I took over a dozen photos of this bird, and almost all were “3/4” - then the bird looked at me, and of course I kept shooting. By the time I might have adjusted the camera differently, the bird moved. To my mind, shoot first, then correct with better settings. Get something “in the bag” before trying to improve. Obviously the beak is way out of focus - I didn’t realize that at the time, sure do understand now.
I’m not sure where your photos came from - did you look at the one from after using Topaz? The image you posted does not look like this:
I made many mistakes that day, and as the day went on, I was correcting things I didn’t think were right. Yes, the final image I used could have been better, had I realized how little DoF I had, but for better or worse, I love it anyway.
Curious, if the DoF issue was corrected, why not shoot the bird head-on??? To me, it’s the most interesting photo I took of this bird all day. I didn’t realize I was “breaking the rules”, nor had I ever heard of this rule, but breaking rules isn’t a bad idea, especially as I had over a dozen photos taken “normally”. My “rule” - try to focus on the eyes. If possible. Back to the real world, I would gladly hang the Topaz version on my wall, if I had a good color printer.
I don’t want to keep posting different images here in the forum, but this one stood out to me. I’m tempted to post one of an alligator with dragon fly.
Better still, start with better settings. Why so restrictive with the DoF? Do you not use a DoF calculator?
It took me 30 seconds to find that the DoF with a 300mm focal length at f/5.6 at a distance of 30ft, is only 7", which is barely enough. Whereas, at f/10, you would have had 10", etc.
Here too, one size doesn’fit all. Depending on who is your audience, the same image can be made different…unless you are sure that your interpretation is absolutely the only one valid.
But again, being able to do “as well as” seems to be more promising than “either or”.
I don’t understand why you continue to insist on this partially blurred image. It is NOT nice.
Yes, you kept shooting and I would have done the same but deleted those pictures instead of posting them. Don’t keep trash/bad examples.
Even the Topaz edition “didn’t save your butt.” Just like the much-discussed pelican image, the little bird’s resolution isn’t high enough and the sharpening looks terrible. Not long ago you promised not to publish such excerpts anymore, and you still do.
You have to accept these limitations and it has nothing to do with “defeat” – to quote someone.
I started with much worse settings, and slowly adjusted things until most things were working. I wish my brain understood, and could remember, all your advice, but you, and a few other people here, are far beyond my capabilities. But, I can learn “for next time”. There certainly will be a “next time”.
I need to install a DoF calculator, or maybe based on your advice, I’ve already done so. I was struggling to get good, sharp, exposures, and I was using shutter priority mode for a while, with the shutter set to 1/2500th. ISO was pretty high, but based on what I’ve learned from you, ISO 1250 is much less than what I can safely use on the D780. Bumping it up two stops (to ISO 5000 or so) would have allowed me to change the aperture by two stops, from f/5.6 to f/11. So yes, knowing what I do now, I could use those settings, and maybe the top beak might have appeared sharper. Unfortunately, it’s me doing this, not you, and by the time I worked all this out, the image would have been lost.
But yes, if the lighting is similar next time, ISO 5,000 and f/8 and 1/2500th might work better.
(I don’t know if I really need that high a shutter speed, as the bird wasn’t moving much, if at all.)
What took you 30 seconds would have probably taken me 3 minutes or more - but never having used one, maybe I’m wrong. There are several in the App Store - which one do you prefer? Also, I want the plants behind the bird to be out of focus, as what my captured image shows.
Well, I took way more than a dozen images of different poses from this same bird, and all but the “head-on” don’t suffer from any lack of depth of field. My audience? Family, friends, and the bird watching forum I joined. My interpretation is MY favorite, even with a blurry upper beak. Maybe we can drop this, and I’ll post a different “normal” image I captured.
One more thing - people here are a much better audience than people in the forums. Photos that have so many flaws here, in this forum, are far, FAR better than the images I find in the bird forums. But my goal in getting better, is here, not the forums.
That all depends on the purpose for the image. To be sent to family and friends, and posted on the bird watching forums, everyone seems to think it is amazing. OK, let’s forget that image.
Here’s another image, hardly any editing, ISO 1250, f/8, 300mm zoom, and 1/1000th shutter. I ought to do more editing, but not tonight. This should pass your requirements, and I also like this image, but I don’t think it is anything “special”. It does meet your technical requirements. I’ve got lots more photos that “fill the screen” the same way, no cropping required.
I think it’s a “black stork”, but I need to find out for sure.
