Female Kestrel

[Steve Kaluski]

• steve kaluski
• www.untamedimagds.co.uk
• Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 14.2 (Macintosh)

Female Kestrel in late evening light.

Subject: Kestrel (F) (Falco tinnunculus)
Camera: Canon EOS R5MK2
Lens: EF 500mm F/4 IS USM II + 1.4 MKIII
Exposure: 1/3200 at f/8 ISO3200
Original format: Landscape, almost FF

Thanks to those who viewed or posted a comment on the previous image.

 

[Gabriela Plesea]

A beauty, Steve.

Love the pose from this Kestrel female, perch looks great with nice textures, nice smooth BG. Well exposed with great techs, thoughtful composition.
PP looks effortless as usual. Such clarity and sharpness, the detail in those fine feathers is superb.

Stunning work Would have liked to have been there too, sadly not possible at this stage, just too much going on work wise.
A pleasure to view, thank you so much for sharing!

Warmest regards,

Gabriela

 

[Jonathan Ashton]

One of your best Steve, love the colours and light. Pleasing pose and complimetary perch, the background harmonises the colours it's a peach

 

[Dave Pastern]

Lovely image. At first, I didn't quite like the darker corners and felt that they could have been lightened up a bit, but now i think that they offer a natural vignette to the image to help frame the bird.

My only critique is that you could have lowered the shutter speed for a lower ISO to better help preserve fine feather detail.

 

[Steve Kaluski]

Lovely image. At first, I didn't quite like the darker corners and felt that they could have been lightened up a bit, but now i think that they offer a natural vignette to the image to help frame the bird.

Thanks Dave, all I do it take the craft out from Lr and expand on what's there within the original capture.

My only critique is that you could have lowered the shutter speed for a lower ISO to better help preserve fine feather detail.

The overall 'finer' detail is there Dave and when you see the hi res Tiff everything is pin shape with truck loads of detail, and atISO 3200 it is a walk in the park for any NR, and this is dealt with on image base only, not formulaic as I believe there should be a hint of grain in the image, not a super smooth, 'plastic' backdrop that looks false.

Re Settings
With cameras like the Canon, Nikon, Sony at 45mpx you should have a faster SS to avoid pixel shift, however if the subject is more static you could drop the SS, but with a realistic mimimal SS especially HH. This subject was never really static and I wanted to ensure the subject was pin sharp, which it is, plus throughout the day there were opportunities of BIF so I just kept the SS at 1/4000, ISO never phases me as its easily addressed in PP.

DoF F/8 or f/9 to keep all elements sharp, so can't see I would change this.

ISO, all this is is just a number and all that ISO does is lighten or darken an image, retaining a well exposed image irrespective of your ISO at a value of 100, or 25k plus, I can deal with and so if I was to drop the ISO here from 3200 to 1600 there would be very little difference and I'm still within Dynamic range.

 

[Steve Kaluski]

Stunning work Would have liked to have been there too, sadly not possible at this stage, just too much going on work wise.

Thank you Gabriela, we could just about squeeze you in, and you would be more than welcome to join us as we have some great banter and obviously exchange a lot of thoughts between the two Brands and PP.

PP looks effortless as usual. Such clarity and sharpness, the detail in those fine feathers is superb.

Both the R1 & R5 are easy to set up and the AF just locks on, far better than the old R5 and R3, but perhaps not quite as good as the Z9. I do agree that the R's are still not Wildlife based unlike the Z9 and so you do have the advantage, but we do have 40fps with continue shooting compared to you.

The issue I have is how far do I take things in PP, as you know already what the original looks like from the various videos screened.

Anyway off to post some more and hope KTP is now coming together and Carl is enjoying his Rugby, say hi to him please.

 

[Steve Kaluski]

One of your best Steve, love the colours and light. Pleasing pose and complimetary perch, the background harmonises the colours it's a peach

Think I might have this framed, thank you Jon, I just want to see more in an image rather than Base 1. Cheers.

 

[Dave Pastern]

Thanks Dave, all I do it take the craft out from Lr and expand on what's there within the original capture.



The overall 'finer' detail is there Dave and when you see the hi res Tiff everything is pin shape with truck loads of detail, and atISO 3200 it is a walk in the park for any NR, and this is dealt with on image base only, not formulaic as I believe there should be a hint of grain in the image, not a super smooth, 'plastic' backdrop that looks false.

Re Settings
With cameras like the Canon, Nikon, Sony at 45mpx you should have a faster SS to avoid pixel shift, however if the subject is more static you could drop the SS, but with a realistic mimimal SS especially HH. This subject was never really static and I wanted to ensure the subject was pin sharp, which it is, plus throughout the day there were opportunities of BIF so I just kept the SS at 1/4000, ISO never phases me as its easily addressed in PP.

