File: IMG_0834.jpg (3.5 MB)

3.5 MB JPG

The composition here looks boring. Should I crop more?

>>4487837
It's a boring photo, cropping won't help. You should have gotten closer to eye level. Put your camera right above the water level next time. The light isn't doing you favors either.
It's not your fault, this is a genre where true real keepers are very few and far between and more luck than anything. Just get out there more and consider the forecast. You can use windy.com or nws hourlies for cloud coverage forecasts. Fog looks cool too.

>>4487958
no
I greatly enjoy seeing a bunch of non-perfect photos and common birds too, the web is already filled with great shots

>>4487971
I know
Can you define real photography?

File: Green Heron.jpg (2.5 MB)

2.5 MB JPG

Got a lot of good shots today. Will make edits over the next day or two. Really happy with the male and female mergansers I got. They'll be near the end.

>>4488104
>Green Heron
>Mostly blue
What did ornithologists mean by this

File: Red-crowned Amazon 121325 Santee Lakes.jpg (2.4 MB)

2.4 MB JPG

Fast moving Red-crowned Amazons. Couldnt zoom in fast enough to get more detail of the in-flight group, but I got some great perched ones later in my set.

>>4488128
This is beautiful

>>4488131
>bird posting thread
>see beautiful birds
>mad cause it's not national geographic quality
Anon go be upset somewhere else

File: Mandarin Duck.jpg (3.1 MB)

3.1 MB JPG

>>4488131
Yeah, that kind of happens when you're shooting up into basically nothing except tree tops. Here's a rare Mandarin Duck I got today. Lighting was poor and it was stationary under an acorn tree for most the time I spent observing it.

>>4488164
Thats just the plumage in poor light; its not going to look good, denoise or not.

>>4488167
I don't think you're comprehending. You're also being unreasonably argumentative. Poor lighting will hide details. Denoising will clear the noise and make the poor details more visible. The "smudging" is not because of the denoising, it's because of the poor lighting. My focus was fine.

>>4488177
I can give you the raw. Put up or shut up.

File: focus box.jpg (95.3 KB)

95.3 KB JPG

>>4488185
AF box was on the eye and at f/10; focus was fine. You're now complaining about editing and won't take the raw because you're an armchair warrior. I'm disengaging from this conversation with you.

File: DSC_0176-2.jpg (304.3 KB)

304.3 KB JPG

first time out with new cam

File: Photos_nVMH5uxniE.png (1.6 MB)

1.6 MB PNG

>>4488301

File: DSC_1014-2.jpg (866.6 KB)

866.6 KB JPG

>>4488316

File: IMG_9058.jpg (3.5 MB)

3.5 MB JPG

>>4488394

File: IMG_9060.jpg (3.5 MB)

3.5 MB JPG

>>4488395
Ostriches be curious

File: IMG_9062.jpg (3.6 MB)

3.6 MB JPG

>>4488413
Dang, reversed the posting order

>>4488770
Are you special or something? Downsampling improves bayer bullshit

>>4488771
downsampling to 4mpx? u serious nigga?

File: OB250960 RESAMPLE TO IMPROVE BAYER.jpg (24.4 KB)

24.4 KB JPG

>>4488771
LOOK AT MY RESAMPLED BIRD

File: OB250960 EVEN MORE RESAMPLE.jpg (1.1 KB)

1.1 KB JPG

>>4488800
kek what a retard

>>4488801
what happen

File: Allen's Hummingbird 113025 Fanisa Slough.jpg (1.9 MB)

1.9 MB JPG

Revision on a take from a few weeks ago

>>4488961
It's a juvenile

>>4489010
nice shot.

Curious, what focal length and how far away?

>>4489023
1/500, ISO 500, f/8, 371mm
Had to of been inside 15 feet, though I can't recall specifically

File: Heermann's Gull.jpg (2.3 MB)

2.3 MB JPG

Did some Friday after work birding down at our local costal park. Got an uncommon gull for this area.

File: OC205330.jpg (678.2 KB)

678.2 KB JPG

>>4487815
look at my birds bitches

File: OC205337.jpg (655.4 KB)

655.4 KB JPG

>>4489302

File: OC205370.jpg (548.6 KB)

548.6 KB JPG

>>4489324

File: OC205382.jpg (490.1 KB)

490.1 KB JPG

>>4489325
this concludes my birds series I shot today on my phone

>>4488975
really nice, anon. you've got talent. probably the only one in this thread.

