# Cool little birds



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

This guy has been visiting my yard for awhile, finally got time for some pic's.

zzyzx,I know, they're overexposed, or something. :wink:



















huntin1


----------



## zzyzx (Mar 20, 2010)

Nope, not overexposed. Nice start. Work on the background a bit so you get the bright areas tamed and you will improve things a bit. The bright competes with the bird when you look at the images.

The first has the focus on the feeder edge, not the hummingbird. That is easily remedied with a bit of practice. One thing that can help is to put a small perch close to the feeder. A 'natural' perch for them to sit on and stage while preparing to feed. This will enable you to get the birds without the feeder in the frame.

Check out http://www.birdsasart.com and see some good ways to optimize your settings for the best shots possible. Arthur Morris is one of the top bird photographers in the world. His newsletters are worth looking at, especially the older ones. Looking at excellent images is a good way to learn what top quality is and how to work for it. For what you are doing, check out this section https://store.birdsasart.com/shop/item.aspx?itemid=275 and you will see what a top pro does to get great images. Something within reach as you already have the interest and are working towards better images. 
http://www.alanmurphyphotography.com/favorites.htm 
This second one on Alan Murphy will get you to some of his images. Using simple bird feeders like you already have and working with backgrounds, both natural and artificial, he produces some top images of birds.

A fully adjustable SLR(Single Lens Reflex) with interchangeable lens capability and high quality will help. But, you can do good work with less if you learn to use it to its capabilities. Something most never do.

You are already working to get good images. It doesn't take much more to control the set/light and background and bring the birds to you for best results. You have a good start and the interest so might as well go for it.(within budget and life constraints) and then show us the results.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Well, I would really like to get a DSLR and a few good lenses. Just can't afford to right now. Someday perhaps.

As to controling the focus, I'm having problems with that with this point and shoot, auto-focus ****** me off, but it's what I have so I'm trying to work with it. Same with the auto exposure control, it's hard to get used to letting the camera control it.

I know the camera has a manual function, I've tried it, it is difficult to use when shooting wildlife. Well, much more difficult to use that what I'm used to. It is relatively easy to twist the aperture ring on the lense and to turn the shutter dial on the camera.

And I need to learn how too use some photo editing software.

In the 1980's my father in law had a photo studio and I would help him out with wedding shoots. He used a large format Hasselblad and mostly took the posed shots. I would shoot the wedding party and guests with a Canon F-1n and a 50mm f1.2 canon lense.

In those days I had three camera bodies, 2 loaded with slide film 400 ASA and 64 ASA, and 1 loaded with 100 ASA print film.

I processed my own print film and got pretty good at tweaking the photo's in the dark room.

By the early 90's I got divorced, kept my camera gear, but she kept all of my slides and prints. Heard she destroyed them.

Then my present wife got sick and we ended up going to Mayo. Sold all of my camera gear and a few guns paying for medical expenses. Such is life.

So, I'm not really new to photography, but I am new to this automatic stuff. I will get used to it though, as time permits. And at some point I will get a DSLR.

Anyway, that's probably more than you wanted to know, thanks for the comments.

:beer:

huntin1


----------



## zzyzx (Mar 20, 2010)

Thanks for the info, it helps in knowing where you are with the hobby. The Hasselblads were 2 1/4 inch film, 120 or 220 with the option for a 70mm back. Medium format. Large Format starts generally with 4x5 and goes to 8x10. Ultra large format beyond that. The largest I have shot is 20x24 film. Too costly and the darned cameras weighs over 150 pounds so forget a lot of field work. I do shoot a lot of 5x7 and 8x10 and love it. Hand process the film and print in silver(good old fashioned B&W) platinum/palladium(hand coated papers) and carbon.(hand poured and prepared carbon, an old process that is beautiful and three dimensional)

On digital SLR's, if you watch the used boards you can find something like a Canon 20/30/40D for the $300-600 range. Then it is lenses. Good glass is expensive. Nice glass is a lot less, not as fast and lighter weight for most uses. Some of the newer zooms in this format are nice. Still, single focal length lenses are a bit better as they are designed for one job, not a compromise over many focal lengths.

Watch pawn shops, ad boards, newspaper ads and places like photo.net for used cameras. A college area can be really good as kids spend daddys money and then dump stuff. Some good prices there at times. The camera guy who has to have the latest and greatest is always a good one to buy from. Usually little use and a lot of useless tech info as he moves from model to model. In the digital realm that is about every 18-24 months now.

Keep planning and keep shooting. Don't let your gear keep you from that. It is obvious you are interested and that is worth more than a lot of gear that sits in the back room only to be brought out to show off.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

My mistake, Hasselblads are medium not large format. Hey, it's larger than 35mm. :lol:

I do enjoy photography, I'll keep shooting with what I have, and I'll keep trying to figure out the quirks of this auto stuff. And when the time is right I'll pounce on a DSLR.

huntin1


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Awesome.......... We have been watching as many as 5 coming to the same feeder we have at the Angle.
Have got any pics yet they are too fast for me.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Large Format starts generally with 4x5 and goes to 8x10.


Your very knowledgeable, but now I get to give you a little static, but just for fun. Working for the government I think it was an 11X11 inch that I was loaned from another agency. I don't know if it was true or not, but they said they took it out of an old U2 spy plane. I was shooting it through the belly of a 182 Cessna. The local flight service who owned the plane was reluctant to let me cut a hole in his plane, but we rented it often enough to pay for the whole plane in a year or two so he finally gave in.

From 10,000 feet and a 24 inch print I could tell you the brand of shingles on your house.

Most often we used Hasselblads with the 70 mm back. Often to monitor photosynthesis we used infrared film with a Wratten 12 filter.

Today my 35mm sort of lay in the cabinets and I shoot a semi-pro (at least that's what Cannon calls it) point and shoot. Digital is nice since film cost was killing me. My first trip to Yellowstone with a camera cost me $99 for film and that was in 1980.

I enjoy reading your assesments zzyzx. Often in my case I find that it's a mediocre picture or none at all. To many hobbies to spend all my time on one. Retirement is great.


----------



## pennylane1284 (Sep 10, 2010)

These are really good. Great DOF, but the subject itself could use a sharper focus. Getty Images Representative Philippines


----------



## miumiu2134 (May 24, 2013)

OMG!! stunning red birds!!! I love them so much!! did you do the photoshop worh with some sort of photo editing programs? I'd love to have a try!! I'm using mac at home, hopefully some photo editor works for me


----------

