lonestranger

ISO, put simply, is just one of the three settings that controls the exposure/brightness. With everything else being equal, meaning the same shutter speed and aperture settings, a higher ISO setting will produce a brighter photo than lower ISO settings. By increasing the ISO from 100 to 200, the photo will be twice as bright, increasing the ISO to 400 means the photo will be 4x brighter than when using an ISO setting of 100. Doubling the ISO can also allow you to double your shutter speed though. As an example, lets say that I have properly exposed shot if I set my ISO at 100, my shutter speed at 1/100, and my aperture wide open at F/5.6. If I double my ISO to 200 and double my shutter speed to 1/200, I will end up with the same exposure. If I increase my ISO to 800 that means I can increase my shutter speed to 800 and still have the same exposure. If I double that again to ISO 1600, then I can double my shutter speed again and still have a proper exposure at 1/1600 shutter speed. Exposure is a balancing act, increasing the ISO will brighten the photo to the point of over exposure unless you balance it out with one of the other settings. While increasing the ISO is prone to increasing the noise, not increasing it can lead to using too slow a shutter speed which is prone to the blurring effects of camera shake and/or subject movement. Film speed or ISO is the same on digital cameras as it was on film cameras. The faster/higher the film speed or ISO is, the faster shutter speed you can use. That's my spin on ISO. For a more professional description and tips on how to best utilize the setting, I found David Peterson's writings to be easiest to comprehend. http://www.digital-photo-secrets.com/tip/1625/your-cameras-settings-iso-speed/

