Birds in Flight - Help Appreciated
Dec 21, 2012 10:43:33 #
Hello, all -- I've just begun trying to learn BIF photography and need some thoughts from those more experienced. My shot are OK, but not tack sharp, as the attached picture will show. I'm not sure exactly why and I need your feedback.
This was taken with my D7000 at 1/800th, f13, ISO 400 using a Nikon 18-200 tele zoomed fully. I had focus set for AF-C and I was panning as the geese came off the lake.
Feedback, comments and instruction would be welcomed.
This was taken with my D7000 at 1/800th, f13, ISO 400 using a Nikon 18-200 tele zoomed fully. I had focus set for AF-C and I was panning as the geese came off the lake.
Feedback, comments and instruction would be welcomed.
Geese off the Lake
Dec 21, 2012 10:45:02 #
Dec 21, 2012 10:47:02 #
MT Shooter wrote:
Posting a sample of the image would really help.
Sorry - the site rejected my .psd, which I though I could post - I'll convert it to .jpg.
Dec 21, 2012 14:01:26 #
Give this look over.
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-73050-1.html
http://photonaturalist.net/how-to-photograph-birds-in-bad-light/
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-73050-1.html
http://photonaturalist.net/how-to-photograph-birds-in-bad-light/
Dec 21, 2012 14:21:36 #
dirtpusher wrote:
Both were very helpful, especially the first one. Thanks.
Dec 21, 2012 17:18:00 #
Thats probably about as sharp as your going to get out of that lens. I would lower my aperture to f8 or lower. You don't need that much depth of field shooting at distance. 1/800 is good for your shutter but buy lowering your aperture(number) you could lower your ISO to 200.
These image appear pretty sharp considering what lens your using.
The recommendation only applies to the image you shot not in general. With different light everything changes.
These image appear pretty sharp considering what lens your using.
The recommendation only applies to the image you shot not in general. With different light everything changes.
Dec 21, 2012 17:33:05 #
I have to agree with PalePictures for the most part, I like F8 to F11 for BOF pics, looks like a clear sky so ISO200 may have been adequate.
What I am seeing though, with the patterning in the sky, is reminiscent of using a UV filter. Did you have a filter on the lens? I have never used DX lenses mysolf, and have always been a strong advocate against their use, so maybe the lens just isn't up to the task, but overall its not a bad shot. I see you shot it in shutter priority so your main goal had to be the stopping of wing motion and the camera selected the F13, not you. Also, I usually suggest that people do not use their zooms hard up against the long end, backing the lens off to 180 or 190mm will sometimes result in an increase in sharpness for that lens, its all something that everyone needs to experiment with as all lenses are a bit different.
Good luck.
What I am seeing though, with the patterning in the sky, is reminiscent of using a UV filter. Did you have a filter on the lens? I have never used DX lenses mysolf, and have always been a strong advocate against their use, so maybe the lens just isn't up to the task, but overall its not a bad shot. I see you shot it in shutter priority so your main goal had to be the stopping of wing motion and the camera selected the F13, not you. Also, I usually suggest that people do not use their zooms hard up against the long end, backing the lens off to 180 or 190mm will sometimes result in an increase in sharpness for that lens, its all something that everyone needs to experiment with as all lenses are a bit different.
Good luck.
Dec 21, 2012 18:59:34 #
Jtceec wrote:
Hello, all -- I've just begun trying to learn BIF photography and need some thoughts from those more experienced. My shot are OK, but not tack sharp, as the attached picture will show. I'm not sure exactly why and I need your feedback.
This was taken with my D7000 at 1/800th, f13, ISO 400 using a Nikon 18-200 tele zoomed fully. I had focus set for AF-C and I was panning as the geese came off the lake.
Feedback, comments and instruction would be welcomed.
This was taken with my D7000 at 1/800th, f13, ISO 400 using a Nikon 18-200 tele zoomed fully. I had focus set for AF-C and I was panning as the geese came off the lake.
Feedback, comments and instruction would be welcomed.
As with duck hunting don't try to shoot at the flock...you won't get any.
I set mine to spot focus and set the camera to focus priority and use continuous shooting. Then dpress the shutter as you pan and the camera will shoot when it can focus on a bird.
I try to use 1/1000 if light allows without too high an ISO...ISO 500 is fine with D7000.
Didn't know this was a wood duck till editing...
Dec 21, 2012 23:10:19 #
Welcome to the bif addiction..... that's some very good advice from some folks that know their stuff.I love bif but I'm not worth a crap but here are a couple of things that i have learned about birding photos.
1. you can never have enough reach.....a birder could mount the huble telescope on a 50,000 MP/ full frame 10,000 fps lieca camera...and still have have some nits (photo speak for negative)
2. You will never get the perfect photo...but it's fun getting sunburned and frost bit trying.
3. your butt is in trouble...there is no twelve step program for bif addiction.
4. have fun and keep on shooting ( i've been photographing bifs for four years.......... and those natty geo snobs haven't called yet)
5. Merry Christmas and don't get discouraged. (sp)
1. you can never have enough reach.....a birder could mount the huble telescope on a 50,000 MP/ full frame 10,000 fps lieca camera...and still have have some nits (photo speak for negative)
2. You will never get the perfect photo...but it's fun getting sunburned and frost bit trying.
3. your butt is in trouble...there is no twelve step program for bif addiction.
