Is This Focus Any Better Than My Blurry Images in the Past? I read where the depth of field of clarity is ideally 1/3 in front of the focal point and 2/3 to the rear of the focal...

Shooter41 Loc: Wichita, KS

I read where the depth of field of clarity is ideally 1/3 in front of the focal point and 2/3 to the rear of the focal point. In the attached image of a Starling looking away into the distance, does it look to the excellent photographers on UHH as if the focal point is right on the Starling and 1/3 the clarity is in front of the bird and 2/3s behind the bird? I am attempting to improve my ability to focus right on my subject. My hope is that you enjoy my image and I thank you for your thoughts in advance.

(Download)

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

The focus on the bird's back looks fine.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Looks pretty good.
--Bob

Shooter41 wrote:

I read where the depth of field of clarity is idea... (show quote)

bthomas42 Loc: North Ridgeville Ohio

Try to focus on the birds eye

John from gpwmi Loc: Michigan

I've only heard the ⅓ general rule used when discussing landscape photography. I'm sure it can be used in other photo situations, but I don't believe it's a general rule for all photography. Animal and people photography generally says to focus on the eye, regardless of where it is front to back. However, in your photo the bird is angled away from you, so getting a focus on the feather detail seems appropriate in my opinion, regardless of the ⅓ rule.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The focus and colors are great. Ideally, the bird is facing toward the camera, but this is a pleasing view.

What I'm concerned about is the "mosquito noise" in the image. The EXIF reports ISO-250 and PhotoShop Express 10, something I'm not familiar with. When you look at the original unprocessed image at the 1:1 details, are the small horizontal and vertical specs present in the image? Or, are they being added in the processing? When I look at Flickr for examples from the camera, I don't see this same level of noise at similar ISO levels.

Shooter41 Loc: Wichita, KS

CHG_CANON wrote:

The focus and colors are great. Ideally, the bird ... (show quote)

Paul...I had no idea that I even have a EXIF report or "mosquito noise." PhotoShop Express is a soft ware program that I stumbled across that clarifies and sharpens my Photoshop images much better than my old Photoshop CS4 software. After I get my images as complete as I can in CS4, I take them over to PhotoShop Express and balance the highlights and shadows and clarify and sharpen them for a final touch. I am sending you one of several original images of the Starling turned away from the camera; then an image after I edited with Photoshop CS4; and lastly the finished image I posted full of "mosquito noise" so that you can tell if I am introducing noise by using PhotoShop Express to balance, sharpen and clarify. If so, how do I balance, sharpen and clarify without adding "mosquito noise?"
Thank you for your help.
Shooter41

(Download)

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Thank you Don for the three versions. Here's a analysis of the images looking at the details. If you launch the attachments (or download) and click to the 1:1 details (aka 100% zoom), you should see the "mosquito noise" increasing.

When you say the image started as RAW, what tool are you using to bring the image into CS4 which doesn't directly support the Sony RX10M4?

The brightening was modest, but it does seem you could have used a slower shutter for the same aperture and ISO to get a brighter exposure. You also might test whether the camera using a higher ISO or a different RAW converter can brighten the image without introducing noise.

(Download)

WDCash Loc: Milford, Delaware, USA

Shooter41 wrote:

I read where the depth of field of clarity is idea... (show quote)

It looks to me like you nailed the focus on the Starlings shoulder.
What f stop were you shooting at?
I have been told that most lenses are at their sharpest 1 stop down from wide open. In the case of my Sigma wide open is 4 at 120mm and 5.6 at 400. I find my sharpest photos at f8 or f9.

WDCash Loc: Milford, Delaware, USA

John from gpwmi wrote:

I've only heard the ⅓ general rule used when discussing landscape photography. I'm sure it can be used in other photo situations, but I don't believe it's a general rule for all photography. Animal and people photography generally says to focus on the eye, regardless of where it is front to back. However, in your photo the bird is angled away from you, so getting a focus on the feather detail seems appropriate in my opinion, regardless of the ⅓ rule.

WDCash Loc: Milford, Delaware, USA

CHG_CANON wrote:

Thank you Don for the three versions. Here's a ana... (show quote)

Don,
This image is much sharper then the bird you shared last month. What ever you did or are doing its a big improvement.
As Paul is suggesting your processing may be introducing some new wrinkles. Paul is a great tutor.
I'm not going to attempt any further suggestions because "too many cooks spoil the soup"

With the exception of saying
Many of the photographers here shoot alot of pictures, many many photographs,, of those they edit some, and of those edit they normally share far less still.

Please don't compare your photographs "against" other photographers work. It will just frustrate you.
Instead look at photos you admire as a place you are headed, what you will accomplish if you work at it.
If it was easy it wouldn't be half as much fun.

Shooter41 Loc: Wichita, KS

Shooter41 wrote:

Paul...I had no idea that I even have a EXIF repor... (show quote)

I used "Paint" to convert RAW image to JPEG.

Shooter41 Loc: Wichita, KS

CHG_CANON wrote:

Thank you Don for the three versions. Here's a ana... (show quote)

I also opened up the details on the starlings face away from the sunlight using the "dodge tool" in Photoshop CS4, which might account for the lightening under the Starlings chin rather than Adobe PhotoShop Express?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Shooter41 wrote:

I used "Paint" to convert RAW image to JPEG.

You should download the free DNG converter from Adobe and run a batch process turning the RAW into a DNG, being sure to set the Camera RAW version to 5.4, see (a) the download link in the URL below and (b) the workflow explanation as you scroll down below the download link:

https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/adobe-dng-converter.html

You need to confirm too the ARC (Adobe Camera Raw) version installed for your CS4. If it doesn't report at least ACR v5.4, you may have no way to find and install that ancient update.

If you ignore the Canon terminology and just follow the workflow, here's a short 3-page write up of using the DNG in ACR5:

https://www.jkost.com/pdf/photoshop/cs4/CR5.pdf

Shooter41 Loc: Wichita, KS

CHG_CANON wrote:

Thank you Don for the three versions. Here's a ana... (show quote)

Another work-around that I have used in the past, is when I notice I got outside the border of the bird, just use the "Clone Stamp Tool" to remove the bright spot outside the birds border back to a nice sharp edge. To be honest, I didn't even notice the brightness outside the bird, or I would have fixed it before showing the image. So this brings up a point. In post editing, do we always remove the "mosquito noise" from every image or only on images that are going to be used in a publication or sold to a client?