I switched from P&S to DSLR for a few reasons. I wanted a faster camera with more frames per second. I wanted more megapixels, because more is always better, right? I wanted better photos, and DSLRs are capable of out performing P&S in image quality. Basically, my first few P&S cameras got me hooked on wildlife photography and then I wanted bigger, better, faster, etc. After doing some research, I bought my first DSLR and a 70-300mm lens. My image quality instantly jumped to a whole new level and I was quite happy with my purchase. After a while I started to get frustrated though, my lens didn't have the reach that I really needed to get me close enough to most of the birds I shot, so I invested in a 50-500mm lens. The longer lens quickly took my photography to another whole new level and I was quite happy with my purchase. After a while the camera manufacturer came out with a new model that had some features that I thought I needed so I bought a second DSLR and I was happy with my purchase. After a while I started to notice that my images had a lot of noise/grain/speckling in them and soon realized that the 2x crop factor(smaller sensor) in my DSLR was contributing to my noise issues, so I changed manufactures and bought a whole new set up. I bought a camera with a 1.6 crop factor and a 400mm prime lens(no zoom) since most of my shots were always at maximum zoom and seldom did I need a shorter focal length. My image quality jumped to a whole new level, again, and yet again I was happy with my purchase. After a while I bought a 2x extender for my lens and although I seldom used it, I was quite happy with it's performance when it did get used but that 2x 400mm combination was limited to being mounted on the tripod so it got used less and less. The 2x extender also wouldn't auto focus on my camera so using it had the added frustration of trying to manually focus my shots, sometimes I got it right, sometimes I missed. A newer version of my camera came on the market that allowed for centre point auto focus with a 1.4 extender so I bought the new version camera and the 1.4x extender and was quiet happy with my purchase. After a while I decided that I wanted the newest version of my camera manufacturer's 100-400mm lens, which not only had image stabilization that my 400mm prime lens was lacking, the 100-400 zoom lens was also claimed to be as sharp as the 400mm prime lens, which I can't dispute, it's a great piece of glass. I am now noticing that my images are often noisier than I'd like, especially in low light conditions such as early morning or late evening. I push my ISO up higher than I should so that I can get fast enough shutter speeds in those situations, and the results often show noise that I'd rather not be there. In order to get rid of the noise from high ISO settings I will need to invest in a full frame camera with a bigger sensor that produces little to no noise at the same or hopefully even higher ISO settings than I currently limit myself to. A full frame camera would also allow for multi-point focus options with either extender. Yes, a full frame camera is now on my wish list. So that's my experience in purchasing camera gear, I learned a lot of lessons about what I needed/wanted the hard/expensive way. Knowing what I know today, I would have saved myself a bundle of money and bought a full frame camera, a third party 150-600mm lens, and then round out my setup with a 70-200 F/2.8, which is a workhorse of a lens, and a shorter zoom lens for the fewer landscape shots I take. All the while I was making mistakes about my camera gear purchases, I was learning more and more about photography. I started off in auto mode with my P&S cameras and tried the various semi-auto settings like Program Mode, Sports Mode, Aperture Priority Mode, Shutter Priority Mode where I could control things a bit but the camera still took care of getting the exposure right for me. I found that I could use Aperture priority to set my lens to it's fastest/largest aperture, set the ISO to a fixed setting of my choosing, and the camera would come up with the right shutter speed for a proper exposure, most of the time. When I got my first DSLR I started playing around with exposure compensation, which is used in the semi-auto modes to adjust the brightness of the shot. I was getting too many silhouette images when I was photographing birds with a bright sky behind them so I learned that I needed to set my exposure compensation to +1, +2, or sometimes +3 in order to get the bird exposed properly in those situations. I had a hard time remembering to reset my exposure compensation after shooting birds up high with the sky/clouds behind them when it came time to take a shot of a bird with a darker background behind it. I think it was about that time I decided to try full manual exposure. After all, I was setting my own aperture, setting my own ISO, and fine tuning my own exposure with the exposure compensation feature in the semi-auto modes so why not try full manual exposure. Yep, I botched a bunch of my first attempts at manual exposure but it didn't take long to learn from my mistakes and before I knew it, I was controlling the exposure and getting satisfying results. I found it so much easier to control the exposure in manual mode than in any of the auto modes, including the ones that allow exposure compensation. If a bird was in the sun, it wouldn't matter if it had a bright sky behind it or shaded bush behind it, the exposure usually didn't need to be adjusted. If the bird moved out of the sun and into the shade, I simply adjusted one setting on the camera and I was good to go. As I learned more and more, through practice, reading online sources, and the hard lesson of learning from my mistakes, I kept getting better and better shots in manual mode and would never go back to any of the auto modes. There are three basic adjustments in manual mode, aperture, shutter speed, and ISO, which are easy to adjust on most DSLRs. Learning which adjustments to make and when you need to make them is something that comes with practice/experience but once you set your exposure in manual, it doesn't need to be adjusted often, or adjusted much. If you have already learned how and when to use exposure compensation in the semi-auto modes, you already know how to set the exposure manually, you're just not doing it in manual mode. So, that's my experience in both purchasing and learning the controls of my cameras. Am I great photographer that you should take advise from, probably not. I consider myself to be a decent photographer with decent equipment that takes some decent photos but I admit I still have a lot to learn. If I was to offer advice on purchasing camera gear and learning how to use it, I would recommend getting a decent long lens, the longest quality lens you could afford. The better the glass is, the more likely it is that you'll like the results it produces, now and in the future. While I know that full frame cameras have better image quality than crop cameras do, I'm not sure if starting with a full frame camera is something that I'd recommend, I might suggest the idea but I wouldn't consider it a necessity. I would advise against cameras with the smaller sensors though, a 2x crop factor might give the illusion of a longer lens, but the smaller sensor simply can't capture the same detail that larger sensors can. Small sensors with 18MP means 18MP of small receptors(for lack of a better word), larger sensors with 18MP means 18MP of larger receptors. The larger the receptors, the higher the dynamic range, meaning more versatility in capturing the brightest and darkest elements without over exposing and/or under exposing the image, and less noise in the image too. As for what to learn first with a new DSLR, I'd recommend learning the cameras controls for ISO, shutter speed, and aperture, learn how to adjust them so that you can do it efficiently in the field, regardless of what mode you're using, manual or semi-auto. I highly recommend going straight to manual mode though, it's not as complicated as it may seem and it will teach you a lot quicker than any other mode on the camera. I also find it much more gratifying when I get the shot right with manual exposure, knowing that I was the one controlling the outcome of the photo and not letting the camera control it for me just brings a greater sense of satisfaction for me. If something I've written is confusing, feel free to pick my brain. Just don't start asking what camera you should buy.

