Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

HMMMM, GUESS WHO'S BACK ???

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 8:41:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/46864136/original


Business is about to pick up!

More about : hmmmm guess back

Anonymous
July 29, 2005 3:55:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Why do hummimg birds hum?



Because they forgot the words.

"Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1122637286.979326.146800@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/46864136/original
>
>
> Business is about to pick up!
>
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 4:46:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 11:55:02 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:

>Why do hummimg birds hum?
>
>
>
>Because they forgot the words.

I thought it was because their vibrators had flat batteries. ;-)
Related resources
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 8:03:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Annika1980 wrote:
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/46864136/original
>
>
> Business is about to pick up!
>

Very nice shots!
Re: YUMMY.
Even though you used flash on all of your pictures, it was not enough to
stop the wing motion, especially on YUMMY.
Was the ambient light just so strong that it overrode the freezing
capability of the flash?
Or was the distance so great that the contribution from the flash was
negligible?
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 9:39:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I dunno, maybe the 1/100s speed was the culprit? Ya think? I have
trouble freezing my kids well at 1/100.

The most you could hope for is a slow synch freeze with that speed and
the movement of a hummingbird wing. Thats 60-80 full beats every
second. Thats full up and down mind you. For a test, try going out and
taking a picture of a car on the highway moving about 75mph and see if
you freeze it. Full dark maybe, but in daylight or even dusk? I dunno.

But at f/5.6 and 400mm, you can only ratchet up the exposure so much to
compensate for movement. Short of popping a spotlight out of his arse,
this guy did pretty dang good. If he did this without a tripod, all the
more (which I doubt but with VR/IS lenses is possible I guess).
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 10:11:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Very nice shots!
Re: YUMMY.
Even though you used flash on all of your pictures, it was not enough
to
stop the wing motion, especially on YUMMY.
Was the ambient light just so strong that it overrode the freezing
capability of the flash?
Or was the distance so great that the contribution from the flash was
negligible?
===================

The distance wasn't a problem ... probably 20 feet or less.
There was very little ambient light to speak of. It's always pretty
dark on my back porch, especially at dusk.
You'll have a hard time freezing the wings of a hummingbird with any
flash. I can get close at 1/8000, but the background will be jet black
even in broad daylight.
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 12:24:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Old Bugger" <grumpy@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:i89ke15ab100eadak0h60ridjv475tlcos@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 11:55:02 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>>Why do hummimg birds hum?
>>
>>
>>
>>Because they forgot the words.
>
> I thought it was because their vibrators had flat batteries. ;-)

Disaster!
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 7:09:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Annika1980 wrote:
> Very nice shots!
> Re: YUMMY.
> Even though you used flash on all of your pictures, it was not enough
> to
> stop the wing motion, especially on YUMMY.
> Was the ambient light just so strong that it overrode the freezing
> capability of the flash?
> Or was the distance so great that the contribution from the flash was
> negligible?
> ===================
>
> The distance wasn't a problem ... probably 20 feet or less.
> There was very little ambient light to speak of. It's always pretty
> dark on my back porch, especially at dusk.
> You'll have a hard time freezing the wings of a hummingbird with any
> flash. I can get close at 1/8000, but the background will be jet black
> even in broad daylight.
>
Since the Guide Number of the 20D's flash is only 43 at ISO 100
(GN=60@ISO 200),
the proper f-stop for correct exposure at 20 feet is f=3.0 (~2.8).
Since you shot at f=5.6, the contribution of the flash was 2 stops
underexposed. The ambient light probably contributed much more to the
exposure than the flash, so wing motion was about the same as if you had
not used flash.
To stop the wing motion you really need a much more powerful external
Flash unit, e.g. GN about 160 @ ISO 100 (226 @ ISO 200). A powerful
external flash may typically have a duration of 1/2000. Then at 20 feet
you could shoot at f=11 at your fastest sync speed (1/200sec). Then the
contribution of the flash would be MUCH greater than that of the
ambient light at dusk and flash duration of 1/2000 would slow down those
wings quite a lot.
Bob Williams
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 3:07:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

To stop the wing motion you really need a much more powerful external
Flash unit, e.g. GN about 160 @ ISO 100 (226 @ ISO 200). A powerful
external flash may typically have a duration of 1/2000. Then at 20 feet

you could shoot at f=11 at your fastest sync speed (1/200sec). Then
the
contribution of the flash would be MUCH greater than that of the
ambient light at dusk and flash duration of 1/2000 would slow down
those
wings quite a lot.
========================

I was using the 550EX flash. And even with a duration of 1/2000 it
isn't gonna stop the wings.
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 1:06:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>Annika1980 writes ...
>
>http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/46864136/original
>Business is about to pick up!

