Birds in Motion

I started working on ProCapture this Tuesday using the 40-150mm lens with the M1.2 … I started using ProCap L with continuous and with continuous with tracking … both the picture I show are from the continuous session. Both were taken using manual settings, a center weighted exposure, and at 150mm … For this first picture the aperture was set to f/4.5, SS to 1/2000sec and ISO 3200 ...

This second was taken with aperture at F/2.8, SS 1/1600, and ISO at 800 ….

I have no examples from the Tracking set mostly because the birds weren't quite as cooperative or maybe I didn't perform as well .. The point of ProCap L is that the M1.2 should be able to track the bird in flight and I think occasionally it did but mostly, like always, continuous can usually find something better to focus on than the bird …. Also with ProCapL the bird is usually out of the frame within two or three appearances. ….

To get better results and more bird in frame I moved on to ProCap H using F/11 to get about 2 feet of DOF! … This of course required that I use ISO 6400 or higher ( which I didn't try) Both pictures were taken at 150mm . The first at SS 1/1600sec ..

The second was taken using SS 1/3200 sec ..

I tired of working with these ProCap files and went for a walk along the Tennessee River and the creek emptying into it and caught this...

Each of these pictures is part of a set which could have it's own narrative and if I get nothing new then one or more of those sets will probably make it back here ….

I will say that ProCap is only for those who can spend hours in front of a computer throwing away most of the files taken without going mad …... in the ProCap sets I had more than 700 files to go through and have kept maybe 100 .. I haven't actually counted … I have only processed those shown here. However, we are about to have 5 days of rain so maybe I'll get through some of them and watch a lot of videos on how to really do this ProCap thing ….

WhyNot

I would not attempt to use tracking with those types of images WN. It does not work well enough and the bird is likely to quickly leave the frame at low burst rates. If you have a lengthy series of a single burst OM Workspace can check them and sort them for 'best focus'. It seems to work. The second turned out well and I like the crops and action in the third and fourth. The herons are always good and tracking would work on them if they actually moved during the burst!

I tried tracking a few times but it was unsuitable for hockey. It can not recognize one player and follow that player. Some competitor's more recent implementations of tracking seem to work much better.

Andrew

Thanks for stopping by Andrew .. I hadn't looked at Workspace or updated it for a while so hadn't seen that focus analysis tool. …. Did the update to version 2.1.1 …. that focus analysis only works with sequential sets which might be useful for ProCap (but for sequential shooting I often pause to refocus and start up again.) I tried it on the set that I had (but all had already been taken down to those I thought useful! I guess I'm more tolerant or optimistic than Workspace! ) the result was that only the blue bird and heron would have been retained from the set shown ( and they weren't the first selections!) .. Were the other three that bad? ??? I do notice that the focus point never seems to move so I guess the focus preferred the tree!! ...

WhyNot

I liked the second best. The third and fourth were good for the capture but lacked any detail to speak of, and I am not really pixel peeping, they were just soft. It is difficult to get better than soft at that high an ISO without using some very good noise reduction software. I don't have DXO but have tried it on free trial a couple of times. It is impressive sometimes and garbage at others so a bit of a crap shoot. Topaz Photo Ai is ok but pretty much in the same boat. Jim is using DXO and his images seem pretty good up to ISO4000. I have not gone over ISO3200 and was not happy with it. As I have stated before, I don't like noise except in rare instances and them I add it to images as it is usually not there to start with.

The lens is great but I am not sure it is long enough for birding. That likely means you have significant crops for those images. I used it out the kitchen window and there I was only ten to fifteen feet from the birds. Even then significant crops were needed. The 100 - 400 did better when I managed to hold it reasonably still!! Higher ISOs then again because it is a slow lens. Note that the one I preferred was shot at f/2.8 and a lower ISO! The only thing that really matters is if you like those images WN. I use procapture at a low burst rate and shot in burst mode at about eight frames per second. Same thing for hockey. Faster is better for birds though. The hockey players are slower!

Andrew

Good to see u out and about WN I can enjoy my coffee walking with u now I tried pro capture once in my backyard it worked alright but as u say lots of files to go through Paul
what's the orange stuff on the tree

Thanks for stopping by, Paul ... I have whole pot of coffee here as it is raining and dark out today ... That orange stuff is bark butter .. peanutbutter for birds they seem top like it and the the squirrels don't! ....