With the new lens I just bought, I hope I can take photos that pass your requirements, filling much more of my screen, but leaving room for the surroundings. But for small birds, I probably need a 2,000mm lens, which I can neither afford, nor carry. …if my goal is photos for email and web sites, not huge prints, that is something to take into account. If I wanted to make a large print, things would be very different.
Yuck, I’m not “sure” of anything any more, but I’ve learned to separate images for this forum from images for the bird forums.
Here, the goal is create beautiful, awesome, and interesting photos, with the photo being the end result.
In the bird forums they just seem to want to show birds, image beauty is secondary. I plan to ignore most of those posts, and try to learn from the photographers here: https://expertphotography.com/bird-photographers/
…almost all of whom seem to create beautiful and interesting images.
There is also one fellow with a YouTube account, with a series of videos explaining how to capture good images of birds with a Nikon D780. I’ve been watching his videos for a while now.
Oh, I need to emphasize - I am no longer absolutely sure of anything.
But I do follow most of the advice given to me in this forum, for creating wonderful photos.
I also take other photos, for various reasons - but this forum, and PhotoLab is the best place I have ever found to get good, solid, advice - along with explanations. At Wakotahatchee Wetlands, I would love to get a photo of each type of bird that can be found there, but some species are so difficult to get any photos of, let alone beautiful photos.
Even if I act like a total dork, doing “silly” things sometimes, I need to remember in the future to not post those images here regardless of how I feel about them.
I hope images like this will satisfy both people here, and the people in the bird forums, and ME:
If you feel like you need/want to edit something, why post it before you do it? Or are you waiting for someone to do the work for you?
When you take so many pictures, you have to sort them and decide which ones you want to edit (first). After re-browsing, focus on the promising ones and leave the rest if you still can’t bring yourself to delete them (and clear your head).
To reiterate: Just like the much discussed pelican image, the resolution of the little bird is not high enough and your sharpening looks “overcooked” – simple as that.
What!!! I’m sorry but you are simply not thinking about what you want to get images of, apart from a bird, any bird, doing nothing in particular, that might or might not fill the frame and that might or might not be well exposed or focused.
@mikemyers - I have to agree with Wolfgang’s post and it reminded me that I have a series that I took at the Martin Mere Wetland Centre in Lancashire. Looking back, I took around 250 shots, mainly because I was trying to get the framing, focus, etc right in the camera.
Well, I have finally gotten around to culling all the photos the world should never see and that left me with 106. Of which, I wanted to show you one, which proves the rule that, no matter how long the lens, it can never be long enough for some subjects. This is the full frame version that was taken with my 80-400mm lens at 400mm, 1/2000sec @ f/5.6, ISO 400…
What I obviously needed was, at least, twice the focal length, but I was hoping that the birds were big enough in the frame. Although I’m still not totally convinced that the rear end of two birds disappearing really makes an interesting picture, apart from their imitation of a biplane. Finally, having now got Topaz in my toolbox, I managed to get this at 2x magnification and a bit of sharpening on just the birds…
Not too shabby for a Nikon D100 The key was to use a long enough lens so that the bird filled the frame. Here, it’s the 80-400mm at 300mm.
Well, you could have fooled me. That is a narrative that only you can know, but that the image certainly doesn’t convey. It’s just a bird with its leg in the air.
Stenis
(Sten-Åke Sändh (Sony, Win 11, PL 6, CO 16, PM Plus 6, XnView))
713
@joanna
Sometimes an export with Bicubic Sharpen can do it but the problem is that it’s absolutely useless when there av trees with leaves or other greenery with finer textures because these tends to look awful with a lot of white noise. I don´t know why that still is a problem after all years. Have you or anyone else tested the new version XD2? that they promote now with PureRaw?
Stenis
(Sten-Åke Sändh (Sony, Win 11, PL 6, CO 16, PM Plus 6, XnView))
714
I had the brother lens Sigma 150-500mm also with OS stabilisation for Minolta A-mount. I sold it a few years ago when I bought my new Tamron 150-500mm. It was very obvious 10+ years had passed between these lenses. That Sigma had hard to focus in poor light at 500mm. It was much slower. Not really sharp fully open or at the long end. One my A7 III and IV with adapter it cannot coexist with the IBIS in the camera houses. Either you have to choose IBIS or Sigma OS. If both were on the images got unsharp since they disturb each other. The Tamron lens also is much more compact and easy to get into my camera bag or back pack. These Sigmas are also pretty heavy. The bokeh was pretty coarse too but it has given me quite a few animal pictures from several safaris I have been through and it was still price worthy I think if you don´t have a lot more to spend.