File: DSC06208.jpg (4.9 MB)

4.9 MB JPG

Recently went to Puerto Rico.
Saw this hummingbird on a walk, and was lucky I had my camera in hand.

File: DSC06177.jpg (5 MB)

5 MB JPG

>>4489436

File: PANA1836-Enhanced-NR.jpg (2.3 MB)

2.3 MB JPG

common koel

>>4489329
Samefag

>>4489436
>>4489437
Nice, especially the first, but they could use some increased luminosity

>>4489578
Thanks.
New-ish to editing and color blind, so I've got a lot working against me (also this was at F11, 1/5000th on a 100-400 + 2x tele)

Not sure if I should just crank the exposure or something else here...

>>4489674
In low light situations, there are a couple things you want to typically adjust for.
1. Shoot wide open to get the maximum amount of light possible
2. Adjust shutter speed (subject dependent). You'll obviously get more exposure with a longer shutter speed, but with a target like your humming bird you're limited to a faster shutter speed.
3. Look at your histogram, ideally it should be 2/3 on the right. If it's not, you're probably underexposed and should adjust your exposure compensation on your camera to bring it up. There's also an artistic aspect to exposure compensation, where some might purposefully under or over expose to get their intended shot.

File: DSC06143.jpg (4.8 MB)

4.8 MB JPG

>>4489720
I'm not new to photography, just to editing and posting my pics lol.
F11 is as wide as my lens goes with a 2x converter, and 1/5000 is needed to freeze hummingbird wings. This was also 12800 or 16000 iso IIRC.
Since I'm colorblind I have to edit with histograms so I never know if what I'm doing is right, haha.
Thanks for the tips though.

File: DSC05981.jpg (4.8 MB)

4.8 MB JPG

>>4489817
Anyways, enjoying taking photos while colorblind feels like this.

(Pigeon walking around the walls of Castillo San Felipe del Morro in PR)

File: P1047953.jpg (1007 KB)

1007 KB JPG

>>4489818
sick. I am going to PR this winter. bringing camera of course.

I prefer wimbrels

>>4489817
You're doing pretty well considering you're colorblind. If it's Deuteranopia you're pretty fucked, but if it's just some minor red-orange colorblindness then it shouldn't be a huge deal.
>F11 is as wide as my lens goes with a 2x converter
Are you shooting a 400mm f/5.6? with a 2x? Can't really get any better of a setup for 800mm without spending $10,000
>This was also 12800 or 16000 iso
This is completely personal opinion, but if I was shooting this high of an ISO I would be turning NR off completely and shooting B&W. The chroma noise disappears and the luma noise is tolerable. In some cases it can look like a faux B&W film this way (but grain looks way better than luma noise ever will).
Yes you lose the vibrant colors, but you're colourblind anyway so if anything it would be far easier for you to see what the photo looks like for other people.

File: DSC05820_small.jpg (4.9 MB)

4.9 MB JPG

>>4489860
Yep, snoy 100-400. I can't afford a 300 f2.8
I prefer it over the 200-600 because of size/weight, and I use it for landscape as well.

I'm not afraid of iso, and I did not denoise or really crop this image at all. It was actually fairly ETTR'd so 16,000 looks ok. Just seems a bit blocky because of the compression down to 4-ish mb

Picrel is a cat in my hotel room.

File: DSC05317_small.jpg (4.9 MB)

4.9 MB JPG

>>4489857
Nice!
I had a lot of fun. It's great for birds, but I kind of regret not going out specifically to shoot wildlife.
I just got a bunch of random pics on resort or around old San Juan.

Also, it's much pricier than say, Mexico. I was blindsided a bit.

Picrel random bird on an umbrella at the resort. Not sure what this is, but they were everywhere.

>>4489881
Looks to be a species of grackle. Not sure which, there's a handful of black variations depending on region.

>>4489817
How does it look better than m43 ISO 800?

