Red Kite watching the Lens : now with a polished **** edit

[Gav.]

Hi

One more Red Kite shot ... Sorry.. I'll move on now



Redkite watching by Gavin Wickham, on Flickr

 

[pooley]

Hi Gav,

Nice eye contact here - and never apologise for posting Red Kites!

A little underexposed - maybe try adding some exposure compensation or upping the exposure itself depending upon which mode you use.

You can recover a little more detail in post though



Mike

 

[Gav.]

Hi Gav,

Nice eye contact here - and never apologise for posting Red Kites!

A little underexposed - maybe try adding some exposure compensation or upping the exposure itself depending upon which mode you use.

You can recover a little more detail in post though

View attachment 346126

Mike

Thanks Mike, I keep trying to recover the details and light, I use exp' comp, I try to match I what I see out while taking the shots, which is probably where I keep going wrong. I'll keep at it

Thank you for taking the time for the edit and reply

 

[Phil-D]

I try to match I what I see out while taking the shots

This isn't a dig at you Gav, butI've read this a few times recently on here, is it the latest fab?

Its a cracking shot, Red Kites are great birds but agree with Mike, its definitely under-exposed

Why wouldn't anyone want to expose for the detail in the subject instead of a dark shadowy shape?

You've only to look at the sky colour in Mikes edit compared to yours, it could even have some 'hot spots' but at least the bird is correctly exposed showing some good detail and colours.

The other thing to remember as well Gav, lifting shadows creates more noise in post which can have a knock on effect when cropping.

 

[Gav.]

This isn't a dig at you Gav, butI've read this a few times recently on here, is it the latest fab?

Its a cracking shot, Red Kites are great birds but agree with Mike, its definitely under-exposed

Why wouldn't anyone want to expose for the detail in the subject instead of a dark shadowy shape?

You've only to look at the sky colour in Mikes edit compared to yours, it could even have some 'hot spots' but at least the bird is correctly exposed showing some good detail and colours.

The other thing to remember as well Gav, lifting shadows creates more noise in post which can have a knock on effect when cropping.

Thanks Phil
I'm fairly new to the bird photography and I think I'm afraid blowing highlights in the sky detail (or lack of at the minute) and this is probably partly to blame, I also suffer OCD and Anxiety (both really hit self confidence), they play havok on my mind and I can take ages to do something as my mind is fighting which 'route' to take, sorry to mention it, it's not an excuse I'm just trying to help myself and sometimes it helps to write it and read it back I've lifted the exp' in camera, I think you pointed it out to me along with a few others, I need to get to grips with it and push it harder.

Thanks for the feed back, I will try harder to get it right

May be I should stick to the macro work

Sorry for the waffle

Gav

 

[K9Kirk]

You're doing fine, Gav, it takes time to get good and everyone does it in their own way at their own pace. I think it's a fine shot and but if I may suggest, (it's real easy) set your camera to EV +1 if their underside isn't very dark when shooting BIF and see how that goes. Sometimes the shadows on the underside are darker and require maybe an EV +2 or more for a little more exposure on that dark underside. I've included a link that I think you'll find helpful with shooting bif. it may say B & W photography but it works for colour, too. Take your time with it and have a great day.

Understanding exposure and gray scales in Black and White Photography

An article that shows you how exposure effects tones and how to move tones in the Zone gray scale

www.martinhensonphotography.co.uk

 

[Phil-D]

Thanks Phil
I'm fairly new to the bird photography and I think I'm afraid blowing highlights in the sky detail (or lack of at the minute) and this is probably partly to blame, I also suffer OCD and Anxiety (both really hit self confidence), they play havok on my mind and I can take ages to do something as my mind is fighting which 'route' to take, sorry to mention it, it's not an excuse I'm just trying to help myself and sometimes it helps to write it and read it back I've lifted the exp' in camera, I think you pointed it out to me along with a few others, I need to get to grips with it and push it harder.