WhyNot

WN - these are beautiful captures! I don't think you're following me - it looks like you are well ahead.
That suet on the tree looks like it really attracts the birds.
I'll have to follow your lead on that.

Well, Andrew …....My problem is that I don't understand the aesthetics of sharpness and detail ,,. unless that is somehow part of the story .. I like the structure and story … and like sharpness, noise is just something to deal with if it intrudes into story … I sometimes blast it and sometime use it … the resulting lack of sharpness or grittiness don't bother me if the image still retains the structure, composition and the story I'm interested in … We have philosophical and aesthetic differences I gather …

Using ProCapture I want to keep the bird in frame and tracking them manually is usually not doable by me .. so 150mm gives them room to move in the frame. Again, cropping sacrifices some detail but then as I said above it doesn't bother me …. I don't know how I can respond to your critiques in any other way ….

WhyNot

Thanks for stopping by Jim … I'm not sure where I am on this ProCap thing .. I love the images I see others capture with it but get frustrated at the technical problems and time required to look at all the resulting images.. I'm going to continue to try it this summer and see where it goes ..

WhyNot

I shoot RAW + JPG, then when I am reviewing images, I do it first in Windows by double clicking on a jpg so it comes up full screen. I can then scroll through the images forwards and backwards and the frames flash by like I'm watching a movie. When I see one I like, I can back up by scrolling the mouse wheel the other way. When I get to a few frames I like, I can move back and forth across them with an easy scroll of the dial. Then I note which photo(s) I like best, and only copy those RAWs to my hard drive. Seems to work well for me. You might give it a try.

Thanks for the suggestion Jim .. I do use a similar review technique. I download all raw files using OV3 (Similar results can be obtained using Workspace but it requires some extra steps, I think) The next step is usually to review the entire set using the Slide Show Function. The first pass is to throw away those totally unusable. I do this by using one of the markers. With files like these from ProCap which are probably going to be cropped significantly I often have to examine the file at 1:1 to see if I think I can recover from some focus or other problems …. Totally OOF files are easily marked ... Those that are unusable because of focus or if the bird is not performing In a manner I can use individually or as part of a story are marked. When finished with this first review all marked files are deleted from the disk … A second pass has to be done to mark and select those files I believe will be usable here or for my personal interest. These are converted to TIFFs. Ultimately they to will have to be reviewed again for inclusion in posts here or for whatever other purpose (generally I do this for each file with the PP software,) I would guess that with ProCap maybe less than 5% of the files taken ever get post processed to a final version … Very time consuming and often tedious ….

WhyNot

I'm not familiar with the interface here or I'd snip some of what I quoted, but I was on the home page, and topic "Birds in Motion" showed there, and since I shoot BIF, I thought I'd have a look. Read through the posts, figured out what ProCapture and ProCapL was, but I'm not sure what you're saying when you say this "My problem is that I don't understand the aesthetics of sharpness and detail ,,. unless that is somehow part of the story .. I like the structure and story … and like sharpness, noise is just something to deal with if it intrudes into story … I sometimes blast it and sometime use it … the resulting lack of sharpness or grittiness don't bother me if the image still retains the structure, composition and the story I'm interested in". Are you saying that as long as you have the composition you want, and it gets across the point you want to make, it doesn't matter to you if the images are soft?

Depends on what you mean by “soft” .. I don't consider any of the pictures posted here to be soft. I'm interested in the major wing structure that is seen, the position of the bird and that he is adequately in focus as I view it on my monitor from 18 - 24 inches away, not enlarger to be >150%. and how he fits into the sequence if there is a sequence Unfortunately with these cropped images the appropriate size for viewing is about 4X5 inches which is about what I see as I scroll this post … IMHO – To get into the “soft” discussion I think we need a separate post devoted to the aesthetics and philosophy of photography and that would soon deteriorate into a typical “DPR” debate and I'm not interested ..

Now I'm going to watch CUB baseball and I thank you fror your interst and comment ...

WhyNot

I wasn't referring to the pictures as such, but to you comment which I'm snip even closer to read "the resulting lack of sharpness <snip> don't bother me if the image still retains the structure, composition and the story I'm interested in"

And my question to you was "Are you saying that as long as you have the composition you want, and it gets across the point you want to make, it doesn't matter to you if the images are soft?" It does not require any further answer, as I'll make my point.