Sorry @Charlie Spencer, I think I may have quoted @Spyonabird from a quote you used in your post. I was actually just commenting on what Spyonabird said about trying to get it right in the camera so that cropping isn't necessary. I am the one saying that cropping is undesirable, meaning that it's better to fill the frame with the bird when possible, but I seldom have that luxury. Sorry for any confusion there.

That's the best way to get the best photos, get the capture the way you want it in the camera when you press the shutter button and post processing becomes so much easier. Getting a shot like @pictaker's towhee photo composed in the camera(DSLR) would require a substantially longer lens than I have access to, or a stuffed towhee. I need to be within 5 feet of the bird to fill my frame with a bird that size. I think that the better the gear is and the better the photographer is, the more you can get away with cropping without it being detrimental to the finished product. Starting with a tack sharp photo in the camera gives you more flexibility when it comes time to crop. If the focus is off just a little though, cropping will only emphasize that fact the more you crop. Don't get me wrong, I agree that cropping is undesirable, but in practicality, it's an essential tool for me.

I shoot all of my bird photos with the bird centered in the middle of the frame. Centre point focus and spot metering is my default setting so that's where my subject needs to be, in the middle. If we knew before hand which way a bird was going to face, left or right, we could set the focus point on the camera accordingly for compositional reasons, we'd need to reset the focus point to the other side every time the bird turned it's head though. I think most bird photographers shoot centre point focus and rely on cropping to finalize or fine tune the rule of thirds or other compositional ideas. I know I can't adjust the camera's focus point back and forth fast enough every time a bird turns it's head/body so I shoot my birds in the centre and worry about all compositional factors in post processing. With birds in flight I usually expand my focal points from a single center point to the maximum focus points for tracking purposes but my composition work is all done on the computer. I'm happy to just get a bird in flight in the frame, I don't have time to think about composition, I'm too busy just trying to keep the bird in the frame.

On the example I posted, my thought was simply to magnify the part of the photo that I found most interesting. There wasn't really much compositional or artistic thought involved, I just wanted the bits and pieces on the bird's bill to be easily noticed. Could I have gotten that effect with less of a crop? Maybe. Could I have cropped it a little bit more? Maybe. I just cropped until I thought the bill was magnified enough. Was it too much, not enough, should I have taken more from one side and less from another? Questions like that go through my mind all the time. When you find out how to answer those questions for yourself, maybe you could help answer them for me. I can totally relate to that ^. I don't like post processing and have often considered going back to shooting in JPG mode just so I don't have decide what looks right as far as exposure, contrast and saturation goes. I've read lots and learned a fair bit about post processing, but I am far from good at it, which makes it less enjoyable and more like a chore, like you said. I'll still play around with my images and sometimes find something worth sharing, but when processing becomes work, I tend to leave them sitting in the unprocessed folders and no one but me ever looks at them.

I can't get the original photo to look remotely like your cropped photo. Everything gets far too distorted to see the bird(?) when I try to zoom in to the same proportions as your crop. I suspect your original(2nd) photo is being resized somewhere in the upload process and wonder if we're actually seeing the original photo in it's true original size. If you have a flickr account, perhaps you could upload your original photo there and maybe, just maybe, we'll be able to see the true original better when we zoom in. Sorry, but I can't even ID the bird as a bird when I zoom in on it in this photo.