Thanks for the feed back, I will try harder to get it right

May be I should stick to the macro work

Sorry for the waffle

Gav

Gav, if I came across a bit harsh it certainly wasn't my intention, as I said, its a great, sharp shot, the birds got an excellent head position, its just a little under-exposed.

My suggestion is this.......indoors, place a vase of flowers ( or ornament, ect) on a window sill. On a bright sunny day, take photos of the flowers, adding + exposure comp untill you have the correct exposure for the flowers, no doubt there'll be some over exposure to the background from the bright light outside but don't worry about that, the bg isn't the subject.
If blowing some highlights to the bg is what it takes to get a correctly exposed subject, so be it.

How do I know this works? Because when I first started like you, its what I did. The subjects not going anywhere, you can take as long as you want just experimenting with settings. What you will find is, as you over-expose the shot too much, chromatic aberration comes into play, something else we see far too often in the forums.

Its also a good way to learn how metering works, not sure of the terminology on Canon but Nikon is matrix, centre weighted and spot. There's no right or wrong way to meter in my eyes as long as you understand what each setting does. I always shoot matrix (evaluating the whole image), its just what I like and what I've become use to.

To me, 1 thread like this is worth 10 great shot threads, its good to discuss techniques and critique. I know I sometimes sound like a broken record but I've learnt so much from here, taking onboard the crit and advice I've been offered, it would be such a shame if that disappears from the forums completely, just to be replaced with the 'great shot mate' brigade.

 

[pooley]

Thanks Mike, I keep trying to recover the details and light, I use exp' comp, I try to match I what I see out while taking the shots, which is probably where I keep going wrong. I'll keep at it

Thank you for taking the time for the edit and reply

Just remember Gav, when you look up at a bird against a bright sky, your eyes will adjust to the sky making you think the bird is dark, when in reality its the same colour as it normally is!

Just get used to giving your subject as much exposure as you can - and here's the important bit - without blowing out any significant highlights. You'll then have a far far better file to work from with as much detail as is possible

Mike

 

[Gav.]

You're doing fine, Gav, it takes time to get good and everyone does it in their own way at their own pace. I think it's a fine shot and but if I may suggest, (it's real easy) set your camera to EV +1 if their underside isn't very dark when shooting BIF and see how that goes. Sometimes the shadows on the underside are darker and require maybe an EV +2 or more for a little more exposure on that dark underside. I've included a link that I think you'll find helpful with shooting bif. it may say B & W photography but it works for colour, too. Take your time with it and have a great day.

Understanding exposure and gray scales in Black and White Photography

An article that shows you how exposure effects tones and how to move tones in the Zone gray scale

www.martinhensonphotography.co.uk

Thanks Kirk, I'll give it a read

 

[Gav.]

Gav, if I came across a bit harsh it certainly wasn't my intention, as I said, its a great, sharp shot, the birds got an excellent head position, its just a little under-exposed.

My suggestion is this.......indoors, place a vase of flowers ( or ornament, ect) on a window sill. On a bright sunny day, take photos of the flowers, adding + exposure comp untill you have the correct exposure for the flowers, no doubt there'll be some over exposure to the background from the bright light outside but don't worry about that, the bg isn't the subject.
If blowing some highlights to the bg is what it takes to get a correctly exposed subject, so be it.

How do I know this works? Because when I first started like you, its what I did. The subjects not going anywhere, you can take as long as you want just experimenting with settings. What you will find is, as you over-expose the shot too much, chromatic aberration comes into play, something else we see far too often in the forums.

Its also a good way to learn how metering works, not sure of the terminology on Canon but Nikon is matrix, centre weighted and spot. There's no right or wrong way to meter in my eyes as long as you understand what each setting does. I always shoot matrix (evaluating the whole image), its just what I like and what I've become use to.

To me, 1 thread like this is worth 10 great shot threads, its good to discuss techniques and critique. I know I sometimes sound like a broken record but I've learnt so much from here, taking onboard the crit and advice I've been offered, it would be such a shame if that disappears from the forums completely, just to be replaced with the 'great shot mate' brigade.