Unless you're extremely, extremely creative with using "soft" focus, which in these cases can be translated into "missed" focus, I think soft focus images are more a lack of skill in capturing "focus" and not a misunderstanding of "the aesthetics of sharpness and detail", whatever that might be.

To me, on a quick look, the images look soft but simply posting it on a forum can downgrade the IQ, including sharpness, so if you're happy with the sharpness....... well you have the originals.

And this "To get into the “soft” discussion I think we need a separate post devoted to the aesthetics and philosophy of photography and that would soon deteriorate into a typical “DPR” debate and I'm not interested .. Now I'm going to watch CUB baseball and I thank you for your interest and comment ..." is just a way to say something I'd prefer to have said more bluntly. And I think "polite" comments are partly what caused the deteriorated DPR debates.

Never tried it. With my method, I only download the raws I plan to process.

Sounds like a good technique. I've read that Workspace will look at a sequence of shots (such as those from a ProCapture burst) and identify those that are focused best. Seems like that would be very helpful.

Why convert to TIFF? Doesn't your PP software accept ORF's?

True, but how else would you get shots of birds in these poses?

I like the color in the first few, WhyNot. Especially the green and blue bird in #3. I just automatically thought you had got an OM1. I got some great pictures with all my previous cameras. The M1.2 is great; however, using the OM1s subject recognition on birds made the greatest improvement in my bird photography since I got the old ZD 150mm f2 and the 2x teleconverter, almost 20 years ago. I have a lot of practice at panning to follow a BIF and I can usually keep them in the viewfinder, though I realize most of mine are larger, slower raptors. Anyhow, the OM1 is just a little better than the previous, sensor and processor wise, but the bells and whistles really enhance the photography. It just astonishes me the way the OM1 in bird recognition mode will latch onto the bird, one large focus box for the bird and another small one on the eye.and hang onto it. I think that for this type of photography with micro four thirds, the OM1 is essential. Don't miss it if you can. Rich

It depends what you want pro capture for. I use it for birds taking off or for birds coming into land. If I was using native AF lenses I wouldn't even dream of tracking with it. Maybe that's just a me thing.

My setups would generally be 3-4 pre shots and a burst of only around 10 shots at 15 FPS using a manual focus tele lens. I would never use it for inflight shots with tracking or without even with AF lenses. I can see that some people would, but here I wouldn't be too happy going through all the images either. For landing or taking off shots it's brilliant, nothing out there quite like it, but tracking a bird in flight at faster frame rates like the Oly is capable of just doesn't appeal with all those shots to go through.

The other issue that can happen, is that pro capture needs to use the silent shutter and outside of the OM1, it can cause distortion in the wings with a non stacked sensor.

All the best and it is useful for sure, it's just a matter of what you use it for and how.

Danny.

Some nice shots there.

I have found using Olympus' pro capture for birds in flight to be one of the most frustrating photographic activities I've ever experienced. The finger strain alone is enough for me to swear off it!

Why convert to TIFF? Doesn't your PP software accept ORF's?

Habit mostly .. I use and sometimes still use Neat Image to do a batch noise removal ... and I find using TIFF a=-has no drawbacks that I've come across yet ...

True, but how else would you get shots of birds in these poses?

Exactly and that's why I'm doing it and will continue until frustration and fatigue wear me down ...

WhyNot

Good sale pitch Rich .. I do recognize the advantages that the OM1 offers but, believe it or not, what has kept me from even thinking about adding it is the thought of having to work with a fourth battery ... I tried to go to one battery when I got the M5.3 but that didn't meet my needs so I added the M1.2 and added a third battery ... as I still also still use the M1.1 .... anyway I'll continue on and watch what the future brings .. I may weaken ....

Green and Blue!! They seem to pick up a lot of reflection from the plant below. He is less than 6 feet off the ground here

Thanks for stopping by Rich

WhyNot

It depends what you want pro capture for. I use it for birds taking off or for birds coming into land. If I was using native AF lenses I wouldn't even dream of tracking with it. Maybe that's just a me thing.

I too am using it today for take off from this tree where many birds come for the bark butter and occasionally from branches but as summer comes on the leaves are a problem ... both physically and for the shade they cast ... Thomas Stirr's blogs got me interested and am planning to try this with butterflies later this year and maybe dragonflies but I did try that last year and anticipating dragonfly motion is tedious . ..