>>4489875
Great shot desu
I don't know much about color blindness, but if it's only affecting the perception of colors it shouldn't be an issue regarding fixing what I pointed out on the previous shots - which is only related to tonality (underexposure). But I'm not colorblind so I could be wrong

File: file.png (3.6 MB)

3.6 MB PNG

>>4490118
Not sure if gearbaiting, but better dynamic range because FF is 3-4x the sensor size so noise is amplified.
Anything beyond the 2 stop DR difference is due to ETTR (more signal to overwhelm the noise. High ISOs from any sensor can look pretty much fine with sufficient light.

File: little.jpg (1.6 MB)

1.6 MB JPG

Those little chirpsters defy gravity

where are birds in winter

File: 20251228_100426.jpg (3.9 MB)

3.9 MB JPG

>>4487815
Eurasian blackbird

File: 1763323966000057.jpg (1.9 MB)

1.9 MB JPG

Still practicing, I haven't started doing post production but here are a few I recently took

File: IMG_8155.jpg (1.7 MB)

1.7 MB JPG

1/2
Lucky I got this close. Shot on a d610 with a 300 and a 2x teleconverter

File: IMG_8156.jpg (1.8 MB)

1.8 MB JPG

2/2
He left to get dinner

File: IMG_8157.jpg (1.9 MB)

1.9 MB JPG

Great horned owl at dusk. D610 with a 300

>>4490833
I hadn't considered using a teleconverter and was hesitating buying a 600mm lens. Thank you for telling anon

>>4490842
Yea fren I wanted to expand into some bird stuff because I see a ton of them while landscape hunting, but I didn’t want to spend $5k on some crazy 600. I got an old af nikkor 300 1:4 and I use the tc200 to reach out to 600. In daylight with that bitch as wide open as possible I was able to get some fun photos. Just make sure you get a tripod/monopole. My hands shake too much to even use that 300 sometimes. With that tc 200 it’s impossible for me to purely freehand

https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/tc200.htm

File: Osprey.jpg (1.3 MB)

1.3 MB JPG

>>4491533
Attempted to get a little artsy with a badly lit image. There was an Osprey circling trees to grab branches for what I'm assuming was building a nest. Captured the above but it was strongly backlit and couldn't pull out much detail. There was also an unidentified raptor sitting in the tree while it was swooping in. Couldn't quite make out what kind but I know some Merlins were in the area. Decided to turn it into a black and white. Here's the Osprey in question from a better lit position.

File: IMG_1663.jpg (286.1 KB)

286.1 KB JPG

Not a bird shooter. But too beautiful to not snap a pic.

File: Waxwing.jpg (4.7 MB)

4.7 MB JPG

Cedar Waxwing

>>4491724
literally none of that

>>4491733
>a good photo
define that

>>4491739
That wasn't the ask. If you can't define what's considered good then good becomes subjective and you're attempting to gatekeep at that point like a good little commie.

>>4491741
>npc can't extrapolate that information for himself
You can't and you're deflecting. It's ok to go away. Being an adult is knowing when you're wrong.

File: DSC_2574.jpg (334 KB)

334 KB JPG

>>4491749
thanks. i used to go birding as a kid but recently took it back up as a 34 year old

File: DSC_2225.jpg (188.7 KB)

188.7 KB JPG

i wish the light was right for this mfer

File: Robin.jpg (3.1 MB)

3.1 MB JPG

So cold and windy in the UK at the moment. Saw a few redwings and dunnocks and this robin that seemed as cold as I was.

>>4491889
Fuck you that's why

>>4491891
That's my first post with the trip, not my first post on the board. Seethe more, nophoto faggot.

>>4491898
Sherlock Ranjeet, the nophoto faggot, lmao.

File: GR001815.jpg (678 KB)

678 KB JPG

>>4491903
Oh no, a nophoto faggot just called my photos snapshots. I'm devastated. I'll never recover from this.

Kys ranjeet.

>>4491903
>rajeshi

File: _1030080.jpg (1.9 MB)

1.9 MB JPG

This is bird photo I didn't mean to take. Tripped over a dead ash log and hit the shutter release as I fumbled about trying not to fall face first into beaver pond muck.

File: GR001843.jpg (321.5 KB)

321.5 KB JPG

>>4491921
Nophoto faggot bitches about putting in zero effort. Have we hit rock bottom yet?

Fuck your grandpa then kys ranjeet.

>>4491958
As a valuable contributor to the board, Burt is entitled to his opinions. As a nophoto faggot, you are not. Thanks for confirming you are a jeet tho, explains the seething and schizophrenia.

