Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Just not tack sharp
Page <<first <prev 5 of 8 next> last>>
Jun 19, 2017 13:42:17   #
Delderby Loc: Derby UK
 
Indiana wrote:
Well, not exactly. The Ping analogy of the "amateur" and pro reflect not only ability but fine tuning for the pro by Ping, opposed to the amateur who buys off the shelf models with no professional fine tuning and plays with models produced for the mass market. I can recall reading an article years ago by a National Geographic photographer who stated that he took thousands of shots of his subject (Macaws in the Peruvian Amazon) and hoped to have 4-5 publishable slides for his editor. If perfection is as elusive as described, we all need to "gear up" or lower our expectations. Just my thoughts.
Well, not exactly. The Ping analogy of the "a... (show quote)


The amateur sees the published picture - not appreciating that it is the best of thousands of shots, and attempts to emulate the published pic with considerably less shots, time and equipment. But there's nothing like trying, and we sometimes get lucky.

Reply
Jun 19, 2017 13:43:24   #
AHK Loc: Lakewood Ranch, Fl.
 
wotsmith wrote:
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
You do need your bird photographs to be "tack... (show quote)


Bill,

Thanks for the quick over view. I tried the site "birds as art.com" to go to the how to reference for "sharp focus". It was a very large site and I quickly became lost...could you provide a link to the article. As a aside I just modified my Canon7D and 5D so the a single button takes me between Servo and single shot...great for when the bird takes off.

Arny

Reply
Jun 19, 2017 13:49:08   #
terry44 Loc: Tuolumne County California, Maui Hawaii
 
Was there a breeze?. Looks like you were possibly focused a little lower that the eyes, the tail feathers and some of the closer to the bird branches are sharp. Always wondered where they came up with tack sharp as they really aren't that sharp, razor blades and obsidian are sharp.
ddub wrote:
Here is the picture again I have checked the store original box.

Reply
 
 
Jun 19, 2017 13:53:27   #
terry44 Loc: Tuolumne County California, Maui Hawaii
 
That might be it you used continuous focus on a bird tha was not moving the focus could have tried to refocus after you composed your shot. Single focus on the stable bird would have held the focus.
ddub wrote:
Thanks everyone for all of the input. Yes this was shot in Raw and considerably cropped. I couldn't get any closer without disturbing the Owl. I use continuous auto focus. I use just one focus point on a stationary bird. ISO was 800 and there is some noise.

Thanks again

Reply
Jun 19, 2017 14:01:12   #
hrblaine
 
I can recall reading an article years ago by a National Geographic photographer who stated that he took thousands of shots of his subject (Macaws in the Peruvian Amazon) and hoped to have 4-5 publishable slides for his editor."

When I first started shooting concert dance, I was happy if I got one really good shot from a roll of 35mm. As I progressed, I started getting two, three, four etc. But I never got more than a half dozen that really suited me. I got dozens that suited the dancers though and they bought them for $1.00 like they were going out of style. I was mostly shooting student dancers at Ohio State but the professional dancers that came through on tour told me that pics of that quality would cost $50.00 each in NYC. Made me feel good but I never raised my prices. I would tell them, "It's my hobby, not my income."

Reply
Jun 19, 2017 14:17:25   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
ddub wrote:
Here is the picture again I have checked the store original box.


Owls in particular are prone to looking soft, due to their plumage. Their feathers are "reversed" with the soft, downy surface on the outside. This is essential to the owl's being able to sneak up on it's prey in complete silence. They can even flap their wings without making a sound.

So, unless you are very close with the owl filling the frame in portrait, shooting at base ISO and in good contrasty light, you are not likely to get the fine detail of that downy side.

As far as your picture is concerned, it is more than sharp enough - for an owl shot, that is. If you shot this as a raw file, then you have a few more options with post processing the noise away and enhancing the fine detail, but it's a good shot.

I did play around a little with micro contrast only on the owl, and some modest noise abatement to the entire image, as well as softening, desaturating and darkening only the background, to bring the eye's focus to the main subject. A modest, soft vignette was applied at the end.

Funny thing is (and totally expected), when the two versions (yours and mine), are displayed side by side on a pair of 24" displays, and you step back about 3 ft, there is no sense of lose of sharpness between the two images. My rendition shows some more contrast and darker, less saturated foliage, but yours looks more than fine. I am pretty sure your gear is working just fine.

Not sure why you used exp comp of -1/3. And I am sure you are aware that at 23.7' your DoF is about 3.6" with a 50/50 distribution front/back, leaving you only about 1 3/4" in front of the focal distance for decent sharpness. If you shot this as a jpg, your sharpening settings together with ISO 800 could have munched away some of the finer detail.Also, did you use a 1.4X TC? The metadata shows a 300mm F4 lens but reports an effective focal length of 600mm on a 35mm. That is a little confusing.


(Download)

Reply
Jun 19, 2017 14:17:43   #
Kuzano
 
We can't tell you because you are using the "simply awful" thumbnail view that UHH displays.

The only way we will see how sharp your image may be is if you check the "store original" box when you upload.

Yes, it definitely looks unsharp because you posted it unsharp. The store original will say Download in blue again on these posts and will sharpen up.

We can't agree on your disappointment in your lens until you post the pic in a way that will show us the full original file. If you are making your decision on the picture displayed as a thumbnail, rather than a full download, YES, the lens is not very sharp.

Besides that every facet of the shot has to be right for a sharp pic on a lens that long.

