steinr98

Photoshop CC has a new tool that "WILL" sharpen a photo that has "Camera Shake" in it! Now, If the blurred photo is due to the lens out of focus, this tool will not help! But it works on camera shake!! Quite a tool!! On some photos it is worth the try!

wotsmith Loc: Nashville TN

You do need your bird photographs to be "tack sharp"; how to get there? Learn from the experts; go to birds as art.com and read how Art does it. He does micro focus each lens before EACH major trip. He has an excellent explanation on how to do that on his web site. Your lens should be excellent.
What focus spot are you using. For a stationary bird I use only a single focus point and I put it on the bird's eyes. For BIF I use the adjoining spots for a total of Nine, again, trying for the bird's eyes. I shoot Canon, so not familiar with your camera, but are you on "one shot" for focusing or what?
While a 300 mm is not really long, mirror slap can be a problem from the vibration. So even on a tripod with a good mount, you need your arm to be damping the vibration by laying on top of the length of the lens and further stabilize with your face against the back of the camera. Squeeze off the shots, don't "push" the button. Maybe higher ISO and higher shutter speeds. Tripod or not, I would try to shoot at least 1/500 with that lens. VR on or off? Read what is best for that lens/camera on a tripod.

When I first got a 600 mm lens, I thought, "Oh boy, now great photos", but they were crap. Took all of the above and practice to improve my technique and finally get sharp photos.
Good luck,
Bill

ddub

Here is the picture again I have checked the store original box.

(Download)

Psergel Loc: New Mexico

First off.....Rockwell is right and......you picture looks pretty good.
Lots of things contribute to "apparent" sharpness.

What ISO was this shot at? There is a bit of noise and sometimes some very minor noise reduction will increase apparent sharpness. Of course noise reduction actually decreases sharpness but a teeny bit of NR can sometimes make the image LOOK sharper.
Also....it looks to me as though the bird may have moved it's head and upper body just a bit or that there was a breeze ruffling his feathers.

If this were my photo I would turn the sharpening down to 0, then gently apply some NR, then go back and adjust sharpness.

BTW
DXO optics pro does a good job of reducing noise without destroying detail. I'm using the trial version of DXO 11 (with their "Prime" NR) and it seems to do a better job than others I've tried.
It is a bit pricey though and I haven't decided to go for it yet.

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

Applied the camera shake filter in Photoshop and adjusted levels and curves slightly. I think it is actually pretty sharp.

A focus mask in Lightroom shows that almost the entire bird is in focus, except for the eyes and beak.

Original with focus mask...

And then after camera shake in Photoshop...

And after some levels & curves adjustments in Photoshop.

Original Downloaded Shot


After camera shake reduction in Photoshop


After Photoshop curves, levsls & Camera Shake

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Wow!

ddub

Thanks what is strange about that is I used single point focus right on his eye.

Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

I can't see the photo clearly enough to see what is unsharp about it. I don't know the context of Ken Rockwell's comment that some people fret too much over sharpness, but he may be right in some respects. I would rather see a picture by Ansel Adams taken with a Brownie than a tack sharp picture by someone else that has other problems. (But Adams certainly considered sharpness--it is just that when he stopped down to f-64 he knew he was sacrificing something in sharpness to diffraction, while gaining sharpness in depth.) Sharpness itself is a somewhat fuzzy term, as it includes many factors (some of them subjective). I have seen portrait photographers in the past who took a bit of sandpaper to the center of a lens to make it softer. Smearing some grease on it was also tried, and of course soft-focus filters are still sold. When digital first came into use, I did not like it because all the pictures looked like Wizard of Oz--too sharp and too colorful. I think now people are used to it--maybe even expect it. But I prefer to go for a natural look as a general rule. A pleasing background is fine with me and it need not be radically out of focus. So if Ken Rockwell was saying we can get carried away with technical issues or equipment perfection, I would agree. Some of the greatest lenses ever made were not the sharpest in terms of resolution (Dagors, Artars, Heliars, Ronars, etc.) And by the way, no lens is sharpest wide open, though process lenses come close--they are not meant to need much depth of field.

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

He may have moved his gaze just when the shutter snapped which could mean you caught just a hint of movement making it a little fuzzy

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

We might have to define "fix" because I have "fixed" many an out of focus photo in Photoshop, as well as Paintshop Pro, Photo-Paint, onOne, Redfield, Topaz.............. It's what I do.

spaceylb Loc: Long Beach, N.Y.

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

No! Good photographers are always looking for a sharp(unless looking some arty view) photo. Post processing does have an advantage to sharpen, if for some reason, you missed. Of course, no tool can help out of focus. This is very helpful in less expensive lenses where sharpness is an issue wide open and stopped down - classic weak areas in general.

Silverman Loc: Michigan

When you take your photo, do you magnify it on your Camera screen to check your sharpness? From the photo you posted it looks pretty sharp, but that does not mean it is "Tack" Sharp. Nice photo!

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

I had never heard of DxO OpticsPro so I went to check it out this morning. Looked like an interesting program so I downloaded the trial version. I tried it out on one photo that is my test photo for all things digital editing. I liked what it did, and since $199 is within my daily photography budget, I just bought it. It looks like a program that might take me away from Photoshop for a few days. Thank you.

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

Are you set to continuous focus not stationary focus, check all of your camera focus settings. Maybe 1/800 was not fast enough. Birds are always moving even when they look still.