Is it possible this is actually a bird in the air and not in the water? I see what looks like a fanned out tail with a dark band at the bottom of bird, making me wonder if what appears to be the head of a grebe in water is possibly the curl of a bird's wing where both upper and lower parts of the wing are visible making it look like a grebe's head. Perhaps a bird of prey after something in the water? I'm probably way off but that's what my imagination sees when I zoom in on the bird. Keep in mind that my imagination has been known to work better than my eyes now and then.

I can't speak for the "amazing" photos but I usually have to crop most of my bird photos to some extent, especially to get that "close up" effect. The closer I am to the bird to start with means less cropping is required, which usually results in better photos. On some occasions the bird is close enough that cropping isn't required at all and those situations usually produce the best photos, but that's a small percentage of the time, a very small percentage. Obviously, the bigger the bird is the easier it is to fill the frame with the bird and the less I'll need to crop. Smaller birds are harder to fill the frame even when I'm close, so they'll get cropped more often and cropped more severely if I'm after that close up look. Here's an example of a close up photo before and after cropping. Before After IMG_5424 by lonestranger102, on Flickr

With new technology advancing in leaps and bounds, you just might find one like that in the near future. I'm not sure current technology has gotten there yet, though. I will say that the extra zoom on super zoom cameras can often zoom you past the obstacles between you and the bird. My Nikon P900 has an optic zoom of 2000mm and has often gotten me past obstacles that are between me and the bird. The obstacles are still there but it's much easier to find enough of the bird for auto focus to lock on the bird and not the branch in front of it when more of the bird fills the viewfinder. I'm not promoting any particular camera, but in my experience, more zoom helps get me past obstacles that my DSLR and 100-400 lens might not be able to get past with auto focus. Having said that, I'd still reach for my DSLR before my P900 if was photographing a bird. The manual focus ring on the lens and the ease of adjustments on the camera makes the bigger, heavier DSLR more enjoyable to shoot with, even if it is only 1/4 of the focal length of the P&S.

Try this link and see if you can navigate the website to find what you're looking for. A list of wildlife rehabilitators by state is linked at the end of the second paragraph. https://www.discoverwildcare.org/wildlife-resources/wildlife-rescue-guide/

I copied and pasted the info from the above link for you. Good luck with the bird. What should I do if I find a baby bird? What if I find a bird that is injured? Cute, helpless-looking baby or injured birds tug at the heartstrings of every bird lover. We naturally want to jump in and help them, but well-meaning attempts to help sometimes end up hurting the bird. Here are some guidelines to keep that from happening. BABY BIRDS WITH FEATHERS If you find a bird with feathers all over its body (even though it looks like a baby and/or is being fed by adult birds) it is almost certainly able to fly and has left the nest voluntarily. Babies who have recently left the nest may be less afraid of humans than adults, making it appear that they can’t fly when they can. The best thing to do is to leave the baby where it is; the parents will be back to attend to the baby when you leave. If the bird is in an unsafe area (on a busy road, for example), you can move it to a safe location as close as possible to the place you found the bird. It’s better to remove such dangers as your dog or children than to move the bird. Give the baby and its parents plenty of space and privacy and the parents will almost certainly return to the baby, or the baby will leave on its own. Check back later to reassure yourself that all is well. BABY BIRDS WITH NO FEATHERS, PIN FEATHERS, OR ONLY PARTIAL FEATHER COVERING If the baby is showing skin without feather covering, it may have fallen from the nest or been removed by weather or a predator. Try to find the nest and put the baby back in it. If you can’t find the nest, you can use a small basket or plastic bowl (with holes punched in the bottom) to make a replacement nest; line it with soft grass and secure it in a safe location, such as a tree branch, as near as possible to where you found the baby. If the baby feels cold to the touch, warm it in your hands before placing it in the nest. Give the baby and parents privacy and check back later to see if the parents return to care for the baby. Do not worry about touching the baby bird; most birds have a very poor sense of smell and will not reject a baby if a human has touched it. Having said that, only handle the baby as much as absolutely necessary to replace it in the nest and let the parents take it from there. Never give the baby bird food or water. Giving the incorrect diet can do more harm than good. ABANDONED BABY BIRDS If you are sure the baby has been abandoned and is unable to care for itself, contact your nearest wildlife rehabber. It is illegal in the United States and many other countries to keep wild native birds in captivity; that includes trying to rescue babies, unless you have a license to do so. Caring for a baby bird requires significant knowledge and skill, and almost all amateur attempts to do so, even though they are motivated by caring and concern, fail. Follow the instructions you are given until the bird can be taken to the rehabilitation facility. Here is a link to a list of professional wild bird rehabilitators by state. If you are unable to contact a rehabilitator, contact a veterinarian for advice and a referral to a professional who can help you. http://www.wildcarebayarea.org/site/DocServer/9-16-10_correction.html?docID=381 INJURED BIRDS If you find a bird that appears to be unable to fly but has no visible injuries, remove any dangers from the immediate area and leave the bird alone to be sure it’s really injured and not trying to distract you or another predator. Some birds use this strategy to protect their eggs and nests. In addition, birds may be stunned after hitting a window but recover after a short rest. If the bird has obvious injuries, contact a professional rehabilitator for help. Follow their instructions until the bird can be taken to the professional facility. Here is a link to a list of professional wild bird rehabilitators by state. If you are unable to contact a rehabilitator, contact a veterinarian for advice and a referral to a professional who can help you. http://www.wildcarebayarea.org/site/DocServer/9-16-10_correction.html?docID=381 If you must move or transport the bird, be extremely careful; many birds have strong bills and sharp claws and can injure you, especially if they are scared. Never attempt to handle a raptor if you don’t have professional training and experience.