Hi Phil, no worries, I do nothing online and I joined up to TP as I wanted to learn (and hope to make friends along the way, only started Flickr to make upload easier plus to share to family)

Funny you say about the vase and window, I was using the cat the other day for just that purpose as she like to sit/sleep at the window.

Metering wise, I use a few depending on what 'topic' I'm trying to work on, I use spot for birds and wildlife as I'm normally trying to avoid the trees or the sky, I started to use Exp' comp and was getting really blown images, so dialled it back and got better, fear of blowing the sky was a big issue (I'll stop worrying so much now), BUT I think I may have worked out a fault (my own doing) I have started to use BBF as I wanted more control on the focus, but when doing the setting up, I think I may have set shutter button to Exposure metering lock and not metering and this could be causing the inconsitant images, I will check after work tonight and then restart from there.

I agree I would rather be told I'm 'wrong' or 'somethings off' then 'thats nice', but find it hard to open up to others that's why I don't leave Crit..
I should hit the yellow Crit' button more, I try to remember to hilight it but forget.

Thank you for the help

Gav

 

[Gav.]

Just remember Gav, when you look up at a bird against a bright sky, your eyes will adjust to the sky making you think the bird is dark, when in reality its the same colour as it normally is!

Just get used to giving your subject as much exposure as you can - and here's the important bit - without blowing out any significant highlights. You'll then have a far far better file to work from with as much detail as is possible

Mike

Thank you Mike, I will try to remember, thanks for the input, I apperciate it

Gav

 

[sk66]

This isn't a dig at you Gav, butI've read this a few times recently on here, is it the latest fab?

Its a cracking shot, Red Kites are great birds but agree with Mike, its definitely under-exposed

Why wouldn't anyone want to expose for the detail in the subject instead of a dark shadowy shape?

There is a trend in wildlife photography of shooting more for mood/atmosphere/experience and much less about details/documentation... and I think that is a very good thing. But IMO, for that to work well you have to have mood/atmosphere (lighting/scenery/etc) to include/convey.

Personally, with shots like this I let them underexpose (reducing ISO) and just recover the bird selectively/some in post... but I am using Nikons that are very nearly ISO invariant.

 

[Phil-D]

There is a trend in wildlife photography of shooting more for mood/atmosphere/experience and much less about details/documentation... and I think that is a very good thing.

And I appreciate there'll be quite a few that agree with you Steve, the trouble for me is, whenever I see a shot like that, I always think of 'The Emperors new clothes'

Personally, with shots like this I let them underexpose (reducing ISO) and just recover the bird selectively/some in post

I shoot Nikon too but for me, I'd rather have to deal with noise from a higher ISO, correctly exposed image than create more noise in post correcting it.

 

[sk66]

And I appreciate there'll be quite a few that agree with you Steve, the trouble for me is, whenever I see a shot like that, I always think of 'The Emperors new clothes'

I think a lot of times it doesn't work... maybe more often than not. Wildlife, sports, journalism don't really lend themselves to "artistic" approaches easily; but when it does work it can be really special IMO.

I shoot Nikon too but for me, I'd rather have to deal with noise from a higher ISO, correctly exposed image than create more noise in post correcting it.

That's what ISO invariance means... you don't create more noise by correcting ISO underexposure. You create the same noise, but you simultaneously prevent highlights from blowing out. Obviously this only works particularly well for raw files (OK for jpegs in Flat profile). But the single digit Nikons are not at all ISO invariant until much higher in the ISO range (2546+ for the D5/6).

I took this image ~6 stops underexposed in respect to the BG/darks, in order to save details in the crest; but it was done at base ISO... D810, basic LR edits.

 

[Phil-D]

That's what ISO invariance means... you don't create more noise by correcting ISO underexposure. You create the same noise, but you simultaneously prevent highlights from blowing out. Obviously this only works particularly well for raw files (OK for jpegs in Flat profile). But the single digit Nikons are not at all ISO invariant until much higher in the ISO range (2546+ for the D5/6).

I took this image ~6 stops underexposed in respect to the BG/darks, in order to save details in the crest; but it was done at base ISO... D810, basic LR edits.