DoF F/8 or f/9 to keep all elements sharp, so can't see I would change this.

ISO, all this is is just a number and all that ISO does is lighten or darken an image, retaining a well exposed image irrespective of your ISO at a value of 100, or 25k plus, I can deal with and so if I was to drop the ISO here from 3200 to 1600 there would be very little difference and I'm still within Dynamic range.

I wasn't implying that the image lacked fine detail. It was more that the higher the ISO, the more it masks fine detail. Hence my thoughts on dropping shutter speed to drop ISO. Every little bit counts in my eyes.

Yeah, 45mp and pixel shift will require a higher shutter speed. I failed to notice the camera body details when I posted my original reply. Silly old Dave! I shoot with a R3, so I'm quite happy with 1/1000 for static subjects. I prefer to shoot at 1/4000 for larger flying raptors and even faster than that for birds like Peregrines. The note on being prepared if the bird decides to take off, is a great point. I love my R3 and I can easily change SS/aperture and ISO on the fly very very quickly. I am not sure if the button UI on the R5/R5II etc is that good. I am not familiar with either camera at a personal level. I do hope to eventually get a used original R5 in 3-4 years time. My primary goal is to first secure a EF 600f4 II. It's the same weight as my current 500mm prime, but gives a bit more reach, plus much better IS, slightly better optics, but nicely improved AF performance.

Like you, I typically shoot at f8 (I have the mark 1 version of your 500mm prime).

 

[Steve Kaluski]

I wasn't implying that the image lacked fine detail.

All good Dave, just justifying my position too as there used to be great discussions in the past on a thread which was excellent, as different POV, thoughts, knowledge etc all bolstered the learning curve, so nice to get your reply.

Dave when I had the 1DXMK3 the files were very clean and loved it, then went to mirrorless and the higher ISO was great, even the R5 I've shot at 32k and all good, but it all rests on the Raw. However, for me I like to have the best of both worlds hence having the R5MK2 & R1 and the old R5, but I'm struggling to see a massive difference in IQ between the R5 & MK2, but the AF is noticeably better. The R1 files at 25k are also much cleaner and files at say 2500 needs often zero NR.

Agree on your SS for Avian, however kit, it could be all change in 3-5 years time and a used R5 becomes a thing of the past and there is better on the market but the price tag just keeps increasing, although you might be tempted by the R6MK3 launching soon? The EF glass works fine with mirrorless and just looking I can see a mint 600f/4MK3 is a crazy £9.5k and the MK2 £6.3k which is still a chunk of money, but more realistic than the RF versions.

The 500MK2 is the workhorse, although I'm still fond of the 200-400, but weighty, the 500 is going in for its first service, thought I would treat it before the next forthcoming trip.

 

[Jan van Holten]

Nice image like this. That's all I have to say!

 

[Dave Pastern]

All good Dave, just justifying my position too as there used to be great discussions in the past on a thread which was excellent, as different POV, thoughts, knowledge etc all bolstered the learning curve, so nice to get your reply.

Dave when I had the 1DXMK3 the files were very clean and loved it, then went to mirrorless and the higher ISO was great, even the R5 I've shot at 32k and all good, but it all rests on the Raw. However, for me I like to have the best of both worlds hence having the R5MK2 & R1 and the old R5, but I'm struggling to see a massive difference in IQ between the R5 & MK2, but the AF is noticeably better. The R1 files at 25k are also much cleaner and files at say 2500 needs often zero NR.

Agree on your SS for Avian, however kit, it could be all change in 3-5 years time and a used R5 becomes a thing of the past and there is better on the market but the price tag just keeps increasing, although you might be tempted by the R6MK3 launching soon? The EF glass works fine with mirrorless and just looking I can see a mint 600f/4MK3 is a crazy £9.5k and the MK2 £6.3k which is still a chunk of money, but more realistic than the RF versions.

The 500MK2 is the workhorse, although I'm still fond of the 200-400, but weighty, the 500 is going in for its first service, thought I would treat it before the next forthcoming trip.

Discussing technique is a great way to learn and improve your photography.

The R3 files are clean, but I will admit that I use DXO on pretty much everything. I am running v2. I personally think v3/4 are too powerful on the NR and the files suffer as a result. They also over sharpen the image (I have sharpening turned off in v2 btw). The R3 is clean to ISO 6400, some noise at ISO 10000, usable at ISO 12800 with NR, but above that, it's not great imho. The R1 seems a big upgrade in this respect, but I cannot afford a R1 (or justify it to be honest).

