Just not tack sharp (Page 7): Try flipping it. Denoise in LR, then sharpen in Topaz. It looks sharper than before but unfortunately you sharpened the noise as well.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

ddub wrote:

Here is a LR sharpened and Topaz denoised version Thoughts?

Try flipping it. Denoise in LR, then sharpen in Topaz. It looks sharper than before but unfortunately you sharpened the noise as well.

hassighedgehog Loc: Corona, CA

katastrofa is correct, no focusing possible. They had a huge depth of field, but were not useful for close ups or low light conditions. Original ones were not even able to be opened. The whole camera was sent to the manufacturer for the film to be developed, then returned with a new roll of film in the camera with the prints. Intended for easy inexpensive home use. The instamatics of the day.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Apaflo wrote:

No idea how TriX is arriving at his numbers, but y... (show quote)

He has another choice, I don't get why you try to limit him to 2. He can sell the camera, and get a D800/810 like Gene uses and his crops will look better.

bdk Loc: Sanibel Fl.

I listen to everything Burk photo says as I know he knows photography. Today Is the day where I disagree with him.
Ive taken many photos in RAW and they didnt need sharpening. ( but many do need it) When using a Tripod, do you have vibration Reduction turned off? if not that could be a problem

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

tdekany wrote:

He has another choice, I don't get why you try to limit him to 2. He can sell the camera, and get a D800/810 like Gene uses and his crops will look better.

Learn to read for detail. I said two choices with that camera.

It makes sense that he does not want to buy another camera. If he does he would probably be better off with a refurbed D7200 . Just imagine the cost of a D810 combined with an 800mm lens to not get even the same resolution. With a D7200 he can use that 300mm lens, or if spending more money is fun a 150-600mm Tamron G2 would be suitable.

There is a lot of devil in the details you ignore.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

bdk wrote:

I listen to everything Burk photo says as I know he knows photography. Today Is the day where I disagree with him.
Ive taken many photos in RAW and they didnt need sharpening. ( but many do need it) When using a Tripod, do you have vibration Reduction turned off? if not that could be a problem

All photos, every single one encoded with a Bayer CFA, can benefit from sharpening.

It is a simple fact that you cannot otherwise get a high contrast tone transition (brightness or color) in less than 6 linear pixels without the use of sharpening.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

bdk wrote:

I listen to everything Burk photo says as I know he knows photography. Today Is the day where I disagree with him.
Ive taken many photos in RAW and they didnt need sharpening. ( but many do need it) When using a Tripod, do you have vibration Reduction turned off? if not that could be a problem

You are correct, you don't need to sharpen some raw files, but you should. I have yet to see an article from any authority that would agree with you though

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Apaflo wrote:

Learn to read for detail. I said two choices with that camera.

It makes sense that he does not want to buy another camera. If he does he would probably be better off with a refurbed D7200 . Just imagine the cost of a D810 combined with an 800mm lens to not get even the same resolution. With a D7200 he can use that 300mm lens, or if spending more money is fun a 150-600mm Tamron G2 would be suitable.

There is a lot of devil in the details you ignore.

He may not want to purchase another setup, but it is an option, if he is going to crop a 20mp file down to 6 or 7. he is never going to be happy with what he has now.

rjaywallace Loc: Wisconsin

ddub wrote:

Here is a LR sharpened and Topaz denoised version Thoughts?

Looks considerably better to my (aging) eyes.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

billnikon wrote:

There is nothing wrong with the lens. IMHO, the owl does not stand out, until you sharpen your technique you may continue to get diminishing returns. I use GROUP AUTO FOCUS and a large lens opening, I keep my four points of focus right in the center and on the bird. GROUP AUTO FOCUS and wildlife photography are a perfect match. You are either too far away, background too close to bird, or, your lens focused on the surroundings instead of the intended victim.

Some would prefer to not use Group Auto Focus as it acts as one big focus point, as opposed to Dynamic AF Area Mode which can select other points for more accurate focus if the subject moves.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

rafikiphoto wrote:

I haven't seen his remarks. Is he suggesting that professional photographers are not concerned about sharpness?

I read the post to read that he is suggesting amateur photographers are overly concerned.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

ddub wrote:

I feel I am continually not getting tack sharp photos with this lens. The attached photo was taken with a tripod and wlimberly head. This was taken with a Nikon D500 and a Nikon prime 300mm lens. Shot at F4 at 1/800 sec

In my opinion it should be sharper. Any advice would be appreciated.

Try a 7D MII and 300mm f2.8 L that would immediately solve the problem.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

ddub wrote:

I feel I am continually not getting tack sharp photos with this lens. The attached photo was taken with a tripod and wlimberly head. This was taken with a Nikon D500 and a Nikon prime 300mm lens. Shot at F4 at 1/800 sec

In my opinion it should be sharper. Any advice would be appreciated.

Hi ddub
Here is your Hog JPG - simply adjusted using a high pass filter.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

bdk wrote:

I listen to everything Burk photo says as I know he knows photography. Today Is the day where I disagree with him.
Ive taken many photos in RAW and they didnt need sharpening. ( but many do need it) When using a Tripod, do you have vibration Reduction turned off? if not that could be a problem

I take about 12,000 - 15,000 pictures a year - all raw. I have yet to have even one that did not need sharpening in post processing. I shoot people, architecture, landscape, sporting events, stage performances, wildlife, birds, etc. I rarely, with the exception of landscape, apply sharpening to the entire image, or the same amount/type of sharpening across the entire scene, however.

This link is for the Photokit Sharpener, and is an excellent reference on why sharpening is necessary, what types of sharpening applies to what types of images, and why it is often good not to apply the same amount of sharpening to an entire image.

http://www.pixelgenius.com/downloads/Sharpener-Manual-200.pdf

Jeff Schewe also wrote this piece:

http://www.pixelgenius.com/tips/schewe-sharpening.pdf

And this book on sharpening:

http://www.peachpit.com/store/real-world-image-sharpening-with-adobe-photoshop-camera-9780321637550

If you are not familiar with who Jeff Schewe is, he is one of the people involved in the development and testing of Photoshop, as well as a commercial photographer, master printer, author of several books and tutorials, etc.

http://www.schewephoto.com/resume.html

photonutt1970

as long as the eyes are in focus