this one for a little over a day, because my Mom taught me long ago to count to 10 before saying something.

You are quite the douche, sir. Not only do you ask a question, then poke at those who ask for more information, but after actually getting more details than you deserve you don't even bother to thank me for my time when I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't quite the prick others suspected before issuing an unasked for critique on an image posted merely to serve as an example on how to fix something that was not shot with optimum light and settings, as your image was. So, with my apologies to all others who have taken the time to read this, "Fuck you, you pretentious asshole!!"

 

[hark]

the settings do not matter here, the shot is blown.

basically, how would YOU get this shot?

Without a starting point, it is almost impossible to point you in the right direction. EXIF is the starting point...although you don't seem to understand its importance.

for the hawk: i would've used sp at 1/2500s, max iso 1600, spot metering. I always snag air shots easily with good contrast.

for the Eurasian Nuthatch (Kleiber, id est, climber), i will try the following:
1/800-1/1250s, max iso 1250, spot.
otherwise, i'll use the auto and macro which always snag the shot for me even with a cheap compact digital camera.

l8er.

Good for you.

well, ladies and gents, i got the shots and i am proud of my work. the shots are amazing!

i also got a great shot of a female Mallard flying five feet in front of me. perfect blur/bokeh. the shot looks like it belongs in a magazine. i am so happy today. all is well.

I'm off to admire my shots...

Are you for real??? One word comes to mind: conceited.

You come here as a new member asking for help, and with your sample photo, it is quite obvious you don't know how to correct the image. A camera does NOT have the ability to capture everything as the human eye sees it. Its latitude for capturing the brightest lights AND the darkest darks within one photo are much more limited than what we actually see. And for this type of photo, the camera will either expose the sky properly throwing the shadows into darkness, or it will expose the bird's body properly while overexposing the sky.

BackdoorHippie gave you excellent advice and even showed how your photo can be edited with post processing. If the bird was willing to sit and wait for you, you could have set up reflectors. But in wildlife situations such as this, you NEED to be knowledgeable about post processing because the odds of enhancing this particular shot with reflectors or other means was zero. Jake's photo could be manipulated more to darken the sky a little, but that type of thing requires even more time than what he already invested in you...and obviously he invested more of his valuable time than he should have. :grief:

anyway, i played with the settings several times and i got the most amazing shots. i am happy. but i noticed that both d5200 and coolpix had the same problem trying to light the scene. I suppose that a shadowy scene requires some bit of light. I say this because the sunlight hit the Kleiber a few times and my shots are great. When the bird moved deeper into the shadows, the shots were again underexposed. I learned a lesson today. At least i can begin to get great shots of static birds too.

Please note what is highlighted in bold type above. You are clearly blaming the cameras for not being able to yield the results you want. HELLO!!!!! Cameras are simply instruments that will follow the commands given to them (within reason). If the cameras didn't give you the results you desired, blame yourself.

So...........where's the photo of the mallard you said would look great in a magazine? Let's see it.

 

[Blacktop]

If I so much as attempted patting myself on the back that hard, I'd wind up in traction.
....

That's why I do it for you. :hororr:

 

[Blacktop]

well, ladies and gents, i got the shots and i am proud of my work. the shots are amazing!

however, i remember reading about aperture priority. i tried it on ap but some shots were well exposed and others were as dark as yesterday. By the way, i always use spot metering. Spot metering can be bad if you target the wrong "spot." i must've hit the wrong spot and really blew the shot. Again, i had the camera set for flight. I have yet to learn how to photograph static birds.

anyway, i played with the settings several times and i got the most amazing shots. i am happy. but i noticed that both d5200 and coolpix had the same problem tring the light the scene. I suppose that a shadowy scene requires some bit of light. I say this because the sunlight hit the Kleiber a few times and my shots are great. When the bird moved deeper into the shadows, the shots were again underexposed. I learned a lesson today. At least i can begin to get great shots of static birds too.

i also got a great shot of a female Mallard flying five feet in front of me. perfect blur/bokeh. the shot looks like it belongs in a magazine. i am so happy today. all is well.

for some reason, i struggle to use aperture priority. I will have to play some more settings in this mode.

I'm off to admire my shots...

A shot of Daisy The Rottweiler posted by Lilly The Rottweiler.

