swartfort Loc: Evansville, IN

Always trying new things that I read and see from different sources. I went to the local FWA at 2 hours before sunset, I found a promising location and waited. At 1 hour 15 minutes before sunset this GBH flies into the top of a tree about 80 yards away across a small pond (I cannot move closer)

The light is the perfect golden hour. My plan is to shoot Manual, I have the sun at my back (golden hour), wind to my face (he will probably fly towards me) I plan on ETTR, so I have my exposure compensation set at +0.7 because I have a darker subject against a really bright background. I am plan on getting a bit of a deeper DOF so I plan to shoot at f9. I know I will have to crop the image because the subject is just out of my comfortable range, so I will select a slower shutter speed to keep my ISO low. The bird is semi cooperative as he sits still as I shoot.

Results: Mediocre at best. (probably closer to poor)

After my disappointment at the results, I now just have to chuckle as I try to recover anything of value from PP. The value I get is that I need to figure it out, go back, and try some other variables to capture better results next time.

FYI, I was so stoked that the GBH flew into that tree, He was going to have to exit/fly out in perfect light, into the wind (toward me), and I was all set to capture him. Go figure, he was roosted for the night. He stayed in that tree until the sun went down.

It all gives me so much respect for those who are able to catch wildlife images that are crisp, well lit, composed, and aesthetically pleasing. To those who can, you amaze me. I'll keep trying!!!
.
.

Flying into the tree

(Download)

Getting comfortable

(Download)

Roosted for the night

(Download)

CO

Part of it is that you had to crop heavily. Your D3400 has 6000x4000 pixels. Photo #1 is down to 1602x1794 pixels, #2 is 899x1525 pixels, and #3 is 670x1106 pixels. You had a fast shutter speed for photos #1 (1/800 sec.), and photo #2 (1/2000 sec.). The shutter speed for photo #3 (1/250 sec.) is too slow. You can see that it suffers from camera shake. For static subjects, make sure VR is on. I see that the focal length was 300mm for most shots. Was that the Nikon 18-300mm zoom? A longer focal length is needed. Look into getting their 80-400mm AF-S or 200-500mm AF-S lens.

swartfort Loc: Evansville, IN

Correct on all counts.... 1/250 on the third shot was trying to get ISO low. Bad theory, bad practice, bad results, BUT a great time and inspiration to get better and get that longer lens I have G.A.S. for!!

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

What kind of support are you using ?? Hand held ?? Which 70-300 lens are you using ??

..

swartfort Loc: Evansville, IN

D3400, AF-S 70-300 4.5-5.6 ED G

Handheld

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Especially @300mm and above, I highly recommend support/mechanical stabilization of some kind. I think your thinking is very good otherwise. Getting closer and/or longer/better lens is the ultimate solution then.

..

swartfort Loc: Evansville, IN

In looking at more images, I found that I did alter thru manual manipulation (and auto ISO) some of the settings during the shoot. I found several that are "better", but I believe the overriding issue here is that I am just asking too much of a 70-300 lens on a asp-c sensor camera. I think I just am cropping too much for the image captured.
.
.

f 7.1, 1/1600, ISO 900, +0.7, 270mm

(Download)

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Steve, for this image, do you recall why you selected 1/1600 for a relatively static subject? Do you recall why you set the exposure compensation at +0.7? Your original comment seems to say you predetermined a positive EC value rather than basing the + / - value based on the specific situation(s) you encountered and the data reflected in the histogram of test images captured onsite. And finally, did you capture the images in RAW and what toolset did you use in the processing, regardless of image format?

Hopefully, this experience will not sour your desire, but instead, will fuel your desire to analyze the technical details of your images and determine potential corrective actions to take back to the field and try again. None of us are successful the first time and challenging low-light / evening situations make 1st-time success even less likely. I hate to fuel gear lust, and even though I respect the Nikon 70-300 VR lenses, 300mm is too short for the distance-to-subject situations you encountered in these images.

