DrPhrogg Loc: NJ

I have done wildlife rehabilitation, including transport of owls and hawks. The feathers on the body are exceptionally soft to reduce noise during flight. The other animal I found to be oddly soft are bats.

Kaib795 Loc: Maryland, USA

Your camera probably got the shot accurately but this appears to be a poorly saved jpg at below 50% on save. Look closely at the attached enlargement. The effect of a low quality jpg is to average pixels so they are considered a group. This can be seen in the feathers, in the highlights that in the center have a distinct 100% white bubble and the birds right wing is blown too. This is either from in post opening up the shot and blowing the highlights then on the save going to a low grade jpg you're getting banding and artifacts in the image. The artifacts are the dirt specs and small black bars in the highlight edge areas.

I have a D7500 and it takes pictures just fine. I'm not a bird shooter though. For the heck of it confirm your save settings are at the highest quality, you might have had the camera set for basic jpg and this is what it would give you. I shoot in RAW but if you don't try jpg Fine setting. Now if your software has trouble controlling the highlights, try using the in camera feature: D-lighting. You can use it on pictures after you shoot so get the shot then after looking over the shot apply D-lighting to see into the shadows. It's there for those who don't do post work.

(Download)

swartfort Loc: Evansville, IN

Thank you so much for your thoughtful answer and helpful hints!! I have confirmed my settings to "jpeg fine", and I suspect at least PART of my issue is pp program that is antiquated at best, and obsolete in all probability. I do not currently have computing power to efficiently pp raw images. I am sure when that happens, I will have better success at salvaging what the D7500 captures.
I have already reformatted the card, so i cannot try the "D lighting" technique on these images, but I will definitely try that moving forward.

I am always torn on using my limited budget for faster/better glass or better pp hardware/software. Always a balance act for me, and I am sure many others also.

Thanks again. I really appreciate the time and effort you put into helping me

Reconvic Loc: clermont Fl

Outstanding critique of swartfort's images that we all can learn from Kalib. It's pros like you that keep me on this blog.

Kaib795 Loc: Maryland, USA

Thank you for your kind words.

In the end I think this is only that the camera might have been set on jpg basic and that's what you get. If it was a dark shot and opened up a bit in post work you blow out the highlights. The camera and lens should be fine. All about double checking quality settings and being careful about your post editing. Most software allow you to turn on their own exposure flags (so blown highlights turn red, blown shadows turn blue) so you never over compensate your adjustments (but understand it's okay to blow highlights on say night shots with lamp posts emitting their light).

Shot #1 = In Luminar to illustrate exposure flagging. Easy to see blown areas (I've bumped them up)
Shot #2 = Enlarged 200% to show artifacts, those dark specs and swirly image junk like looking in a microscope at bacteria. This should look smooth

As for viewing your work in post for sharpness, stick with 100% to see if your work is sharp. Any view over that will pixelate the image and everything will look off. I illustrated at 200% only so you can see what's happening easier.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Like your avatar - but aren't you supposed to take BOTH feet off the ground?

Kaib795 Loc: Maryland, USA

Okay, most shots if saved at 300 ppi when downsized to 72 ppi for your screen resolution will look blurry in the small thumbnail view. So some thumbnails look soft. The issue here was blinkies not showing on camera after taking the shot. Anyhow, to see the capture at it's best you need to download to see it better and if it allows do enlarge it to 100% so you can see how sharp the image is. In a thumbnail view it looks very good and certainly the composition is fine but if you download it and look closer you see artifacts in the image that shouldn't be there. The camera and lens are doing fine it's just the camera settings and post work that have gone awry. So look closer if you can at the images and see if the shot is really sharp.

I would like to say "Hats Off" to the fellow asking for help.

He will find his answers and move on to make great pictures and otherwise would be taking a years worth of captures to only one day look close and discover the problem. We all need to look closer and delete all the sub shots that don't make the cut. Soon all your shots are very, very good because you are the hard assk making good decisions and striving to become a better photographer.

Sam9987

Kailib,
Thank you so very much for all the information above (both comments). My experience with the new cameras, jpg and software are very limited at this point. My prior camera was an argus c3 (a while back) and nothing until recently. I know that you have helped many of us with these wonderful comments, not just me. Much appreciated.

Kaib795 Loc: Maryland, USA

You are very welcome.

Just trying to keep budding users on the positive side with less specifics and more practical information. No bad comments will be provided by me. You are from a film background and in for a surprise with all that can be done digitally and all the shots are free of your taking. But you must decide if you want to work on a computer to edit your files or simply shoot like the film days and do "only in camera edits". I would start with jpg's and if you like editing done on a computer, go to RAW files where you are not limited by what can be done. But if not and computing isn't for you that's okay too. Just shoot as in film, learn your camera features and enjoy. The leap into the computing side of editing will be much easier if you have a photography buddy that lives nearby to learn from. It's not hard but is another world to experience and learn that seems endless but really isn't.