TBH, you've lost me, I'm not even quite sure what point you're trying to prove but if it works for you that's all that matters

I've taken 1000's of photos of black and white birds in bright sunlight, getting the correct exposure isn't rocket science. I have no bother retaining detail in blacks and whites and not one of them were taken @ -6 stops under-exposed then recovered in post.

And just to add, this and many more were taken with a £1200 lens and camera, not £1000's worth of equipment.

Razorbill fly by by Phil D, on Flickr

 

[sk66]

TBH, you've lost me, I'm not even quite sure what point you're trying to prove but if it works for you that's all that matters

I've taken 1000's of photos of black and white birds in bright sunlight, getting the correct exposure isn't rocket science. I have no bother retaining detail in blacks and whites and not one of them were taken @ -6 stops under-exposed then recovered in post.

Whatever exposure adjustment you are making in order to save the whites/highlights is underexposure/ETTL in respect to the rest of the scene and a "normal exposure." And whatever edits that are required to lift the blacks/shadows back up is underexposure recovery; which would typically increase noise significantly in those areas. E.g. +1 stop exposure +100 shadows + 25 black in LR is about 2.5-3 stops of recovery in the dark regions; more than enough to be problematic in many instances.

But if the adjustment to retain the highlights is made by reducing the ISO, then there is no (minimal) increased noise when the image is recovered if the camera is (nearly) ISO invariant... and your D7200 is. This chart shows how much additional information is recorded by the D7200 when raising the ISO; as opposed to letting it underexpose at base ISO... you can see there is really no benefit. You could take every picture at base ISO with no notable penalty... in fact, most ISO's record less than if you had left it at base ISO; but the difference is so small you would not be able to see it.



I didn't have to record the merganser 6 stops under; I only needed about 4 I think... but I overshot the correction, partly because I didn't really care that much, because it didn't really matter.

Your settings for the Razorbill were 400, f/8, 1/2500. The image would have been the same if it was recorded at ISO 100 instead of ISO 400; or better if some highlights are clipped. And it would have been better at ISO 100, f/5.7, 1/1200 in terms of exposure; the amount of light/data recorded.
The Sigma 150-600 doesn't really benefit from stopping down except at/near max zoom (500-600), and 1/1200 might have been fast enough... But IDK for certain; and more DoF and SS can certainly help in a situation like this. So I may well have chosen the same exposure settings (Ap/SS); but I would have erred towards more underexposure with the ISO setting, because it could only help.

BTW, your D500 is nearly ISO invariant as well. It only shows a .5EV step at ISO 400 where the photosites switch from dual gain to single gain; .5EV is about the minimum difference that is visually perceptible/notable (still quite minor).


**But ISO invariance doesn't mean the camera has particularly good low-light performance; it only means the ISO used doesn't matter... and that is a huge benefit if taken advantage of correctly.

 

[DizMatt]

Thanks Mike, I keep trying to recover the details and light, I use exp' comp, I try to match I what I see out while taking the shots, which is probably where I keep going wrong. I'll keep at it

Thank you for taking the time for the edit and reply

Hi @Gav-canon ,
I photograph red kites when visiting my parent's place in North Yorkshire.
I rarely get anything as good as this. For sharing purposes, I'll post some up here to illustrate something about exposure.
With a bright blue sky and a dark bird, you will always blow out the sky, but it's not something to worry about.
Here's what I tried to do...
here's a shot with a nice blue sky.... no detail

Better but still tricky


this is the one I kept, but cropped in a lot (600mm on full frame with a TC on it I think)
No sky detail at all but lots on the bird.


So I took some of the sky from a previous photo, exposed for sky deatil and colour..

this is the final composite

 

[Gav.]

@DizMatt Thank you for sharing the images, that has helped understand a bit more about what can be done, thank you for taking the time to share info and reply

 

[Gav.]

Just to try the sky swap (never done one before) I had a quick play and tried to polish a **** .... I will try to get it right in camera next time

Red Kite - sky swap by Gavin Wickham, on Flickr

 

[Phil-D]

@sk66

Everydays a schoolday here and I'm always keen to learn new techniques but all that sounds complicated and too much trouble for little or no gain,.