 

[Elliot87]

for the hawk: i would've used sp at 1/2500s, max iso 1600, spot metering. I always snag air shots easily with good contrast.

1/2500 would have been overkill for freezing that hawk in flight and by shooting at ISO 1600 instead of 100 you're potentially adding noise and losing detail. But you know best.

Later

 

[Blacktop]

1/2500 would have been overkill for freezing that hawk in flight and by shooting at ISO 1600 instead of 100 you're potentially adding noise and losing detail. But you know best.

Later

Besides, how would one know the settings before you're actually right there taking the shot. Light changes all the time.
What if you're just getting ready to take the shot, and a hungry bear appears out of nowhere? Now you have to shoot while running away. You're gonna need to switch to active VR for sure.

So many variables.

 

[Woodyg3]

I think the troll is gone, guys.

 

[mikew_RIP]

I think the troll is gone, guys.

Yes but they are like buses,another will be along shortly ::what::

 

[vindex1963]

I've been sitting on this one for a little over a day, because my Mom taught me long ago to count to 10 before saying something.

You are quite the douche, sir. Not only do you ask a question, then poke at those who ask for more information, but after actually getting more details than you deserve you don't even bother to thank me for my time when I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't quite the prick others suspected before issuing an unasked for critique on an image posted merely to serve as an example on how to fix something that was not shot with optimum light and settings, as your image was. So, with my apologies to all others who have taken the time to read this, "Fuck you, you pretentious asshole!!"

Glad you counted to 10 or you might have really let him have it haha. I see your posts and you're a good guy that gave the perfect response.

 

[cwgrizz]

I just read this thread and my first thought of response to the OP was to set the camera to "Auto" and good luck.

Oh and while I am here, what can I do to improve this shot?

??????????????
////////////////
////////////////
??????????????

Oh never mind, I'll figure it out because I now have all of the answers. ::what:: :hororr::hororr: ::what::

 

[mikew_RIP]

I just read this thread and my first thought of response to the OP was to set the camera to "Auto" and good luck.

Oh and while I am here, what can I do to improve this shot?

??????????????
////////////////
////////////////
??????????????

Oh never mind, I'll figure it out because I now have all of the answers. ::what:: :hororr::hororr: ::what::

We all have all the answers,its learning to put them to the right question that gets tricky

 

[Felisek]

Yes but they are like buses,another will be along shortly ::what::

Buses usually travel in packs. Nothing, nothing, nothing, and then suddenly four of them at once.

 

[Scott Murray]

I've all ready mentioned that the camera was set for birds in flight using shutter priotity. birds inflight require different settings than static birds. I was photographing Mallards when the tree climber came around. the settings do not matter here, the shot is blown.

for arguments sake, shutter speed is 1000, iso is 800, aperture 5, center weight metering.

we are not supposed to be looking at exif data for this image which is clearly blown.

i would prefer that a pro look at the shot, not the photo, and say "for that scene, i would've set the camera ..."

i'm thinking aperture priority set to lowest, which is 4.5 for my lens.
perhaps iso-200 and shutter speed 1/25, 1/80 or 1/125?

basically, how would YOU get this shot?

i can be within 5 feet of the tree, the bird would be around 10 feet away from me. the sky would show behind the tree a bit. in this situation, what would you do to get the shot?

Wow why the attitude? You come here asking for help and when you are asked for settings you get all narky about it.

And FYI you can use bird in flight settings for static birds as it is just settings and not a magic number, hell you may get sharper images using a faster shutter speed like when birds are flying. But in saying that the shutter speed can be slow for a bird in flight and you can achieve amazing artistic shots this way IF YOU ARE GOOD ENOUGH.

As for your shot it is under exposed so better lighting, fill flash or a slower shutter speed would have solved this.

As for what I would do, I would weigh in the situation and surrounds and choose what settings will suit the image I am after. My settings would not be a constant as the lighting would not be a constant.

Anyway I think I have given you more than enough for you to go away and shoot static birds with your static bird settings...

Enjoy, and a reminder. DO NOT BE AN ASS as next time I will not bother reading what you are asking.

 

[John Thomson]

I enjoyed reading this thread, I do hope he will be back as I think he makes noobies (Me) look quite intelligent