While in Santa Fe last week I noticed dozens of hummingbirds around a
feeder at the far end of Canyon Rd and set up a 500 f/4 w/ 1.4x
converter (about 910 mm equiv with the 1D M II) and took several
hundred flight shots, with a few successes (it's tough to focus on them
mid-air with 900+ mm since they are constantly fighting with each other
and zipping around). No flash, just natural light so the wings are
blurred ... here are three, if I have time I'll post a few others since
we caught other species as well (including a couple of Calliope's and
one with a dark purple neck I couldn't ID without a guide book) ...
enjoy, if you like this kind of stuff ...

http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/broadtail_1.jpg
http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/rufous_75.jpg
http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/rufous_19.jpg

Bill
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 6:48:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>George Kerby wrote ..
>
>Very nice, Bill

Thanks George.

>The last one (19) appears to be somewhat surreal - overly defined
> - like a weatherman against a greenscreen, esp along his chest. Is
>the air that hazy brownish there as well?

No, the air is pretty clean up in Santa Fe ... the brown background is
actually a stucco wall that's at an angle so it looks dark even in
direct sun. From where I was shooting it was the best choice of
backgrounds (I'm very picky about backgrounds, hate it when they are
too busy and detract from the main subject).

My wife, who is an excellent photographer, managed to get a bit
different angle at another time (looking into some vegetation with a
bit of side-lighting) but the long lens tends to blur a busy background
too if the tonality is similar enough and it's far enough back from the
focus point ... here are some of her shots from the same place, the
first three with a lighter vegetation background and the fourth a nice
shot of a wasp and hummer on the same feeder ...
http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/rufous_U8507.jpg
http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/fem_8881.jpg
http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/rufous_fem_8840.jpg
http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/rufous_wasp_U8647.jpg

.... and here are three more from me, with two different species
(Black-chin male and a hard-to-get Calliope male) and one final one
showing the stucco wall going from shadow to light ... enjoy.

http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/blackchin_2042.jpg
http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/calliope_2108.jpg
http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/rufous_check_2050.jpg

Bill
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 6:55:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bill Hilton wrote:

> http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/rufous_U8507.jpg
> http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/fem_8881.jpg
> http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/rufous_fem_8840.jpg
> http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/rufous_wasp_U8647.jpg
>
> ... and here are three more from me, with two different species
> (Black-chin male and a hard-to-get Calliope male) and one final one
> showing the stucco wall going from shadow to light ... enjoy.
>
> http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/blackchin_2042.jpg
> http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/calliope_2108.jpg
> http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/rufous_check_2050.jpg

Well done, Bill! Love the wasp shot...

Ben
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 9:25:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Very nice, Bill. The last one (19) appears to be somewhat surreal - overly
defined - like a weatherman against a greenscreen, esp along his chest. Is
the air that hazy brownish there as well? Good work!


On 7/31/05 11:06 AM, in article
1122826016.460548.125950@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com, "Bill Hilton"
<bhilton665@aol.com> wrote:

>> Annika1980 writes ...
>>
>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/46864136/original
>> Business is about to pick up!
>
> While in Santa Fe last week I noticed dozens of hummingbirds around a
> feeder at the far end of Canyon Rd and set up a 500 f/4 w/ 1.4x
> converter (about 910 mm equiv with the 1D M II) and took several
> hundred flight shots, with a few successes (it's tough to focus on them
> mid-air with 900+ mm since they are constantly fighting with each other
> and zipping around). No flash, just natural light so the wings are
> blurred ... here are three, if I have time I'll post a few others since
> we caught other species as well (including a couple of Calliope's and
> one with a dark purple neck I couldn't ID without a guide book) ...
> enjoy, if you like this kind of stuff ...
>
> http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/broadtail_1.jpg
> http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/rufous_75.jpg
> http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/rufous_19.jpg
>
> Bill
>


_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Anonymous
August 1, 2005 4:37:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Agreed. You two are a very talented couple. I REALLY like the wasp. Looks
like a 'threat' to the hummer-but I know it is not. Great juxtaposition,
though. The stucco shadow explains it all as well. Thanks for sharing...