I'll just stick to ETTR, it seems to work just fine for me, cheers

 

[Phil-D]

Just to try the sky swap (never done one before) I had a quick play and tried to polish a **** .... I will try to get it right in camera next time

Red Kite - sky swap by Gavin Wickham, on Flickr

That's not a bad edit Gav, if you'd done that in the original post and said nowt, no one would have been any wiser

 

[Gav.]

That's not a bad edit Gav, if you'd done that in the original post and said nowt, no one would have been any wiser

May be I should re-post and see

 

[sk66]

@sk66

Everydays a schoolday here and I'm always keen to learn new techniques but all that sounds complicated and too much trouble for little or no gain,.

I'll just stick to ETTR, it seems to work just fine for me, cheers

Actually, what most call ETTR is really ETTL/underexposure and making use of ISO invariance (if done by reducing ISO). If you are protecting highlights it is ETTL, if you are overexposing to get more out of shadows it is ETTR. Left/Right depends on the direction of the histogram shift compared to a "normal" subject exposure. IDK when/how that got so confused... the brightest highlights you want to retain being to the right edge of the histogram means nothing in itself...

I'm surprised you don't appreciate the freedom ISO invariance provides... it means you can underexpose w/o penalty (by reducing ISO) and there is almost never a reason to ever clip highlights.

 

[Phil-D]

Actually, what most call ETTR is really ETTL/underexposure and making use of ISO invariance (if done by reducing ISO). If you are protecting highlights it is ETTL, if you are overexposing to get more out of shadows it is ETTR. Left/Right depends on the direction of the histogram shift compared to a "normal" subject exposure. IDK when/how that got so confused... the brightest highlights you want to retain being to the right edge of the histogram means nothing in itself...

I'm surprised you don't appreciate the freedom ISO invariance provides... it means you can underexpose w/o penalty (by reducing ISO) and there is almost never a reason to ever clip highlights.

Like I said, I shoot ETTR without blowing the whites out. How can it be ETTL if the histogram is right hand side heavy when the subject is black and white?

You really need to let this go, if I was struggling with blacks and whites I'd be interested but I'm not. Anyone still trying to learn has to be completely lost reading your posts.

You're obviously an intelligent chap with plenty of terminology but can't seem to accept there's more than one way to get the correct exposure. If what you do works for you, fine, ETTR works for me

And if memory serves me right.........its not the first time you've tried to enforce this advice only to be told to let it go

 

[the black fox]

@DizMatt Thank you for sharing the images, that has helped understand a bit more about what can be done, thank you for taking the time to share info and reply

Gav I’m starting to wonder if it’s your initial technique that’s wrong ,as I don’t know your camera or lens here’s a bit of advice that’s a good generic starter .. set your camera to shoot in AV mode . Set lens to its sharpest aperture ,usually around F8 depending on make/brand ,use manual iso at around 800 iso .to ensure a reasonable high shutter speed , And the most important bit have one of your control wheels set to easy exp compensation . When shooting birds at low levels leave as is but when shooting b.i.f or above you apply positive exp comp anywhere from two thirds of a stop to a couple of full stops ,this is really a case of trial and error depending on gear .but that’s the way to stop the birds under exposing .hope this helps

 

[pooley]

Just to try the sky swap (never done one before) I had a quick play and tried to polish a **** .... I will try to get it right in camera next time

Red Kite - sky swap by Gavin Wickham, on Flickr

Good to see the RP Gav, always best to get it right in camera, but I'm glad you've taken something on board and produced a much better result

Mike

 

[Gav.]

Good to see the RP Gav, always best to get it right in camera, but I'm glad you've taken something on board and produced a much better result

Mike

Thanks Mike, I'm going to find sometime this weekend to sit outside and get my head round this thanks for the help

 

[Gav.]