>>4492097
Two different hobbies that share the same foundation. Youre comparing a home cooked meal to fine dining. Don't be a cunt.

>>4492101
Its incredible how much you must hate yourself. Get help.

>>4492101
Please post some of your clearly amazing "real" photography work.

>>4492126
Oh, so you don't have any, because you don't actually take pictures.

You can come out and say you like the theory and science behind photography but don't care for actually participating in the art. Being this passive aggressive is just really weird.

>>4492126
Cope friendless fatty. Show us your pics of all the sex you have since you're not a birder.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emIrhLNt2sE

>>4492397
Thanks for sharing.

File: 437A0174.jpg (688.9 KB)

688.9 KB JPG

Anyone else ever been shit on by a thousand birds when a black couple comes up from behind you and throws an entire box of crushed up ritz crackers at a murder of seagulls?

File: IMG_4498c.jpg (2.6 MB)

2.6 MB JPG

The Merganser

File: ytp_sexer.png (737.6 KB)

737.6 KB PNG

>>4487397
>>4487398
>>4487399
>>4487400
>>4487401

To whomever posted these in the last thread, you should feel a near crippling amount of shame for letting these image files get above even 3MB. More than half of these are close to 5. The lack of care to slide a JPEG compression slider is incomprehensible. This wasn't even all of the images I could find: the site wouldn't let me list them all because it thought my message was spam. Rip your fingernails off with pliers and then dip your fingers into vinegar as punishment.

File: 000022.jpg (961.5 KB)

961.5 KB JPG

Pair of many-colored rush tyrant from my first ever roll of film, what do you guys think? Is analog bird photography viable?

>>4492749
dial up indian internet?

>>4492749
Moving forward, I will attempt to make every image I post exactly 5mb in size, only because I can't post them larger. I would love to post every one as a 500mb 4x upscale TIFF file only so I can see you cry more.

File: Bald Eagle.jpg (907.6 KB)

907.6 KB JPG

Not much I could do it with since the bird was miles out, but I got a shot of a bald eagle the other day

File: GR001801 (1).jpg (939.8 KB)

939.8 KB JPG

Why stop with the back of peoples heads?

>>4493223
rock
leaves
peoples backs -> birdo bacc
building corner X

2/10 lacks at least a building corner

File: ANTENA.jpg (4.8 MB)

4.8 MB JPG

>>4493244
horrid shiet the tick symbol doesnt appear

>>4493266
>tell me you've never seen foreground blur without telling me you've never seen foreground blur

>>4493276
You're retarded

>>4493286
Looks like a masking error to me. You're still retarded.

File: HDR_0302.jpg (1.5 MB)

1.5 MB JPG

My photography teacher said not to take pictures of geese but I don't care and I'm having lots of fun with my first telephoto lens >:3

File: HDR_8512.jpg (1.4 MB)

1.4 MB JPG

I do have a hard time getting focus on birds in flight.

I usually try and keep my lens as wide open as possible, but wondering what general settings for aperture / shutter speed I should be aiming for when trying to take a picture of a bird flying overhead.

File: HDR_0258.jpg (2.2 MB)

2.2 MB JPG

Also, if anyone has advice on spot modifying pictures, that'd be great. I wanted the dirt being flung by this northern flicker to really pop, but all I know how to do is modify global image settings.

File: IMG_9703-4.jpg (303.4 KB)

303.4 KB JPG

>>4493292
If you nail the focus apparture shouldnt matter as much as shutter speed. I did this on with 1/400 and there is still a visible blurr in the wings. f5.6 on the 70-300 from canon with my 6D

Modern cameras can even detect animals and follow them with the focus point with continous focusing.


...and I was thinking the old capture was fucked up. Holy shit.

File: IMG_9267.jpg (3.3 MB)

3.3 MB JPG

Bird up

My Sony 18-135mm doesn't take good bird pictures unless it's literally tied to its handler and I want a lens with longer reach.

Would I regret switching my Sony 18-135mm for the Tamron 18-300mm (59,501 yen new before tax refund, which seems stupid good) due to the weight + bulk + slightly decreased picture quality?

Or would I regret having to carry an extra lens by getting the Sony 70-350mm (93,400 yen new, 86,600 yen used before tax refund)?