On 7/31/05 4:48 PM, in article
1122846491.444276.176340@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "Bill Hilton"
<bhilton665@aol.com> wrote:

>> George Kerby wrote ..
>>
>> Very nice, Bill
>
> Thanks George.
>
>> The last one (19) appears to be somewhat surreal - overly defined
>> - like a weatherman against a greenscreen, esp along his chest. Is
>> the air that hazy brownish there as well?
>
> No, the air is pretty clean up in Santa Fe ... the brown background is
> actually a stucco wall that's at an angle so it looks dark even in
> direct sun. From where I was shooting it was the best choice of
> backgrounds (I'm very picky about backgrounds, hate it when they are
> too busy and detract from the main subject).
>
> My wife, who is an excellent photographer, managed to get a bit
> different angle at another time (looking into some vegetation with a
> bit of side-lighting) but the long lens tends to blur a busy background
> too if the tonality is similar enough and it's far enough back from the
> focus point ... here are some of her shots from the same place, the
> first three with a lighter vegetation background and the fourth a nice
> shot of a wasp and hummer on the same feeder ...
> http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/rufous_U8507.jpg
> http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/fem_8881.jpg
> http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/rufous_fem_8840.jpg
> http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/rufous_wasp_U8647.jpg
>
> ... and here are three more from me, with two different species
>
> (Black-chin male and a hard-to-get Calliope male) and one final one
> showing the stucco wall going from shadow to light ... enjoy.
>
> http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/blackchin_2042.jpg
> http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/calliope_2108.jpg
> http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/rufous_check_2050.jpg
>
> Bill
>


_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Anonymous
August 1, 2005 3:33:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

kombi45@yahoo.com wrote:
> Bill Hilton wrote:
>
>>http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/rufous_wasp_U8647.jpg
>>
> Well done, Bill! Love the wasp shot...
>
And Carolyn.... Both sets are great, and if I didn't know better, I'd
think the images were photoshopped a lot, what with the nigh perfect
backgrounds, although I don't care for the adobe/stucco brown, the birds
are superbly isolated.

Did you do any other photog. in SF?

Used to roam there a lot.

--
John McWilliams
Anonymous
August 1, 2005 7:37:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> John McWilliams writes ...
>
> ... if I didn't know better, I'd think the images were
>photoshopped a lot, what with the nigh perfect
>backgrounds, although I don't care for the adobe/stucco brown

You are the 2nd or 3rd person to mention this so for grins I
"Photoshopped" (I guess it's now a verb :)  the calliope shot just to
see how easy it is to 'cheat' and add a blue sky instead of the yucky
brown stucco background ... I grabbed the jpeg, used Select/Color Range
to select the background color, saved the selection as an alpha channel
(Select/Save Selection), brushed over the areas on the bird that were
selected because they were the same color as the background with black
to fine tune the mask, reloaded the selection (Select/Load Selection),
made an Adjustment Layer of type Hue/Sat (which picks up the selection
as a layer mask) and changed the Hue to get a blue (sky) background.
This took about 45 seconds ... here are the original and the cheat
version, the cheat version has a splotchy sky because I used the jpeg
as a starting point, I'm pretty sure if I go back to the original and
spend a bit more time on this I could have done the sky so well you
couldn't tell with certainty which version was real.

http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/calliope_2108.jpg
http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/calliope_2108_cheat.j...

>Did you do any other photog. in SF?

Yes, we were actually up there for a week photographing other things
and just happened to see the hummingbirds the afternoon we arrived,
before we got really started with other stuff. Luckily we just
happened to have a 500 f/4 handy :) 

>Used to roam there a lot.

Great place if you can afford to live there ... otherwise a nice place
to visit.