And even when saying 300 is "short", this Heron image should help to build that desire to get back out with your current equipment and adjustments in your technique. I'd have to see the original and see how extensive is the crop and how detailed was the original prior to any processing. Your focal length was less than the maximum, so you could have zoomed to the max. Shooting so fast at a static subject (1/1600) in this light, I see in the image and the EXIF data opportunities to both close the aperture to say f/8 @ 300mm as well as lowering the ISO and shooting slower, all with a goal of capturing both sharper image details with an overall brighter exposure.

swartfort Loc: Evansville, IN

Ok... So a couple of things:
1) I am fueled to learn and do better. While I was disappointed, I did get a chuckle out of the images and know that better can be had. So no, not frustrated, more eager to learn.

2). In the image shot at 1/1600: I was sitting on the bank (a bit too far away) and watching the GBH preening and moving around the tree. I KNEW that if he took flight in any direction except directly away from me I was going to have BIF!!! And with the wider wing span, and flying closer to me, I was not going to be "short" on focal length as he approached. SO, as the bird appeared to be ready for flight, I adjusted my shutter speed accordingly from a subject that was static to one that was going to have movement. Unfortunately, the GBH had other plans and was just shifting his position to preen some more.
3) THIS IS A LESSON LEARNED. I did not use data reflected on a histogram on any test shots. I was silly enough to think that I KNEW that a backlit, darker subject would require some exposure compensation. I was biased toward ETTR and in my enthusiasm did not do any test shots. That mistake will not happen again!
4) I did not capture these images in RAW. I do not have the PP power in my computers to efficiently/effectively store and/or process raw at this point. These images were captured JPEG fine and edited in a very simply Google Pics program. (at this point it is all I have to work with)

If you wish, I will post a SOOC image out of the series. But I am sure that you will agree with me... between the over exposure and the subject being just too far away for my kit... these images are doomed for the pixel dump, but the lessons learned are invaluable.

Thank you so much for taking the time to care and respond. I really appreciate your input as well as the work that you post.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

No worries and the background helps a lot to get into your shoes and your considerations of the situation. Have a look at the file size of the SOOC jpeg. If less than 20MB, please post as an attachment. Of too large, I sent a PM for your email to set-up a share on dropbox. I'm sure I'm not alone in saying it takes hundreds if not thousands of images of various wildlife to get a few really good keepers, and more importantly, to develop an anticipation for an animal's next movement and to have the camera configured what for that next action will be. And even being perfectly prepared, we still have to execute successfully when the animal makes the move we anticipated.

swartfort Loc: Evansville, IN

I will post the original SOOC followed by my edited/cropped version
..

SOOC

(Download)

Edited and cropped

(Download)

CO

Which 70-300mm lens do you have? I have the Nikon 70-300mm AF-S lens. Its image resolution drops significantly when zoomed to 300mm. LensTip.com does extensive lens testing. I downloaded the image resolution chart from their testing. The AF-P version has similar characteristics.

Nikon 70-300mm AF-S lens center resolution tested on a 10MP D200


Nikon 70-300mm AF-P lens center resolution tested on a 21MP D500

(Download)

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

IMO the OP did everything correctly ! - and should stop feeling guilty of doing something wrong ! - his biggest downfalls are distance to subject, his equipment, not using support of some kind, and lack of optimum PP !

The 70-300 AF P lens is MUCH better than what he has !

..

swartfort Loc: Evansville, IN

Your words are very kind. IMO I'm not so much worried about right or wrong, but rather on getting the best results I can as a photographer. I just don't think I correctly shot the best possible for the variables I had. I took a peek at your work, and it is amazing. I really appreciate the kind words and encouragement.

When I purchased the AF-S version of this lens, I thought I did my research and the AF-S was the superior lens. Once again, live and learn.

Thank you for your kindness

Steve

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Steve, a quick view of your photostream in Flickr shows many excellent examples of images from this lens and body. The issue is really not the model of lens, but rather, the distance to the subject of these examples and the limited opportunities to crop into the details to harvest detailed, close-in images. Possibly, a tripod and slower shutter / lower ISO would yield more details for subsequent cropping. But, getting closer either by being closer or utilizing a longer focal length are the more effective options vs swapping between 70-300 zoom lenses.