Fri 31-May-13 01:09 PM | edited Fri 31-May-13 01:11 PM by Gerard Pas
I think the TC17 is adequate and the maximum I’ll put on this lens. I don’t think it’s the “bees knees” like I do the TC14 but in birding I often need the reach. I also have a new TC20 II but I don’t like it contrary to all the find words about it. I just don’t like the bokeh the TC20 breaks off if it’s not just sky or background is far enough away. The TC20 sucks in the woods, a thicket, grasses or short choppy waves unless your with in 2-3 metres from the subject.
Nice colour and detail on the chest, eye and beak Gerard. A question for you: what was your experience with the "ISOless" use of the D800 (Shooting at base ISO with negative comp, at least as I understand it.), and why did you start "shooting ISO"?
Fri 31-May-13 12:46 PM | edited Fri 31-May-13 12:55 PM by Gerard Pas
Interesting question Jim!
I kinda agree with the current debate that “ISO” might be left out of the traditional “exposure triangle” because with advances in RAW processing there are currently many means to “brighten” an image that were not available in film. Part of the discussion in my opinion is simply ‘semantics’ as we still use the lexicon of the film camera on a much more complex “digital image capture machine” / computer. I should add I prefer to continue using that “old” language because the fundamentals of any good picture remain much the same as film; a good shot out of the camera always wins me over than one which has to be controlled through a series of post image production tools. When ISO is controlled through brightening tools in PP, images can and often do have issues such as clipping or heaven forbid artificial over-exposure. I see this more often than I like because often my students try to fix a poorly under-exposed image using PP tools and end up destroying the whole damn shot: highly irritating and hurtful to my eye - just SHOOT IT RIGHT IN THE FIRST (damn) PLACE place is a refrain they hear too often.
So yes ISO still matters and it matters to me and is why my current D300 spends much time on the shelf these days. That said, when used in moderation and with knowledge I’ve polished many images that have mostly been too ‘contrasty’ even while using some “d-lighting” in the camera. So ISO and brightening are not synonymous IMHO because ISO in a finished image does not always reflect the original “exposure triumvirate”. Given time we’ll change the language to reflect the modern camera-computer even if I believe what we have now is adequate.
I also think it’s very perceptive of you to notice that I used this “brightening process” in this image = you have such a good eye Jim!
As for ISO being a controlling factor in my work it’s very simple. I sell large prints as an artist and my existence as a photographer is not about having nice 1,600px for the web. I need to be able to print, sometimes even very large 4’X6’ (or larger) and that is where ISO really matters as it still controls the real enemy “noise”. As a professional this is where my bread is buttered, it’s an I must eat thing and I sell prints!
Also in my experience with my D800 I much prefer an ISO of 100 but alas while that works in the studio I loose too much shutter speed: so much so that the extra ISO isn’t worth the trade-off. If I’m shooting action and every shot is blurred because the shutter is too slow I haven’t gained a damn thing; so I now shoot mostly at ISO200 and it seems to be working well with me. It’s also why I use the flash to keep the ISO at 400 or lower and control “noise” in the final image.
I hope I didn’t miss the point of your question or digress away from it.
>Thanks Ian, > >How's your fall shaping up down there?
Actually Gerard. Autumn (fall) is all over here, & we're 4 days into winter. I live close enough to the coast that we don't usually get snow, so it won't stop me venturing outdoors with the camera......Scotty.
Thanks Mark. I guess the one good thing about not "getting it right the first time" is that if it was almost "right" we can still redeem the image and make it "right". That is said against the backdrop of "you can't spit polish shite," which is my second favourite saying as it relates to getting it right the first time.
Gerard agree, very nice picture especially due to the pose - in my birding book it is labelled as a miscellaneous stray in BC so very neat to to be acquainted with it - I guess it is to be differentiated from the common yellow throat which is endemic around us - anyways thanks for posting - agree with your ideas re ISO but hard to mate that with wildlife photos but I guess that is the challenge and therefore fun of photography Michael
In these parts this bird is a rarity not on the level as a Kirtlands Warbler. It's funny that I've seen people camped out for hours trying to get a sighting and put it on their "lifers lists". In watching this bird over the last 2 years I've noticed 2 of them at the same time and I believe that they are nesting in this park. This may help in bringing up their numbers here so that becomes a little more common.