Gav I’m starting to wonder if it’s your initial technique that’s wrong ,as I don’t know your camera or lens here’s a bit of advice that’s a good generic starter .. set your camera to shoot in AV mode . Set lens to its sharpest aperture ,usually around F8 depending on make/brand ,use manual iso at around 800 iso .to ensure a reasonable high shutter speed , And the most important bit have one of your control wheels set to easy exp compensation . When shooting birds at low levels leave as is but when shooting b.i.f or above you apply positive exp comp anywhere from two thirds of a stop to a couple of full stops ,this is really a case of trial and error depending on gear .but that’s the way to stop the birds under exposing .hope this helps

Thank you, my technique is to blame, I'm doing too much at once and making a mess of it, I'm going to sit down at the weekend and get my head round the camera and settings, starting in the depths of winter with no light a watching the iso shoot to 12600 was worrying too
Just for ref' I shot Canon 90D sigma C 150-600mm
Thanks again

 

[Gav.]

Thank you all

 

[sk66]

How can it be ETTL if the histogram is right hand side heavy when the subject is black and white?

There's what the histogram should normally look like, and the shifted histogram result... which direction did you shift the histogram in order to protect highlights?
Prior to cameras with high DR capability and some degree of ISO invariance, "ETTR" as you are describing it was not something anyone did. Protecting highlights causes too many issues with the rest of the image.

set your camera to shoot in AV mode . Set lens to its sharpest aperture ,usually around F8 depending on make/brand ,use manual iso at around 800 iso .to ensure a reasonable high shutter speed

When set this way, dialing in +EC is going to drop the shutter speed for the BIF action shot; probably the opposite of what you would want in most cases.

Thank you, my technique is to blame, I'm doing too much at once and making a mess of it,

I don't think you really did/are... the only apparent "issue" I see is the choices you made during editing. There's a half dozen ways of doing most things...

One of the main things is to use a metering mode that works best for you. For some that depends on the situation, e.g. partial for BIF and spot for waders. For others that means always using the same metering mode... either way, you have to know what the camera is looking at and how that will bias the exposure metering. I.e. what you need to do may be different if the bird is a barn owl vs if it's a jackdaw.

With your camera/lens...

• You can program the set button to enable/toggle EC on the back control wheel. Otherwise it is down in the menus/screens somewhere and not as useful.
• Between 500-600mm your lens is sharpest at f/8. But it's also 2/3 - 1 stop slower and not that much sharper. At shorter zoom positions it is as sharp, or sharper, at wider apertures.
• With high magnification, such as your 900mm effective, SS is much more important than most give credit for... in good light I would aim for 1/1200 minimum. Only going slower when I have to (low light), when I can (tripod), or for creative effect (panning blur).
• The D90 is not ISO invariant, but it is a lot better than many earlier Canon models. It is very nearly ISO invariant between 318-6400, and IMO 6400 is getting to the point of "I really have to want the image" to use it. So I would just treat it as being ISO invariant at ISO 318 (actually 400 because I use 1/2 stops).

What that ISO invariance means is:

• You are still better off using ISOs 100-318 if there is enough light for it.
• At ISO 318 and above every image using the same Ap/SS will be essentially the same.
• The main thing using a ISO higher than 318 can do is reduce the recorded dynamic range and increase the probability of clipping highlights.
• But using an ISO that is excessively low isn't beneficial either (e.g. it makes image review difficult).
• The end result in terms of noise in dark regions will be essentially same as if you had used the equivalent ISO; because you collected the same amount of light.

That's all because ISO is not exposure with a digital camera, it is not sensor sensitivity. It is simply signal amplification like the brightness control for your monitor. What most do not understand is that increasing ISO reduces noise in the final result for a camera that is non-invariant. But it makes little/no difference for a camera that is invariant (w/in the invariant range).

• Probably the easiest way to use your camera is set to manual mode w/ auto ISO.
• In manual mode the main dial adjusts the aperture; in good light set it to f/8 for long FL positions; otherwise just let the zoom position control the aperture (set it to f/5 at 150mm).
• Set the SS as suitable for the subject/situation.
• Make certain that auto ISO is not clipping highlights and reducing the recorded dynamic range. That is probably easiest done in most situations by using the partial metering mode and negative EC as necessary. An arbitrary -1 will not hurt anything (unless it drives the ISO below 318).