From what I have been able to discern, the AF on the R5II is about on par with that on the R3. Would you concur?

The R6II has the pre-shot and better AF than the original R5, but I do feel high ISO performance and DR both suffer, especially above ISO6400, vs the original R5. My view was simply that the 45mp original R5 goes well with the R3 for a great all around combo. The R5 for high resolution files in normal outdoor lighting and the R3 for lower light situations such as birds in rainforest. The 45mp of the R5 will also let me upsize files via Gigapixel so I can print A1 prints at my preferred 300dpi. I currently use this technique with my R3 files to print A2 prints at the same resolution, to great result. I'm getting interest in my website, but no print sales sadly (well, I've had a few, but they were friends and I sold prints a few dollars above cost, making a tiny profit). I'm not looking to try and turn pro, my images aren't good enough and it is exceedingly difficult to make money out of bird images imho. Better options are studio portraiture, weddings and motorsports photography (the latter of which I am pursuing, hoping to buy a used EF 300mm f2.8 IS L in ~2 years or so).

Cheers,

Dave

 

[Steve Kaluski]

The R3 files are clean, but I will admit that I use DXO on pretty much everything. I am running v2. I personally think v3/4 are too powerful on the NR and the files suffer as a result. They also over sharpen the image (I have sharpening turned off in v2 btw).

Hi Dave, with Lr/Ps having the updated NR it was a 'game changer' a few years ago, now with the various updates to DXO DP4 there is very little in it, but unless you are a 'muppet' you must turn ALL sharpening off, DXO over sharpens massively, plus it needs to be used with a light hand, as like any NR software they have a habit of flattening out detail, then folk over sharpen to bring it back and within minutes they are in that 'washing machine' cycle. In addition, it increases like Lr, the file size and suddenly you go from 45MB file to say 180MB, and so if you are shooting/processing a lot, storage then becomes an issue, I now have a very good work around and it may take 5 mins more, but I now have far more control overall on the application of NR to my images.

The R3 is clean to ISO 6400, some noise at ISO 10000, usable at ISO 12800 with NR, but above that, it's not great imho. The R1 seems a big upgrade in this respect, but I cannot afford a R1 (or justify it to be honest).

Incorrect Dave, I have posted may images at these ISO ranges and higher and have no problems in IQ and they have also gone through Stock Libraries without question, it all comes back to the original, how you process and crop, vary rarely do I crop, and if I do its within 10-15% which is nothing. The R3 is totally fine and no need to update, save your $$$$.

From what I have been able to discern, the AF on the R5II is about on par with that on the R3. Would you concur?

No, it's a lot more snappier and locks on far quicker and stays on target. Also having only two 'Cases', (I assume you know what they are), it makes life easier, albeit I'm not sure I would agree with Canon on suggested camera set-ups for shooting. Also with the AF area updates (similar) to the R3 but better the camera is far quicker than you are, so to get the best you have trust the camera now. I also like where you have both DSLR/Mirrorless set-up.

The R6II has the pre-shot and better AF than the original R5, but I do feel high ISO performance and DR both suffer, especially above ISO6400, vs the original R5. My view was simply that the 45mp original R5 goes well with the R3 for a great all around combo. The R5 for high resolution files in normal outdoor lighting and the R3 for lower light situations such as birds in rainforest. The 45mp of the R5 will also let me upsize files via Gigapixel so I can print A1 prints at my preferred 300dpi. I currently use this technique with my R3 files to print A2 prints at the same resolution, to great result. I'm getting interest in my website, but no print sales sadly (well, I've had a few, but they were friends and I sold prints a few dollars above cost, making a tiny profit). I'm not looking to try and turn pro, my images aren't good enough and it is exceedingly difficult to make money out of bird images imho. Better options are studio portraiture, weddings and motorsports photography (the latter of which I am pursuing, hoping to buy a used EF 300mm f2.8 IS L in ~2 years or so).

I went for that same partnership, R5/R3 you get the best of both worlds. The 'Buggy' R5MK2 I think is in limited numbers and a lot of folk were hoping that this big Firmware last month would resolve issues, non of which I have found, it performs as I would expect and set up like the R1, sadly we are still awaiting that Firmware, thanks Canon! Never use Gigapixel, and if I did I would use Ps which had it prior.

Lr is great for in-house printing as it has Soft proofing, plus you just install ICC profiles from the paper manufactures to make life easier and prints that reflect what you see, but let prints 'dry back' before viewing. Sounds like you are getting all your ducks in a row, good luck and just enjoy.

The 300f/2.8 MK2 is an awesome lens, I have one and is just as razor sharp as ever, a great go to lens.

All the best
Steve