Moorhen

Anubis · Jan 6, 2007

My first photograph of a Moorhen. Not the greatest shot in the world, but my first ...sitting outside, very still, in the cold, waiting for ages... type shot. It was taken at full 420mm zoom as they are very timid and I couldn't get any closer than I was.

Moorhen (56K Beware)

I've ordered a camouflage "bag" hide, so I should get better images once I can get closer without arousing suspicion.

tpe · Jan 7, 2007

Where are you and why are they so timid? Here they will eat food off the end of the lens if you let them, beautiful animals though, it would help the picture if the bird wasnt totally centered and there wernt reeds out of focus in the forground. Something i think helps a lot when taking pictures of animals is a bit anthromoprhic, that is to make sure the subject is comming towards the camera, it makes them look less afraid, undisturbed and natural.

tim

Anubis · Jan 7, 2007

I was sitting on the opposite bank of the lake.

They are very timid here (its a little nature reserve on the edge of the city), if you don't sneak quitely and keep low when approaching the lake (from quite some distance away) they all dissapear into the reeds.

As I said, i've ordered a camouflaged hide, so hopefully some better shots to come.

Alex_B · Jan 7, 2007

that shot is ok for a first timer

my first time shot of a squirrel at 420 pretty much looks the same

420mm ,is that a 300mm prime with a 1.4x teleconverter?

Anubis · Jan 7, 2007

210mm with a 2x teleconverter

Anubis · Jan 7, 2007

I shot it in RAW, so I can blow up the moorhen bigger but it is a bit too grainy if I do that.

Alex_B · Jan 7, 2007

Anubis said:
I shot it in RAW, so I can blow up the moorhen bigger but it is a bit too grainy if I do that.

well, blowing up the image can be done with jpeg as with raw. no difference there

as for the grain, does your raw converter have grain reduction? if not, you might want to try neatimage or noise ninja which do a very good job when it comes to noise/grain

Anubis · Jan 7, 2007

I thought since the RAw file has 4MB than the jpeg there would be more information to blow up and therefor better quality.

I use Nikon Picture Project to transfer my pictures to the PC from the camera, it also does the RAW->JPEG conversions.

I'll need to have a look for a grain reduction feature.

Alex_B · Jan 7, 2007

Anubis said:
I thought since the RAw file has 4MB than the jpeg there would be more information to blow up and therefor better quality.

Not sure about Nikon, but normally when you set your camera to highest JPG quality, loss due to compression will be minimal. You get the same pixel resolution and almost the same image resolution (if not totally the same).

RAW images are larger, since they store more other information. RAW is 12 bits per R, G and B channel, whereas JPG is only 8 bits. That means when you start manipulating colours and brightness, you have a broader margin before things go wrong and you see artifacts. Also the RAW image is still linear, and the sensor characteristics curve + whitebalance curve have not been applied yet. This is only done in the RAW converter giving you, again , more freedom in manipulation during that conversion.

I use Nikon Picture Project to transfer my pictures to the PC from the camera, it also does the RAW->JPEG conversions.

I'll need to have a look for a grain reduction feature.

yep, i think they have trial versions with some restrictions. so you can test, neatimage pro probably costs around 130 Scottish Pounds or so

Dougie · Jan 9, 2007

There's man-made pond outside my work here in Edinburgh. Complete with a Heron, four swans, moorhens, coots, tufted ducks, etc, etc. Not in abundance you understand but plenty of good shots in the making.