Stenis
(Sten-Åke Sändh (Sony, Win 11, PL 6, CO 16, PM Plus 6, XnView))
715
I have had two system DSLR-cameras with CCD-sensors and heard the same words said about both KonicaMinolta D7D (6 MP) and Sony A350 (14,2 MP) especially compared to some later CMOS DSLR-cameras like A550 or A580. In fact, there has in the Sony-world even been a perception that there is something like a unique Minolta-flavour of colors. I also read once a Dutch Nikon guy who were almost lyric about how much better his new Sony A350 was in that respect than I think it was his D300 was. He bought the Sony because the D300 was in for a repair and that he wanted to be able to save in 16:9 aspect ratio.
One explanation of the “Minolta”-colors effect might have been the old Minolta-lenses in the AF gen. 1 that gave comparatively quite more saturated colors than the Nikon-lenses did. I have myself used even Konica AR-lenses and they too has a character that is more blueish. My old Pentax SMC-lenses on the other hand tends to give more earth-colored colors. Personally I like the Pentax-colors the best.
I prefer CMOS every day. Even Leica abandoned the CCD-tech because it had because of its severe technical limitations. The worst problem with the CCD-sensors I had was the hopelessly poor ISO-performance. From what I remember my A350 started to struggle over ISO 400!!! - which made it a pretty limited camera to use as an allround camera.
I have just processed say 5-600 pictures I once took 2005-2006 in Croatia and Bosnia with my MonicaMinolta D7D. Just before I processed the same amount taken at a roundtrip in Andalucia Spain with my pretty new 33 MP Sony A7 IV.
My comparative experience from that is that it has been a lot more difficult to process the older Minolta pictures. The technical quality is quite different and gives a lot less headroom both when it comes to cropping and dynamic range. It changed a lot when Sony increased DR a full two stops in the Sony A580 and Nikon D7000 that both share the same 16 MP CMOS. Another thing that really gets evident is that AF in A7 IV is just so much better. It was of course possible to get sharp images with a D7D (the world’s first system camera with “Anti shake” / IBIS) and a very slow screw driven Minolta 70-210 Beer Can-lens from 1985 too - but it was very much harder - especially when it came to moving targets.
What about a burst shooting? Well D7D when it came was supposed to support 3 frames/second - but not with my Kingston memory cards - despite that I had the fast Premium version. That speed demanded a new firmware (1.01) and was supported only with San Disk Extreme Cards. Så my burst rate was 1 frame/second when I took the images below.
I don´t know about the colors really because most of it is due to the color management in Photolab and the use of the P3 color space - if your screen supports it.
If I have had my A7 IV in 2005-2006, when these pictures were taken, I´m sure they had been noticeably better technically and to a much less effort in post.
I was about to ask if any of you had tried bird photography, and understood what was involved, and what “birders” want to see - but Joanna, that last photo is awesome! Your other photo shows how difficult it can also be.
I’ve been reading his articles, and watching his YouTube videos.
At this moment in time, these are the kinds of photos I would like to capture, when I go bird watching - but there’s lots of other advice there as well. …and I also want to take good photos of birds that ARE artistic, and non-bird-fanatics will enjoy.
I plan to take photos that will “work” technically, and also take photos that I know I’m not (yet) prepared to take, just to get the practice, even if the photos are pixelated. Getting the timing right is a huge part of bird photography - along with steady hands, a decent exposure, a suitable shutter speed, and all the rest. It’s all wasted effort in one way, but it’s good practice until I can “fill the frame” with my 2,500mm super Nikkor lens that I can’t afford and will likely never buy, and which will be far too heavy for me, even on a monopod.
Yes, this is a problem in a way, as I also thought what you wrote, until Ray Schneider, a good friend of mine, explained what was going on in my photos. Posting that image here just shows what you wrote, but in the bird forums, chances are the other photographers either already know what’s going on, or soon will. Regarding my photo, I had no idea what or why the bird was doing, but it looked interesting, so I tried to capture an action photo that showed it. That night, I learned what it was about. (Ray goes “birding” several times a week, every week, when the weather is appropriate.)
To be honest, I don’t understand most of my photos, what the birds are doing, or why, or even what kinds of birds they are. I’m a beginner at this, and every time I do this, I learn more, mostly from feedback on my photos.
