Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > Photo Critiques

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 22, 2006, 8:20 PM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 65
Default

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
Attached Images
 
lizabeth is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jan 22, 2006, 8:34 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
John at the Beach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Southeastern NC
Posts: 491
Default

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
John at the Beach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2006, 8:45 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
julies517's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 851
Default

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.
julies517 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2006, 9:42 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
05_Silver_Allez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 542
Default

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?




05_Silver_Allez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2006, 10:20 PM   #5
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 65
Default

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!
lizabeth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2006, 10:42 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,214
Default

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
Attached Images
 
VTphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2006, 10:56 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Aumma45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,940
Default

F8-f11 as suggested by Julie and some kind of stand is a very good beginning. Good luck. Jaki.
Aumma45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2006, 11:06 PM   #8
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

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
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2006, 2:08 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
pj1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 2,914
Default

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
pj1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2006, 4:26 PM   #10
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

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
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:55 PM.