Poor light, but I finally got my wood stork

Poor light, but I finally got my wood stork · Posted by *pingflood*, 10-30-2009, 08:52 AM

Been trying to get a picture of this elusive guy for months now -- only see him once in a blue moon and never close enough.

Today, though the light was dreadful, I managed to sneak up.

*Ash* · 10-30-2009, 11:31 AM

Looks like an ibis.
Well, you got him good. And did well in the flat low-light conditions.

Lowell Goudge · 10-30-2009, 11:44 AM

looks good, maybe a little over exposed on the feathers, but nice and sharp.

you complain about lighting, have you considered using flash? or increasing ISO from 400?

*pingflood* · 10-30-2009, 11:57 AM

Oh, it was more a general light deficiency -- kind of murky and dull. ISO was plenty since I was using an IS lens.

Ash: the wood stork used to be named "wood ibis" because they looked so similar and people assumed it was just an Ibis variation. Later they figured out it was a separate species.

Eruditass · 10-30-2009, 12:17 PM

Cool shot, what lens did you use and how far were you?

flippedgazelle · 10-30-2009, 12:21 PM

Really nice shot, sharp, too!

*pingflood* · 10-30-2009, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by Eruditass

Cool shot, what lens did you use and how far were you?

Canon 300/4 IS with 1.4x converter, wide open. Probably 30 yards away or so.

To be honest, I would love to have a Pentax with long glass for these static shots, I think the files out of the K20D are nicer than just about any Canon crop camera (though with some light PP the Canon files can do great). But since I also shoot a lot of birds in flight I really prefer the AF performance of the Canon gear.

Wish there was a perfect brand we all could buy

*imtheguy* · 10-30-2009, 12:33 PM

Great shot on unusual critter regardless of circumstances.

With regard to the comment on low light ISO, I would much rather see a sharp, well exposed shot at iso 1600 on an elusive critter than no shot at all.

*pingflood* · 10-30-2009, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by imtheguy

Great shot on unusual critter regardless of circumstances.

With regard to the comment on low light ISO, I would much rather see a sharp, well exposed shot at iso 1600 on an elusive critter than no shot at all.

I agree entirely, and always bump ISO when needed. The amount of light here was fine (I've shot as low as 1/30 second with this setup!) but the quality was...not so grand.

*ramseybuckeye* · 10-30-2009, 02:06 PM

Nice job on the composition too!