Sigma has been making variations of this lens for years. Some are better than others. When I posted my test photos in the Sigma Lens forum, the comments were that I had a good one. Advantages - wide focal length range, only a little over 4 pounds, and I could afford it, and the optical stabilization means I can shoot it hand held. Supposedly. I think a monopod is a better idea though.
Regarding the lens that I bought, I need to call Sigma to learn about what “Bigma” I actually bought. I found a review that was close, but there were so many variations that I haven’t nailed down exactly what I have. Here’s a “review” of one of them… Sigma 50-500 mm f/4.5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM review - Introduction - LensTip.com
I am much more comfortable with my smaller Nikon 70-300 “P” lens, but as the responses up above demonstrate, it’s not long enough to prevent pixelization because I can’t fill the screen.
@Stenis, I’m no longer thinking about this too much. Sure, I can go back to my Nikon D3 with CCD, but my newer cameras are and will be CMOS, and the ISO capability is far more important to me than the colors. What you wrote below sums it up nicely, for me:
They weren’t “technical limitations” at the time, that’s just how things were. Nowadays though, those limitations are real, compared with just using the newer gear.
On my Nikon Z6II the ibis is switched off automatic when a VR lens is adapted. Also when you swich the VR off.
I did on some old night shots with my old D80, lot’s of noice. DeepPrime and XD did do a wonderful job however XD gave it a to much plastic look. On these specific images.
Joanna, what you wrote was exactly what I was doing. I wasn’t as much trying to get a great photo, as I was trying to learn how to capture bird photos - it didn’t matter what the bird was, or what it was doing. Once I got one photo of the bird, I only then tried to get a “good” photo of the bird.
As to flying birds, I never got that right; it was impossible for me to fill the frame with the bird, and keep it there. I struggled to just keep the bird within the frame. But, the more I did it, I improved.
There’s that line “practice makes perfect”.
Well, that’s true, but the inability to keep the flying bird in my frame, holding the camera still, is MY problem, not the camera or the lens.
Think of it this way - before a person gets good at riding a bicycle, the first step is to simply lean how to ride the bicycle without falling. That’s where I’m at, the “beginner class”. When/if I get better, I’ll think about everything suggested up above.
For @Joanna - I’m sure you will tell me I’m wrong, but this what I think when I view your photo up above, but a little lighter to bring out more detail. To me, the “stuff” at the top and bottom just takes away from the heart of your wonderful, and unique, photo!!! It speaks for itself! …if you were to post it in the bird forum.
Stenis
(Sten-Åke Sändh (Sony, Win 11, PL 6, CO 16, PM Plus 6, XnView))
719
I think Nikon seems to have done a better job than Nikon with old lenses on adapter.
I also think Deep Prime XD has been a life saver for me working with these old CCD-pictures. It is also important to be careful not to use Microcontrast at all because it destroys the skies if there are any on the pictures.
Joanna, I have eaten dinner, and had a nice glass of wine, I was thinking of this discussion, and something hit me like a brick. I don’t think I need to say more, just ask you a question.
Remember your photo of the two birds you posted earlier today?
…and do you remember my edited version?
If the local newspaper wanted to use that image along with a story, which of those two versions of your image do you think they would print?
If I was the editor, I know exactly which one I would use, and why.
At heart, you are an artist.
At heart, I am a photojournalist.
We see things very differently, and @Wolfgang and you (and I think many others) see things the way you do. I’m the “oddball” who always thinks of what editors want to show their public. I’ve been that way since I went to college, and too photos for the College newspaper. At least now, I can “see” both, probably due to you, and certainly due to the members of this forum. And you’re right, I’m no longer a working photojournalist, but old habits are difficult to lose.
Maybe I need to change hats, and go off looking for shapes, sizes, colors, and so on, that come together into something that might be worth framing, like the lovely photos some of you have been posting lately. That was great fun for me a year or so ago. …if I find one photo in a day, that’s enough, if I don’t mess it up in PhotoLab that is…
Is there any way in PhotoLab to add a “text comment” to an image?
Maybe I want to add a quick note, or a person’s name, or a type of bird or animal.
I know I can do this in “PhotoMechanic” if I start to use their tools to identify and keep track of my images, but I was thinking of a small file that could be saved in the same folder as the image.
If not, and since I always use PhotoMechanic, I’ll figure out how that works.
The key was to use a long enough lens so that the bird filled the frame. Here, it’s the 80-400mm at 300mm.
…if I find one photo in a day, that’s enough, if I don’t mess it up in PhotoLab that is…