4. have fun and keep on shooting ( i've been photographing bifs for four years.......... and those natty geo snobs haven't called yet)
5. Merry Christmas and don't get discouraged. (sp)
Dec 22, 2012 05:48:26 #
JTCeec, I would test the lens for sharpness. Put it on a tripod and shoot something that has sharp lines such as a building. I presume that is a kit lens and you should not expect a lot out of it other than the great convenience of 18-200 mm. Borrow a high grade lens for comparison if you can.
Your shutter speed should be fast enough and you may even be able to go down one or two stops on it. If possible, I would go down to ISO 100.
Consider how steady you are holding the camera.
Finally, I would not judge sharpness by a computer monitor. Print a few and you may be surprised by how sharp your pictures really are. I would apply a little sharpness to the pictures, especially if you are shooting raw.
Your shutter speed should be fast enough and you may even be able to go down one or two stops on it. If possible, I would go down to ISO 100.
Consider how steady you are holding the camera.
Finally, I would not judge sharpness by a computer monitor. Print a few and you may be surprised by how sharp your pictures really are. I would apply a little sharpness to the pictures, especially if you are shooting raw.
Dec 22, 2012 06:03:49 #
Birds in flight are a unique subject... should they be frozen, or should the wings have blur, indicating their motion? A tack sharp body and blurred wings often is more lyrical than the clinical high shutter speed frozen birds falling out of the sky. Were I shooting flying ducks, I would use a good fluid head tripod, a 600/4 at f/4, and 1/30th second shutter speed, with a bunch of ND at ISO 100. I would go for lots of wing motion and a tack sharp head. I used to shoot the 24 Hours at Daytona at 1/8th second (in the infield section) to spectacular effect. The trick is a GOOD fluid head, and as to cheaper ones, ONLY Gitzo makes anything affordable which feathers properly, which is of absolute importance. Forget Manfrotto, as they cannot even make a proper tripod (coffee nerves) and their fluid heads are awful. I made the Manfrotto mistake, ONCE. In the modern age most things tripod have turned dilettante.
As to the 18-200, it is a lens of limited maximum sharpness. As with all lenses, you do NOT want to stop way down, which in itself, for technical reasons, ALSO defeats sharpness. 2-3 stops from wide open is about all that is really useable in terms of getting max performance from a lens.
That said, digital ANYTHING has limited max focus without post processing. Now, THAT said, there's a lot of choices in this regard. I see a lot of people overusing, and not knowing how to use, UNSHARP MASK, which is very popular for fixing digital things. However, there are stand-alone products which are much better at getting the detail out of the digital muddle. Coming from a history which included a top flight commercial darkroom, I have always wondered, in this digital age, where tack sharp went.
One of the tools I find pretty acceptable in wringing some sharpness out of the softness of digital is Akvis Refocus. As a Photoshop user, you will find its cost trivial, but its capabilities pleasing next to the often icky unsharp mask, as well as most other "sharpening" oddities.
Oh, and I have been published by National Geographic (shooting digital.)
HAPPY HOLIDAYS!
As to the 18-200, it is a lens of limited maximum sharpness. As with all lenses, you do NOT want to stop way down, which in itself, for technical reasons, ALSO defeats sharpness. 2-3 stops from wide open is about all that is really useable in terms of getting max performance from a lens.
That said, digital ANYTHING has limited max focus without post processing. Now, THAT said, there's a lot of choices in this regard. I see a lot of people overusing, and not knowing how to use, UNSHARP MASK, which is very popular for fixing digital things. However, there are stand-alone products which are much better at getting the detail out of the digital muddle. Coming from a history which included a top flight commercial darkroom, I have always wondered, in this digital age, where tack sharp went.
One of the tools I find pretty acceptable in wringing some sharpness out of the softness of digital is Akvis Refocus. As a Photoshop user, you will find its cost trivial, but its capabilities pleasing next to the often icky unsharp mask, as well as most other "sharpening" oddities.
Oh, and I have been published by National Geographic (shooting digital.)
HAPPY HOLIDAYS!
Dec 22, 2012 06:39:06 #
vooda
Loc: Bribie Island,QLD,Australia
My two cents worth....... I always use a monopod with my canon eos 5d mk3 when I have the 100/400 mm lens on..I also find I get good results at 1/2000.. Use manual settings, auto iso, and stick around f8 to f16.. hope this helps ....
Up, Up and Away
Dec 22, 2012 07:07:15 #
You are in for the flight of your life as you are probably hooked by now. BIFs are addicting to say the least and so much fun. the main thing to consider is practice, practice, practice. You will get better and better no matter what equipment you have you will want more and bigger and longer and faster. I don't know about the lens or camera you are using but the advice you have gotten so far is all good. Everybody develops their own way of shooting so take hints from wherever you can and try them. I know a wonderful BIF photographer who uses big lenses and no tripod. His photos are incredible. Check his website out www.wildwingsphotography.com, enjoy
Dec 22, 2012 07:25:00 #
vooda
Loc: Bribie Island,QLD,Australia
Gary Truchelut wrote:
You are in for the flight of your life as you are ... (show quote)
Your so right Gary... It is like a lovely disease which creeps up on you and it seems to take over... Well it has with me..
Dec 22, 2012 07:28:37 #
Wow, you're in a great place for BIF pics. Would like to visit someday.
vooda wrote:
quote=Gary Truchelut You are in for the flight of... (show quote)
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.