Bill
Anonymous
August 6, 2005 2:07:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi Bill.
After seeing Bret's, Bill's and Carol's excellent hummingbird photos,
it inspired me to go back and dig out some I did on Mt Evans, Colorado
in 2003. These are with a Canon 10D and a 500 f/4 which has a very
narrow depth of field. The backgrounds are pine trees maybe 40 feet
away, so the background is smooth and varies from greenish to
brownish depending on if trunk or branches are in view.
These are mostly full frame crop (maybe 10% cropped out).
While the wings are not perfectly frozen, there is only small
blur with 1/1500 to 1/2000 second exposures.

http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW/web/hu...

http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW/web/hu...

http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW/web/hu...

Roger
Anonymous
August 6, 2005 11:58:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
> Hi Bill.
> After seeing Bret's, Bill's and Carol's excellent hummingbird photos,
> it inspired me to go back and dig out some I did on Mt Evans, Colorado
> in 2003. These are with a Canon 10D and a 500 f/4 which has a very
> narrow depth of field. The backgrounds are pine trees maybe 40 feet
> away, so the background is smooth and varies from greenish to
> brownish depending on if trunk or branches are in view.
> These are mostly full frame crop (maybe 10% cropped out).
> While the wings are not perfectly frozen, there is only small
> blur with 1/1500 to 1/2000 second exposures.
>
> http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW/web/hu...
>
>
> http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW/web/hu...
>
>
> http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW/web/hu...
>

Excellent, also.

I am wondering, tho, if a perfectly smoothed out bg is as aesthetically
pleasing as one where there's some vague notion of trees or buildings in
the bokeh (if that's a right way to use the term.) Or, put it this way-
I am pretty sure I'd prefer it, but perhaps for other reasons, a totally
smooth bg is the accepted norm.

Just to be sure, these are fantastic images.....

best wishes,

--
John McWilliams
Anonymous
August 6, 2005 2:17:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>Roger Clark writes ...
>
> ... dig out some I did on Mt Evans, Colorado in 2003.

Hi Roger,

First two are male Broad-tailed Hummingbirds. Third one is a female,
likely a Broad-tailed but according to the guide books it's very
difficult to distinguish between female Broad-tail, Rufous and Calliope
Hummingbirds ... we had all three species of females coming to the
feeders at Santa Fe and it was tough to tell them apart ... I don't
think the Calliope is found in the area you took your shots though.

Bill
Anonymous
August 6, 2005 5:37:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 07:58:34 -0700, in rec.photo.digital John McWilliams
>I am wondering, tho, if a perfectly smoothed out bg is as aesthetically
>pleasing as one where there's some vague notion of trees or buildings in
>the bokeh (if that's a right way to use the term.) Or, put it this way-
>I am pretty sure I'd prefer it, but perhaps for other reasons, a totally
>smooth bg is the accepted norm.

Sometimes you don't have a choice if you need your lens wide open to keep
the shutter speed up and the background is appreciably farther away than
your subject.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
Anonymous
August 6, 2005 9:20:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bill Hilton wrote:

>>Roger Clark writes ...
>>
>>... dig out some I did on Mt Evans, Colorado in 2003.
>
>
> Hi Roger,
>
> First two are male Broad-tailed Hummingbirds. Third one is a female,
> likely a Broad-tailed but according to the guide books it's very
> difficult to distinguish between female Broad-tail, Rufous and Calliope
> Hummingbirds ... we had all three species of females coming to the
> feeders at Santa Fe and it was tough to tell them apart ... I don't
> think the Calliope is found in the area you took your shots though.
>
> Bill
>
Bill,
Thanks for the ID. I had no idea.

Roger
Anonymous
August 7, 2005 11:49:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> John McWilliams writes ...
>
>I am wondering, tho, if a perfectly smoothed out bg is as aesthetically
>pleasing as one where there's some vague notion of trees or buildings
>in the bokeh

You might enjoy the shots in Brettika's new thread "Hummers @ 6,000 ft"
(or something like that). He got them amongst flowers, which looks
very nice.

>perhaps for other reasons, a totally smooth bg is the accepted norm.

One problem with shooting them in flowers is that they don't go to the
same flowers every time so it's harder to find, focus and shoot. So
the pros use controlled setups with feeders (and up to seven flashes),
often carrying several poster backgrounds that they switch in and out.
Some of them even have posters of flowers or other 'fake' backgrounds
.... interesting ethical question might be why is it OK to switch in
different posters for backgrounds with film but not OK to do the
digitally switch in different backgrounds in Photoshop? :) 

Bill
!