I'm posting this guy first because so many times I've head his song first thing in the morning when waking up in the park ( and because he is fresh off the camera.)

[normhead]

And of course everyone knows this guy, Blue and his cousin Gray.





The male and female Purple Finches are also common guests at our feeder.





The male and female grossbeaks seem less common, they are flock birds , usually there's a lot of them but more usually they are no where to be seen.





Chickadees seem common everywhere.



There are a few American tree sparrows.

[normhead]

And crows and ravens. This guy is labelled a crow but is probably a raven.



And redpolls come in large numbers.



We get our fair share of grackles... Like the grossbeaks, when you see them you see a lot... then you don't see any.



Little juncos can be seen hoping around on the ground foraging for.. whatever Juncos forage for.



And woodpeckers can be heard on almost any walk in the park.



Little Pine Siskins are also present.



They all co-exist at the feeder in the spring.



Once the warm weather comes they'll all disperse off into the park somewhere.

[Frogfish]

Lovely ! Especially the Purple Finch and Wings.

[normhead]

Thanks frogfish, .. it's all about the birds...lol

[Rupert]

Normhead, none of these shots are "tack sharp" and yet they are all Most Excellent! How can that be? Well, it be! There is a couple of threads ove on the K5 Forum relating to sharpness, and your shots here are a perfect example of excellence in shooting without worrying about razor sharp or pixel peeping. I enjoyed these shots, they are nicely shot, and are fully equal in viewing pleasure to those that would slice your eyeballs......

If any K5 Forum viewers are viewing that are hung up on sharpness......look again at these! I rest my case!

Best Regards!
Rupert

[normhead]

Almost all these images are shot with a combination of back light..and the reflected light from the the siding of my house. I'm always shooting wide open, and the little birds flit around so much I often have motion blur, but, it's all about the light. That reflected light gives me either great fill soft light or great reflected light. It's totally different from single point light, and in many ways much more pleasing. Especially if it comes from all angles.

The second point is, a tack sharp image without well established centre of interest can be very confusing to the eye. Much of the time a centre of interest must be created as much as it is there, or it's there and it must be emphasized. Having the whole image tack sharp can be a distraction.. and if you think about how you look at things, most of the time you don't closely examine the whole object you look at. Certain things catch your eye. Those things have to be sharp.. the other parts of the image, that wouldn't catch your eye in real life, aren't going to catch your eye in a photo either, and much of the time, there is no need for them to be sharp. When thinking about sharpness, you have to think about what you see when you look at something. Do to the limitations of your own eye, when you focus on the headlight of car, your peripheral view of the rest of the car is not sharp.

At least that's my story, and I'm, stickin with it. That's not to say , I couldn't produce a good image in full sun, and a high shutter speed, but, everyone should learn to work with what they've got, and really.. the picture can be just as pleasing a representation of what was there, with whatever lighting conditions you have, and with whatever degree of sharpness you find convenient. There are as many shots ruined by a very wide depth of field and no distinct centre of interest than there are of narrow depth of field and softness. Anyone who's looked at a tack sharp image with absolutely no aesthetic appeal knows what I'm talking about.

That being said.. I don't think any of you would have trouble telling the difference between the shots taken last year with my Sigma 70-300 and this year with the DA* 60-250. I'm hoping to be able to retake all the older images. The image doesn't have to be tack sharp, but I sure appreciate that I can achieve a tack sharp image should I choose to go that route. I love the feather detail in the first shot.. it looks even better with a 1:1 crop. 1:1 you can almost see every strand of every feather.

---

Last edited by normhead; 05-01-2011 at 09:24 AM.

[Rupert]

Almost all these images are shot with a combination of back light..and the reflected light from the the siding of my house. I'm always shooting wide open, and the little birds flit around so much I often have motion blur, but, it's all about the light. That reflected light gives me either great fill soft light or great reflected light. It's totally different from single point light, and in many ways much more pleasing. Especially if it comes from all angles.

The second point is, a tack sharp image without well established centre of interest can be very confusing to the eye. Much of the time a centre of interest must be created as much as it is there, or it's there and it must be emphasized. Having the whole image tack sharp can be a distraction.. and if you think about how you look at things, most of the time you don't closely examine the whole object you look at. Certain things catch your eye. Those things have to be sharp.. the other parts of the image, that wouldn't catch your eye in real life, aren't going to catch your eye in a photo either, and much of the time, there is no need for them to be sharp. When thinking about sharpness, you have to think about what you see when you look at something. Do to the limitations of your own eye, when you focus on the headlight of car, your peripheral view of the rest of the car is not sharp.

At least that's my story, and I'm, stickin with it. That's not to say , I couldn't produce a good image in full sun, and a high shutter speed, but, everyone should learn to work with what they've got, and really.. the picture can be just as pleasing a representation of what was there, with whatever lighting conditions you have, and with whatever degree of sharpness you find convenient. There are as many shots ruined by a very wide depth of field and no distinct centre of interest than there are of narrow depth of field and softness. Anyone who's looked at a tack sharp image with absolutely no aesthetic appeal knows what I'm talking about.

That being said.. I don't think any of you would have trouble telling the difference between the shots taken last year with my Sigma 70-300 and this year with the DA* 60-250. I'm hoping to be able to retake all the older images. The image doesn't have to be tack sharp, but I sure appreciate that I can achieve a tack sharp image should I choose to go that route. I love the feather detail in the first shot.. it looks even better with a 1:1 crop. 1:1 you can almost see every strand of every feather.

Yep, that's exactly what I said! Too many times we forget what a photo is all about and just "go technical". Some of my worst shots...are my best and most viewed in print.
Bad lighting, bad settings, quick snap.....Horrible shot....or is it?
[IMG] [/IMG]
Best Regards, you are my kind of shooter!

[normhead]

Well thanks, lets start a club.

[Bob Harris]

Norm, all great shots, it amazes me how many different types of birds you get up there in your territory. These must be hearty tough guys to say the least. Just wondering if you get many of the larger birds, hawks or eagles there. thanks for the view and naming each species. I learned a bit today. Bob

[normhead]

Tess ad I were just discussing that today. Because there are few open fields with clear lines of site for mousing, not so many hawks. We have seen a few hawks close by but not in the immediate area. A couple times we've seen golden eagles cruising up the river. The big birds with the most presence are Ravens , crows and Turkey vultures. Now that that freak snow is gone, we are seeing a lot fewer birds. Today, nothing but purple finches and sparrows. When their natural food sources are not covered, most of the birds feed elsewhere. And some of the birds were obviously just passing through on their way further north. Tess looks them all up. That WHite throated sparrow though, he'll wake me up in the morning all summer. And I notice there is a second pair this year. We see the grossbeaks once or twice a year, same with the blue jays. They come here in flocks , and then disperse once weather conditions are good.

[normhead]

Just to answer Bob's question again, we have Coopers hawks nesting in the neighborhood this year, but I don't have any good shots of them yet... maybe once we find the nest, in the mean time I've got photos of Goldfinchs M andF to show off today.

[manishved]

Just to answer Bob's question again, we have Coopers hawks nesting in the neighborhood this year, but I don't have any good shots of them yet... maybe once we find the nest, in the mean time I've got photos of Goldfinchs M andF to show off today.

Now those are "tack sharp"

[normhead]

Thanks manishved, I would have liked a bit more depth of field but we didn't have direct sun.

Passing through today, way out of either his summer or winter habitat, ladies and gentlemen, a bird I don't think we've seen before, we present the White Crowned Sparrow

[normhead]

Today at the feeder.