 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / February 2007Trouble Getting Sharp Images
http://www.photography- cafe.com/gallery/albums/userpics/Eagle_Eating_Baby_Seal__1568.jpg http://preview.tinyurl.com/26jkru Here is the problem: This particular photo was taken with the 70-200mm f/2.8 Nikkor, a supposedly a very sharp lens. Yet this picture is still not all that sharp. I used a tripod and remote release. So what else can I do? (The photograph is of an eagle eating a baby harbor seal, a yearling, that he and his mate killed in front of our house yesterday -- they worked together on it, much to the dismay of two adult seals which have been watching the whole time. The pair of eagles and their three offspring have been taking turns with the seal ever since. They have to come down here to feed because obviously even a baby seal cannot be carried back to the nest. Even when not feeding they post guards to keep crows and seagulls away. The picture was taken from the second floor of our house through an open window.)  SignatureWaddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor > http://www.photography- > cafe.com/gallery/albums/userpics/Eagle_Eating_Baby_Seal__1568.jpg [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > that sharp. I used a tripod and remote release. So what else can I do? >................................................................................................................ Looks like subject movement to me. >> http://www.photography-cafe.com/gallery/albums/userpics/Eagle_Eating_Baby_Seal__ 1568.jpg >> Here is the problem: This particular photo was taken with the 70-200mm >> f/2.8 >> Nikkor, a supposedly a very sharp lens. Yet this picture is still not all >> that sharp. I used a tripod and remote release. So what else can I do? Others have addressed subject motion. I'm not sure I agree as at a quick glance I couldn't really find anything in the back/foreground I would consider sharp. Unfortunately PSCS2 stripped out some relevant info. So let's start with what AF-servo mode and AF area modes was this shot with? Was this shot raw or in camera jpeg? How does the posted image relate to the original image as shot, crop, reduced crop, what? Can you post the original image, raw or jpg? Capture can be used to check what the camera thought the focus point was. If it was the mottled body, that may have been the issue. SignatureEd Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardGRuf.com) http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html > Others have addressed subject motion. I'm not sure I agree as at a quick > glance I couldn't really find anything in the back/foreground I would > consider sharp. The bird is definitely in motion during this image, the linear/ rotational smear is unmistakable. There is also, as you note, a general lack of exact focus. Delete and move on to the next image. There was a "next image", right? My experience in lighting situations like this is that you can get a few well focused, motion-free images even at 1/60 - 1/100. Just set your camera at its fastest frame rate, and carefully watch the subject and fire off three frames or so when everything looks steady. Repeat until you have 50 or more images. Of course, even the best image here will be poorly lit, so it won't win any contests. But with wildlife, you take what you can get. Some fill-flash would help quite a bit (buy a better-beamer). If this is/ was a predictable feeding site, installing a "clean perch" is an idea .. though I don't know if Bald Eagles will use them. >> Others have addressed subject motion. I'm not sure I agree as at a quick >> glance I couldn't really find anything in the back/foreground I would [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > was a predictable feeding site, installing a "clean perch" is an > idea .. though I don't know if Bald Eagles will use them. It is a very predictable feeding site. However, getting close is very difficult. The eagles like it because they can post a scout on the elevated sand bar and he can see in all directions for a long way. The nest is in our back yard, so they only have to fly maybe 400 feet to get to this place, plus (as you can see) it has a fresh water creek for bathing and drinking, and the fishing is excellent in the salt water Hood Canal. The female in this picture has lived here for many years. She is very large, aggressive and intelligent. She does not seem to mind it when we are out and about in the yard, even mowing or with leaf blowers, as long as we keep a respectful distance of about 150 feet. She also obviously sees and hears us moving about in the house, but that does not bother her unless we actually exit the door that is nearest to her and start walking toward the beach. SignatureWaddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor >> Others have addressed subject motion. I'm not sure I agree as at a quick >> glance I couldn't really find anything in the back/foreground I would >> consider sharp. If this is/ > was a predictable feeding site, installing a "clean perch" is an > idea .. though I don't know if Bald Eagles will use them. But I forgot to ask. What is a "clean perch?" SignatureWaddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor On Feb 21, 12:52 pm, C J Campbell <christophercampbellnos...