And the result of those settings would be about the same as what you got for the Red Kite. The only difference using a higher ISO would make is that the sky would blow out instead of being blue; probably unrecoverable. And you wouldn't have to selectively edit the image in order to retain the sky while bringing up the Kite.

This is the way I have been using Nikons for the last decade; biasing exposures towards underexposure by reducing ISO (but not the single digit bodies... they are nowhere near invariant). Current Nikons even have a metering mode that does it automatically; and that's the metering mode I use the most often (highlight weighted). But if your goal is SOOC images w/ no editing; then you would generally be better off using the higher ISO (and recording jpegs).

This is your D90. The difference between ISO 318 and ISO 6400 is only 0.3EV; and that's exactly the same as the noise increase you will see by raising the exposure by 0.3 stops in post, which is virtually indistinguishable. It's even less (~ 0.1EV) between ISO 318-1600, which is where you really want to be w/ the D90; and I can pretty much promise that no-one will be able to see that difference... that's what being ISO invariant means.


With an ISO invariant camera there is never a need to reduce the recorded DR and clip highlights, or even risk the chance of it (well, other than jpegs pitch side to press). Not taking advantage of that is just silly IMO. And you don't need to take my word for it... it is easy to test for yourself.

 

[Gav.]

@sk66 Thank you for the info, much appreciated, I'll do some trials and practice

 

[the black fox]

There's what the histogram should normally look like, and the shifted histogram result... which direction did you shift the histogram in order to protect highlights?
Prior to cameras with high DR capability and some degree of ISO invariance, "ETTR" as you are describing it was not something anyone did. Protecting highlights causes too many issues with the rest of the image.


When set this way, dialing in +EC is going to drop the shutter speed for the BIF action shot; probably the opposite of what you would want in most cases.


I don't think you really did/are... the only apparent "issue" I see is the choices you made during editing. There's a half dozen ways of doing most things...

One of the main things is to use a metering mode that works best for you. For some that depends on the situation, e.g. partial for BIF and spot for waders. For others that means always using the same metering mode... either way, you have to know what the camera is looking at and how that will bias the exposure metering. I.e. what you need to do may be different if the bird is a barn owl vs if it's a jackdaw.

With your camera/lens...

• You can program the set button to enable/toggle EC on the back control wheel. Otherwise it is down in the menus/screens somewhere and not as useful.
• Between 500-600mm your lens is sharpest at f/8. But it's also 2/3 of a stop slower and not that much sharper. At shorter zoom positions it is as sharp, or sharper, at wider apertures.
• With high magnification, such as your 900mm effective, SS is much more important than most give credit for... in good light I would aim for 1/1200 minimum. Only going slower when I have to, when I can (tripod), or for creative effect (panning blur).
• The D90 is not ISO invariant, but it is a lot better than many earlier Canon models. It is very nearly ISO invariant between 318-6400, and IMO 6400 is getting to the point of "I really have to want the image" to use it. So I would just treat it as being ISO invariant at ISO 318 (actually 400 because I use 1/2 stops).

What that ISO invariance means is:

• You are still better off using ISOs 100-318 if there is enough light for it.
• At ISO 318 and above every image using the same Ap/SS will be essentially the same.
• The main thing using a ISO higher than 318 can do is reduce the recorded dynamic range and increase the probability of clipping highlights.
• But using an ISO that is excessively low isn't beneficial either (e.g. it makes image review difficult).
• The end result in terms of noise in dark regions will be essentially same as if you had used the equivalent ISO; because you collected the same amount of light.

That's all because ISO is not exposure with a digital camera, it is not sensor sensitivity. It is simply signal amplification like the brightness control for your monitor. What most do not understand is that increasing ISO reduces noise in the final result for a camera that is non-invariant. But it makes little/no difference for a camera that is invariant (w/in the invariant range).

