Tim Øsleby wrote:
This is shot with the AF 1,7x TC thingy, and my new zoom.
http://foto.no/cgi-bin/bildegalleri/vis_bilde.cgi?id=227413
*istDS 400 ISO raw, at tripod, with Tokina AT-X LD 150-500/5,6 and AF1,7x,
@500mm, f:16, 1/400s. Converted, sharpened and cropped in RSP.
I like the first one
(http://foto.no/cgi-bin/bildegalleri/vis_bilde.cgi?id=227325) for its
almost monochromatic look. I don't like the fact that I can't make out
what's in it beak. Just not quite the decisive moment for me. I would
have preferred an empty beak.
The second one is a bit better for seeing what's going on but it's as
soft as a baby's bum.
If these pictures had been taken in 1956, they would be of National
Geographic standard, technically. In 2006, they just don't make it.
Mainly, I suspect, because people have come to expect more from a picture.
The only answer I can suggest is to improve your field skills so that
you can get closer. Close enough to lose the converters and gain the
stop or two of speed. Ultimately, this will possibly give you more
satisfaction trying to deal with the problem by throwing money (whatever
size the sum)at it.
mike