My setups would generally be 3-4 pre shots and a burst of only around 10 shots at 15 FPS using a manual focus tele lens. I would never use it for inflight shots with tracking or without even with AF lenses. I can see that some people would, but here I wouldn't be too happy going through all the images either. For landing or taking off shots it's brilliant, nothing out there quite like it, but tracking a bird in flight at faster frame rates like the Oly is capable of just doesn't appeal with all those shots to go through.

Now I'm set up for about 10 shots at ProCapL and 30 in ProCapH. High seems to be the way I need to go to get the best shots and keeping the bird longer in the frame .. Difficult to anticipate the path and track the speed of these small birds. I occasionally try a BIF with larger birds but not with ProCap (I leave that to Stirr) I don't do BIF in general as I don't have enough large birds in the air to get the practice it takes ... and if I did I would probably get that OM1 ....

The other issue that can happen, is that pro capture needs to use the silent shutter and outside of the OM1, it can cause distortion in the wings with a non stacked sensor.

My main problem at the present is getting adequate focus. I am never quite sure that AF is finding the bird or the better contrast of the tree bark .. and with ProCap I am trying to use DOF which is narrow as I am about 20-30 feet from the bird which gives me a few inches. I was hoping continuous with those latest updates to the M1.2 would help but not so far .. and as I said High is better and it won't allow continuous focus ... Manual Focus? Occasionally but as I need often move from the tree to branches and to the fence behind the tree not terribly practical .. They don't sit long ..usually .. Electronic shutter hasn't bothered me yet .. I'm thinking that the high shutter speeds I'm using to prevent motion from my holding the camera helps reduce that distortion.

All the best and it is useful for sure, it's just a matter of what you use it for and how.

Danny.

I thank you for stopping by and your comments .. always helpful .... come back again ...

WhyNot

Sorting through al those bad shots that I get is definitely tedious for me and has had me stop trying this on several occasions ,,, Thanks for stopping by ... appreciate your comment ....

WhyNot

My standard settings with Pro Capture H are Pre-Shutter Frames and Frame Limiter both set to 15... so when I fully depress the shutter release the only frames I capture are the 15 frames that were spooling in temporary memory. I typically fully depress my shutter release as the small bird is leaving the frame after taking flight. If the bird is taking flight towards me or on a forward angle, I will fully depress my shutter release almost as soon as the bird launches so it doesn't fly out of focus. I always shoot at 60 frames-per-second with Pro Capture H.

With small birds these Pro Capture H settings tend to give me about 6-8 potentially useable frames from a 15 image run. The settings also create a 1/4 second response time for me to fully depress my shutter release during the bird's launch process, which I find adequate for my purposes. Shooting with electronic shutter does occasionally result in some rolling shutter effect. This is most pronounced if a bird changes direction as it is taking flight, or in the middle of a downstroke or upstroke. It is very rare that I wouldn't get at least 2-3 useable images from a Pro Capture H run. At the end of the day if I get 1 good image from a run... I'm a happy camper.

Using 15/15/60 settings helps to dramatically cut down on culling through Pro Capture H images after the fact.

Thank you for stopping by .. I read your blog with interest often and your experiences and results with ProCapture got me to go though this learning curve .. I think I am getting a bit better with time spent and more settled on the technique. Getting more critical of what I process and throwing away more files … generally, I still cannot predict the flight path the bird will take. Small birds will look one way and take off in the opposite direction or toward me and be OOF quickly …

I have settled on your technique of 15 frames before the shutter button is pressed in ProCap H. Thought about reducing that to 10 but I find that larger birds like robins and blue jays will often stay in the frame longer as they are a bit slower off the perch than the smaller birds... I have a recent sequence where the robin stays acceptably in the frame for the entire sequence.. I intend to post that sometime later this month ..

On the technical side I have moved back to the 100-400mm lens as its maximum aperture is f/6.3 which will often give me adequate DOF and allowing me to let the ISO float on the M1.2 using shutter speed and EV to adjust the exposure. … Also moving back a bit has made the birds more comfortable and may also have helped me find better positions to shoot from to keep their flight path more perpendicular to my line of sight … On the other hand my yard in summer is generally shaded and the light can be difficult and keeps the shutter speed a bit lower than I might like or maybe it just provides more wing motion to emphasize the bird in flight ….

Thank you again for your comments... maybe I can find you a cup of coffee if you want to talk a bit longer …... otherwise I'll read you later on your blog ….

WhyNot