How would I best crop this?

[campeterz]

Hi guys, I was wondering how to best crop this photo I took.


I thought this one looked ok, but then the blue in the sky got a little distracting
1)

Here is one that got more of the bird rather than the background

Original
3)

(I used a friend's 70-200 f/4 IS with 1.4 extender at f/5.6 1/800 sec exposure, ISO-200 on my 20D)

Thanks

 

[Trevor Harris]

I'd take door #1

 

[Futurelight]

yeah, keep to the portrait. The blurry and the blue sky are too distracting. Nice shot though over-all

 

[xzoup]

The blur appears to extend to far into the main subject and the birds posture seems to be a little out of sorts. To me it's a difficult shot to crop. I would put it in my own personal file and not worry about cropping it unless you just want to.

 

[cgipson1]

subject looks soft... focus is sharp on the branch behind the bird. 1/800 at F5.6 at ISO 200. Should have used F8 and ISO 100.. could have even used F11. The wider DOF would have ensured sharpness throughout.

 

[Ethang]

Cpigson I saw this thread and am confused about your comments. The photographer used 5.6 f with 200 iso and shutter speed of 1/800. I feel that with how the photo was exposed that if the photographer lowered the iso and used a slower aperture, he would have to either use a slower shutter speed which would probably cause blur, or he would have to underexpose his photo? I agree about the using a larger aperture (f8 would be appropriate IMO), but to maintain I fast shutter speed I fell as though he would want to actually bump up the iso to perhaps 800? What would lowering the ISO accomplish in this photo? From the crops it doesn't look like their is any grain or any other ill effect from iso 200, so what would he accomplish? I am not trying to rip on your advice at all, I am just curious if I am missing something from my newbish prospective?

 

[Kerbouchard]

Cpigson I saw this thread and am confused about your comments. The photographer used 5.6 f with 200 iso and shutter speed of 1/800. I feel that with how the photo was exposed that if the photographer lowered the iso and used a slower aperture, he would have to either use a slower shutter speed which would probably cause blur, or he would have to underexpose his photo? I agree about the using a larger aperture (f8 would be appropriate IMO), but to maintain I fast shutter speed I fell as though he would want to actually bump up the iso to perhaps 800? What would lowering the ISO accomplish in this photo? From the crops it doesn't look like their is any grain or any other ill effect from iso 200, so what would he accomplish? I am not trying to rip on your advice at all, I am just curious if I am missing something from my newbish prospective?

I'm pretty he sure he just mistyped. My guess, he meant to say ISO 400 instead of 100.

In any case, I would disagree anyway. I don't think it needs more DOF. It just needs the focus to be correct. It's also underexposed for my tastes. I would have said 5.6 with an ISO of 400 and leaving the shutter speed alone. As far as ISO 800, I don't think the Canon 20d can shoot at ISO 800 and produce usable results.

For the crops, I would go with the portrait crop, for the same reasons as everybody else. I would also increase the exposure in photoshop, run a bit of noise reduction, and some smart sharpening.

 

[cgipson1]

Cpigson I saw this thread and am confused about your comments. The photographer used 5.6 f with 200 iso and shutter speed of 1/800. I feel that with how the photo was exposed that if the photographer lowered the iso and used a slower aperture, he would have to either use a slower shutter speed which would probably cause blur, or he would have to underexpose his photo? I agree about the using a larger aperture (f8 would be appropriate IMO), but to maintain I fast shutter speed I fell as though he would want to actually bump up the iso to perhaps 800? What would lowering the ISO accomplish in this photo? From the crops it doesn't look like their is any grain or any other ill effect from iso 200, so what would he accomplish? I am not trying to rip on your advice at all, I am just curious if I am missing something from my newbish prospective?

It could have been shot at 100.. plenty of room for it. Use a shutter of 250.. plenty fast to prevent blur... at f8 or f11... at ISO 100. 100 will always be the choice for maximum clarity, and resolution.

I was trying to be "nice" and not emphasize that the focus should have been spot on (that should be obvious!) . Since it was off, I was assuming the photographer was a noob... and gave some options to help prevent "soft" photos, by allowing some extra DOF.

 

[campeterz]

It could have been shot at 100.. plenty of room for it. Use a shutter of 250.. plenty fast to prevent blur... at f8 or f11... at ISO 100. 100 will always be the choice for maximum clarity, and resolution.

I was trying to be "nice" and not emphasize that the focus should have been spot on (that should be obvious!) . Since it was off, I was assuming the photographer was a noob... and gave some options to help prevent "soft" photos, by allowing some extra DOF.

I will remember to lower the ISO for next time, and maybe close the aperture a bit. Regarding the focus, I had caught a couple that were focused better, but the bird was twitching so it looked a little awkward. Now I know what to do if they come back tomorrow

 

[cgipson1]

Just keep your shutter speed up fast enough to prevent blur (up the ISO if you have to, but only if you have to!) .. and your aperture / DOF where it needs to be to capture as much of the subject as you want it too. And keep that focus tight... you will do great!

 

[Aragorncito]

#1 for me as the head of the bird is in a 3rd intersection and it has space toward the sight of the bird !

 

[photo guy]

More bird (like #2) but careful not to chop off it's lower wing / feather area like did partially here

 

[Ethang]

Cpigson I saw this thread and am confused about your comments. The photographer used 5.6 f with 200 iso and shutter speed of 1/800. I feel that with how the photo was exposed that if the photographer lowered the iso and used a slower aperture, he would have to either use a slower shutter speed which would probably cause blur, or he would have to underexpose his photo? I agree about the using a larger aperture (f8 would be appropriate IMO), but to maintain I fast shutter speed I fell as though he would want to actually bump up the iso to perhaps 800? What would lowering the ISO accomplish in this photo? From the crops it doesn't look like their is any grain or any other ill effect from iso 200, so what would he accomplish? I am not trying to rip on your advice at all, I am just curious if I am missing something from my newbish prospective?

It could have been shot at 100.. plenty of room for it. Use a shutter of 250.. plenty fast to prevent blur... at f8 or f11... at ISO 100. 100 will always be the choice for maximum clarity, and resolution.

I was trying to be "nice" and not emphasize that the focus should have been spot on (that should be obvious!) . Since it was off, I was assuming the photographer was a noob... and gave some options to help prevent "soft" photos, by allowing some extra DOF.

Thanks for the clarification. Its tough for other newbs (Me) to catch stuff like that (When your giving nice options for getting better photos when something went wrong) But thanks for explaining it to me.

 

[Tony S]

Now that you have the shot and find that blue sky distracting go into your photo editor and try desaturating the blue and cyan colors until you find a pleasing spot that reduces the distraction if you want to keep your original composition.