• Probably the easiest way to use your camera is set to manual mode w/ auto ISO.
• In manual mode the main dial adjusts the aperture; in good light set it to f/8 for long FL positions; otherwise just let the zoom position control the aperture (set it to 5.6 at 150mm).
• Set the SS as suitable for the subject/situation.
• Make certain that auto ISO is not clipping highlights and reducing the recorded dynamic range. That is probably easiest done in most situations by using the partial metering mode and negative EC as necessary. An arbitrary -1 will not hurt anything (unless it drives the ISO below 318).

And the result of those settings would be about the same as what you got for the Red Kite. The only difference using a higher ISO would make is that the sky would blow out instead of being blue; probably unrecoverable. And you wouldn't have to selectively edit the image in order to retain the sky while bringing up the Kite.

This is the way I have been using Nikons for the last decade; biasing exposures towards underexposure by reducing ISO. Current Nikons even have a metering mode that does it automatically; and that's the metering mode I use the most often (highlight weighted). But if your goal is SOOC images w/ no editing; then you would generally be better off using the higher ISO (and recording jpegs).

This is your D90. The difference between ISO 318 and ISO 6400 is only 0.3EV; and that's exactly the same as the noise increase you will see by raising the exposure by 0.3 stops in post, which is virtually indistinguishable. It's even less (~ 0.1EV) between ISO 318-1600, which is where you really want to be w/ the D90; and I can pretty much promise that no-one will be able to see that difference... that's what being ISO invariant means.
View attachment 346397

With an ISO invariant camera there is never a need to reduce recorded DR or clip highlights, or even risk the chance of it (well, other than jpegs pitch side to press). Not taking advantage of that is just silly IMO. And you don't need to take my word for it... it is easy to test for yourself.

Without wishing to appear rude Steve ,that’s far to much waffle for a newbie that’s struggling to take in .. my methods I suggested to him have been tried and tested in the u.k and putting it bluntly work . Increasing exp comp when shooting into the sky will not lower shutter speeds enough to worry about as your letting in more light anyway . I have also used basically the same rig a sigma 150-600 plus 80D and my have a proven track record on b.i.f with it .

 

[sk66]

Increasing exp comp when shooting into the sky will not lower shutter speeds enough to worry about as your letting in more light anyway

You are right. I was thinking that the only thing the camera can change is the SS when set that way; so 2 stops of +EC is 2 stops less SS. What I missed was that the +EC is to prevent the Av mode from increasing the SS due to the brighter BG (sky).

But what I suggested is easier and more foolproof... it does not require trial/error, nor experience to know how much EC to dial in, with which subjects, and in which situation. And it uses the default behavior of the camera to protect highlights and use lower ISO's when it can.

In reality I could have made it even easier than that, because with the 90D you can literally put the camera into full manual, set the aperture for sharpness/DoF, the SS needed to freeze or record motion, and take every image with the ISO locked at 318. Nothing really needs to change/vary/fluctuate with the changes in lighting. And the only time there would be a notable penalty in the resulting image quality would be when ISO 318 is too high.

The bird being darker because a lower/fixed ISO was used does not mean the bird is more underexposed; with digital the three exposure variables are really aperture, shutter speed, and available light.
With film there was a fourth; ISO, because the ISO rating indicated the films reactivity to light. But a silicon sensor does not have variable reactivity, every photon of visible light that hits the sensor releases an electron; no more and no less.

What I am saying is actually incredibly simple. It just requires a camera that is (nearly) ISO invariant, and with modern cameras that is becoming very common.

 

[Gav.]

Thanks again everyone for the info

I think I need to look at a few things including the weather I'm shooting in, dark grey skies and Birds in flight probably don't go very well as the light isn't there. Except for the mood scenes but the skies have been so flat it hasn't worked out.

I do need to practice with the camera and the info makes sense (Engineering back ground)

I just struggle sometimes to think 'on the spot' due to my own issues and lack of confidence (... and lack of editting skill )

I have some free time tomorrow so fingers crossed I can get it sorted

Thanks once again

Gav