Lens on tripod
No Image stabilization
fast shutter speed
A hell of a sturdy tripod
Native ISO for the sensor 80-100 ISO no automatic here.

anything else we can help you with.

Reply
 
 
Jun 19, 2017 14:59:44   #
tdekany Loc: Oregon
 
Kuzano wrote:
We can't tell you because you are using the "simply awful" thumbnail view that UHH displays.

The only way we will see how sharp your image may be is if you check the "store original" box when you upload.

Yes, it definitely looks unsharp because you posted it unsharp. The store original will say Download in blue again on these posts and will sharpen up.

We can't agree on your disappointment in your lens until you post the pic in a way that will show us the full original file. If you are making your decision on the picture displayed as a thumbnail, rather than a full download, YES, the lens is not very sharp.

Besides that every facet of the shot has to be right for a sharp pic on a lens that long.

Lens on tripod
No Image stabilization
fast shutter speed
A hell of a sturdy tripod
Native ISO for the sensor 80-100 ISO no automatic here.

anything else we can help you with.
We can't tell you because you are using the "... (show quote)


Don't forget that this is a very heavy crop. 6 or 7mp? I believe the OP's expectations are unrealistic. Not to mention his inability to hold that combination properly. We can't just blame the gear.

Reply
Jun 19, 2017 15:01:25   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
Kuzano wrote:
We can't tell you because you are using the "simply awful" thumbnail view that UHH displays.

The only way we will see how sharp your image may be is if you check the "store original" box when you upload.

Yes, it definitely looks unsharp because you posted it unsharp. The store original will say Download in blue again on these posts and will sharpen up.

We can't agree on your disappointment in your lens until you post the pic in a way that will show us the full original file. If you are making your decision on the picture displayed as a thumbnail, rather than a full download, YES, the lens is not very sharp.

Besides that every facet of the shot has to be right for a sharp pic on a lens that long.

Lens on tripod
No Image stabilization
fast shutter speed
A hell of a sturdy tripod
Native ISO for the sensor 80-100 ISO no automatic here.

anything else we can help you with.
We can't tell you because you are using the "... (show quote)


I don't disagree that with all of the steps you have outlined you will get a great image, but I do question whether all that is necessary all the time.

These blue jays were taken with a D500, a Nikkor 28-300 at 300mm, ISO 800 and 1/800 sec, and a D800, Sigma 150-800 Sport, ISO 800, 600mm, F8 and 1/500, both hand held. I was testing my friend's D500 against my D800 for noise and detail, and came to the conclusion that smaller sensors (with lower resolution) give away too much when it comes to detail rendition for my taste. This is a bit of an unfair comparison, because the Sigma is a little sharper than the 28-300 is in the center of the image circle, but the increased distance should mitigate the difference. In either case, the OP's 300mm F4 is a very sharp lens, and the owl seems to be just fine.

D500
D500...
(Download)

D800
D800...
(Download)

Reply
Jun 19, 2017 15:06:49   #
Mike1017
 
Is it a ? 28-300 ?? Mike

Reply
Jun 19, 2017 15:14:27   #
tomcat
 
I believe that the f/4 aperture may be one of your prime reasons for softness. That is such a shallow depth of field. I would try the 4 f/stops between f/5.6 through f/8. I find that my sweet spot is usually 5.6 or 6.3 for sharpest images.

Reply
 
 
Jun 19, 2017 15:19:22   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
tdekany wrote:
Don't forget that this is a very heavy crop. 6 or 7mp? I believe the OP's expectations are unrealistic. Not to mention his inability to hold that combination properly. We can't just blame the gear.


Thomas, I am not so sure he did anything wrong, or his gear is not up to speed. As you said, this is about the best you can expect from the camera/lens combo, at that ISO and poor light. I see no evidence of motion blur, and Donald G's focus peaking analysis shows the owl is mostly in focus. At normal viewing distances on a large print it will look just fine.

Reply
Jun 19, 2017 15:25:58   #
TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC
 
Gene51 wrote:
Thomas, I am not so sure he did anything wrong, or his gear is not up to speed. As you said, this is about the best you can expect from the camera/lens combo, at that ISO and poor light. I see no evidence of motion blur, and Donald G's focus peaking analysis shows the owl is mostly in focus. At normal viewing distances on a large print it will look just fine.


And if my EXIF viewer is correct, it was cropped down to about 3MP from 21MP - a pretty serious crop...

Reply
Jun 19, 2017 15:55:58   #
Kuzano
 
hrblaine wrote:
While I'm not a big fan of Ken Rockwell, I believe that he has a point when he says that amateur photographers worry too much about "tack sharp". Ever hear of Photoshop? Try it, you'll like it.


I AM a big fan of Ken Rockwell. The man has saved me a lot of money on lens reviews over the last fifteen years... both on buys to avoid and also saved me money on inexpensive very sharp lenses.

So, he's a bit unusual, in ways that I appreciate. I also do not attribute any false loyalties to Ken.

Reply
Jun 19, 2017 16:45:34   #
Ernie Misner Loc: Lakewood, WA
 
It actually looks pretty good without being able to see the enlarged version. Have you tried the simple test to check for accurate AF? Just shoot one that is carefully focused using LV, then one through the viewfinder, and compare the two while zooming in.

While Group AF setting is good for fast moving birds in flight, etc., it's only downfall is that it wants to acquire focus on the nearest part of the bird which can be a wingtip. For a more static subject like this a single AF point placed right on the eye can give a better result for the eye being sharp. Were you using stabilization? Be sure and turn that off for landscape/tripod shots.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 5 of 8 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.