File: A6603414.jpg (561 KB)

561 KB JPG

>>4493449
Forgot pic.

File: DSC_4596.jpg (284 KB)

284 KB JPG

Vole's view

File: Osprey.jpg (922.9 KB)

922.9 KB JPG

Observed Osprey gathering nesting material.

>>4494115
>he cropped his cropped crop for reach

>>4494127
>always shitposting
>never posting birds
>small dick energy

File: Surf Scoter.jpg (1.6 MB)

1.6 MB JPG

Male and female pair

File: _MGC6031.jpg (3.6 MB)

3.6 MB JPG

Out of focus birbs

>>4493449
Most bird photography is done at (FF equivalent) 400-600mm. Sigma makes a cheap decent 100-400mm lens you could get.
However, if you aren't doing wild birds your mid zoom should be good. In fact, I quite like wider angles on birds, most bird photography just looks way too cropped. You'll probably be fine wisuper zooms.

Anyway to answer your question, it's personal taste but I'd get the 70-350 over the superzooms. Take a look at your photos exif and see how often you need the 18-70 range back to back with the 70+ range and you should know if swapping lenses is a pain or not.

File: DSC_2101.jpg (4.6 MB)

4.6 MB JPG

based

>>4494304
Wow that is a lot

>>4493291
>My photography teacher
kill that fag

>>4493449
I bought the 70-350g and i regret not going for a longer lens but it's fine

File: DSC03285 - Copy.jpg (1.5 MB)

1.5 MB JPG

>>4493449
i have the tamron 18-300 and paid full 900$ for it only to be on sale for 400$ not even 4 months later. pics ar hit and miss some are fucking sharp some look like shit some have CA like hell some have minimal. 70-350 is considered as the best bang/buck for sharpness in that range
18 300 has buit in stabilization so does the sony, can;t tell which one is better. but ppl say the sony is. i barrowed the sony from a fried so i don;t have too much time with it but is clearly sharper
the pro of the tamron is that if you don't care that much of super sharpness will be the mount and forget lens. AF is ok if the target is not moving fast towards you
it s an ok lens at the end of the day.

File: DSC03210.jpg (2.7 MB)

2.7 MB JPG

>>4494469
i don;t regret not getting the sony as you would need to spend more money on another lens to cover 18 70 mm range and changing lenses is a pain in the ass, as i found out a couple of days ago in -13*C. so i said fuck it and shoot everything with the tamron.
if you are going for some niche segment like birding go for best sharpness and reach. if you want an every day lens that does an "ok/good enough for me" job get the tamron.
also you will quick find out that 300 - 350 reach is not enough

File: DSC01942.jpg (2.7 MB)

2.7 MB JPG

>>4494469
>>4494476
pics are sooc as i have no ideea wtf i m doing in lrc

File: DSC04263.jpg (4.1 MB)

4.1 MB JPG

online reviews say is not that sharp at 300. max sharpnes is 100-200 at f8-f11.
all pics posted are at 300 f6.3 using af on bird eyes

File: DSC02614.jpg (4.7 MB)

4.7 MB JPG

here i ve tryied using manual focus and failed

>>4494495
Thanks friend. Changing lens is indeed a pain in the ass and I have not changed lens while outside even once ever since it got cold.

When I go for walks and look for things to shoot, a lot of time it's birds, but sometimes, it's insects and flowers too so the 1:2 macro of the Tamron should be useful.

I'll try to grab one when I head to Japan in February.

>>4494713
Keep in mind that 0.5 mag is only at 18mm. Hand stacking is imposible asyou will have size distorsion and the lens can focus at 5mm in front of the lens, so you only have 5mm or less to work with. Focus bracketing works well if your camera has that function. All you need is good lighting and a tripod or steady hands
Thread reached image limit so i cannot post some of my semi macro attempts. both single shots and staking so you can make some ideea about macro potential

>>4494509
What are they doing?

>>4494952
stacking, did yuo rily thought that only photogs can do stacks? pigeons/doves are slowly gettin on your level and you cant do anything bout it

>>4494304
impressive

File: DSC_3410 copy.jpg (855.7 KB)

855.7 KB JPG

Closing it out

>>4495553
>>4495555
Cracking pair of tits.

>>4495566
One is a bit bigger than the other, but I'm not here to judge

>>4495653
It's also literally blue