Downy Woodpecker Untitled by lonestranger102, on Flickr

I think you missed a few letters.

This looks like a Humpback bluebird to me. Or possibly a short tailed bluebird. Eastern Bluebird?

Wood Duck from the beginning of the month.

Looking forward to reading your trip report about your birding, since technically it's not a birding trip report without a report about birding. Good luck with your turtle ID.

I won't speculate on your flycatcher ID, I have a hard enough time with local birds never mind different species from different ranges, but I will speculate on the playback of the Brown-Crested Flycatcher sounds. I speculate, and I am no authority on bird calls, but I speculate that ANY bird might respond to a playback recording if they feel the bird they think they are hearing appears as a threat to their nesting territory. If an ash-throated flycatcher heard a brown-crested flycatcher getting comfortable in it's territory, it might try to discourage the brown-crested flycatcher from nesting in the same area and come looking for the source of the intruding sounds. Again, I am only speculating but I could see birds responding to other bird calls for territorial reasons.

Welcome to Whatbird, Jodi Nielson. I saw a few of your photos in another thread but this particular photo isn't loading for me. Just thought I'd let you know.

Z formation of Osprey, seldom seen occurrence, happens only in the Virtual Park of the Internet.

House wren

Ruby-throated hummingbird.

Thanks for pointing out the continental, and ABA, differences that I never considered IvoryBillHope. Perhaps to avoid/lessen confusion in the future, the name of this forum could be changed to something like, Birds Outside North America's ABA Area, and the main ID forum changed to North American Birds Within the ABA Area. I'm not sure if there is enough of an issue for @Administrator to consider these changes though, especially when there's already so many other changes being asked for by the members.

Isn't Costa Rica in Central America? That would explain why people are asking for Costa Rica IDs here in the Outside North America forum.

I wouldn't spend a lot of time trying to manually focus a point and shoot camera, I haven't been able to manually focus successfully on ANY of the point and shoot cameras I have/had. Not only is it incredibly slow, I've never been able to get it accurate enough to produce a decent image. Manual exposure is a lot more challenging with point and shoot cameras too, while it can be done on P&S cameras, the controls are much easy to access and adjust on DSLRs than a P&S. Just saying.