Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   Photo Critiques (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/photo-critiques-83/)
-   -   [Recovered Thread: 80604] (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/photo-critiques-83/%5Brecovered-thread-80604%5D-78634/)

lizabeth Jan 22, 2006 8:20 PM

1 Attachment(s)
This was taken with my Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6. Shot in ap mode, f-stop 5.0, ISO 200, SS 1/200, 130mm. I have seen pics of these birds where you can see fine detail around the eyes. I can't seem to obtain that, even though this pics seems prettysharp to me. Is it because I have a lower- end consumerlens? Would the Sigma 100-300 f/4 capture more finer detail? Or is there something that I can dodifferently (settings)? Thank-you for your comments, Kath

John at the Beach Jan 22, 2006 8:34 PM

Hey Liz....
I dont think it's you lens...I think the depth of field is so tight because you zoomed in on Mr. Bird...I look close and see good sharpness with the claw on his left foot...I have lost count with how many times I missed a good bird shot because of the depth of field being narrow...If we could just get the little guys to come out of the trees and pose for us...That would solve lots of problems...
john

julies517 Jan 22, 2006 8:45 PM

i have that lens, and my pictures are sharp...when i use a tripod. camera shake, even a little is magnified. if you can use a monopod or tripod and an aperature of f8-11ish you may get better results. of course it would help if the bird would sit nice and quiet for you while you set it all up ;) this doesn't seem too bad. did you sharpen before you posted? it's also possible that he moved a tiny bit or blinked, his beak seems sharp and his body has nice detail.

05_Silver_Allez Jan 22, 2006 9:42 PM

Very nice shot, it is really crisp. I am posting two that I shot this morning form 4-5 feet away while at my feeder.This is the same bird isnt it?

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c1...adsmalldif.jpg

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c1...oppedangle.jpg

lizabeth Jan 22, 2006 10:20 PM

NIce photo's too! The ones you shot are Downey's. They have a shorter bill and are approx 3" smaller. The Hairy'sare the larger of the two, otherwise they look almost identical. Some days I take so many pics of them both, that I really have to look at the pics to see which one is which!

VTphotog Jan 22, 2006 10:42 PM

1 Attachment(s)
lizabeth wrote:
Quote:

This was taken with my Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6. Shot in ap mode, f-stop 5.0, ISO 200, SS 1/200, 130mm. I have seen pics of these birds where you can see fine detail around the eyes. I can't seem to obtain that, even though this pics seems prettysharp to me. Is it because I have a lower- end consumerlens? Would the Sigma 100-300 f/4 capture more finer detail? Or is there something that I can dodifferently (settings)? Thank-you for your comments, Kath
Was this shot hand-held? There seems to be just a touch of motion blur here. While your EXIF indicates you are within the 'rule of thumb parameters' for camera shake, that is only supposed to give generally acceptable sharpness, not really good sharpness.

I took the liberty of doing some deblurring and cave it a bit of crop just to save on file size.

brian

Aumma45 Jan 22, 2006 10:56 PM

F8-f11 as suggested by Julie and some kind of stand is a very good beginning. Good luck. Jaki.

Hards80 Jan 22, 2006 11:06 PM

it looks like you have not applied any unsharp mask.. dslr files are inherently a bit blurre because of the AA filter.. therefore you really need a bit of unsharp mask to get the true details.. i think with a little unsharp mask you will get the results you want

-dustin

pj1974 Jan 23, 2006 2:08 PM

Hi Dustin, lizabeth(and everyone!)! Maybe what you said Dustin, (not using unsharp mask) is the reason why some of my photos too haven't had the sharpness I was expecting for some of them.

As you're a well respected and experienced guy, can I ask you to explain what AA means ...?

And also, generally what "percentage" / amount of unsharp mask(also known as USM... not to be confused with Canon's UltraSilent Motor lenses...!) do YOU use to get good detail / sharpness...?

Why is it called UNsharp mask... as I would think it could be called "sharpening?"

I have a Canon Digital Rebel XT / 350D using 28-135mm lens... would doing a bit of unsharp mask for me be the same as say lizabeth who started this thread (with Tamron 70-300)... as for you (as I understand you have a Canon 20D with the same lens as me but also some L lenses don't you?) So... in other words, my question is does the amount of unsharp mask needing to be applied differ much according to lens/ Camera..

Finally.... do you (or anyone) suggest shooting with MINIMAL camera sharpening and doing all in photoshop (or other programme) OR to add more "in-camera sharpness" anyway as a start.... (and does shooting in RAW make a difference in this?)

Thanks for your help in advance for all these questions! (or anyone else who wishes to contribute / help out!) It just seems I sometimes (but not all the times) I have the same problem / syndrome as lizabeth...

Paul

Hards80 Jan 23, 2006 4:26 PM

the AA filter is the anti-aliasing filter.. it prevents moire and other weird artifacts somehow, dont ask me the mechanics of it.. but it does so with a bit of blurring..

why its called UNsharp mask, i have read this several times but i forget..

ok, the amount of sharpening is dependent on many things.. how sharp of lens you have plays into it somewhat.. but all lenses need some sharpening, thanks the aforementioned filter.. and rather low incamera sharpening of dslrs..

your relative amount will depend on the size of the photo, i.e. print or web view, the amount of detail inherent in the shot, the noise inherent in the image, etc.. fortunately, with a good starting point, you can usually "play" with each shot and find the appropriate amount for that particular shot...

if i have a good sharp pic at a low ISO, then for print i usually go in the 100-120% range at 1.0 radius and 0 threshold..

if the same sharp pic is reduced to websize, i usually go about 60% at .8 radius and 0 threshold..

if i have a high ISO shot with some noise.. then i back off the percentage a bit and usually boost the threshold to 1-3ish.. again, just play with it..

here is the kicker, someone else may use totally different numbers and get the same effect.. everyone kind of has their own style,that is just mine..

i recommend shooting with minimal incamera sharpening, and doing it in post-process.. yes..

-dustin


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:16 PM.