@hotmail.com> wrote: > But I forgot to ask. What is a "clean perch?" It's my name a "dirty secret" of bird photography: a perch with a carefully planned, clean background. http://www.web-nat.com/bic/ont/tips6.html http://www.naturephotographers.net/articles1205/gm1205-1.html and so on. >> http://www.photography- >> cafe.com/gallery/albums/userpics/Eagle_Eating_Baby_Seal__1568.jpg [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Looks like subject movement to me. It looks to me like the focus point is behind the eagle. Check out the rocks to the left rear of the eagle. Of course there is blur from the movement, but the rocks near the subject also look out of focus. <http://www.photography-cafe.com/gallery/albums/userpics/Eagle_Eating_Baby_Seal__ 1568.jpg> > http://preview.tinyurl.com/26jkru > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > (The photograph is of an eagle eating a baby harbor seal, (not as gory as it sounds) > a yearling, that he > and his mate killed in front of our house yesterday -- they worked together [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > feeding they post guards to keep crows and seagulls away. The picture was > taken from the second floor of our house through an open window.) Here's some thoughts, your mileage might vary. The EXIF says 1/90 second at f/5. That's a pretty slow shutter speed for a moving animal. Try f/2.8 in aperture priority mode & boost the ISO a bit if it goes under something like 1/200 second or close down the aperture if it goes above 1/200. The movement of the bird makes the wing blurry but actually the eye is quite sharp assuming this is a full pixel crop. It could stand more sharpening too given the lighting is cloudy low contrast. On a tripod you shouldn't need VR, that may actually soften the image a little. Also you can use mirror lockup with the remote to eliminate vibration from the mirror slapping open. Do some tests focusing on the seal and zoom all the way in on the LCD then use the main command dial to flip through the pictures at full zoom and you should be able to see the difference in sharpness & depth of field right away while you remember what the setting changes were. While it's probably not quite as sharp at f/2.8, if you blur the background some, it might make the subject appear relatively more sharp. Here's one I did yesterday on that same lens playing with settings & comparing like that, plus I shot in RAW & because of the hazyness I boosted the contrast & sharpness quite a lot: <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/misc-photos/2007-02-19-bernal> That's the in-camera jpeg compared to the RAW conversion. In this case I got the best results from f/11 with mirror lockup. That's probably a mile away out my window. > Here's some thoughts, your mileage might vary. The EXIF says 1/90 > second at f/5. That's a pretty slow shutter speed for a moving [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > the background some, it might make the subject appear relatively more > sharp. Yep, I think you nailed the problem. It looks like a very gloomy overcast day as well. He'd have no problem with sharp images with that lens full open. Rita <http://www.photography- cafe.com/gallery/albums/userpics/Eagle_Eating_Baby_Sea > l__1568.jpg> >> http://preview.tinyurl.com/26jkru [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > got the best results from f/11 with mirror lockup. That's probably a > mile away out my window. I think you nailed it, Paul. I will continue to experiment. SignatureWaddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor > http://www.photography- > cafe.com/gallery/albums/userpics/Eagle_Eating_Baby_Seal__1568.jpg [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > feeding they post guards to keep crows and seagulls away. The picture was > taken from the second floor of our house through an open window.) Technical issues aside that's a great opportunity. I still have not even seen a bald eagle in the wild (that is a bald eagle, eh?). Whereabouts are you? Greg > Technical issues aside that's a great opportunity. I still have not even > seen a bald eagle in the wild (that is a bald eagle, eh?). > > Whereabouts are you? > > Greg We live on the north shore of Hood Canal near Belfair, WA. People have sighted as many as 60 bald eagles at a time in this area. SignatureWaddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor > Technical issues aside that's a great opportunity. I still have not even > seen a bald eagle in the wild (that is a bald eagle, eh?). > > Greg I just heard a news report the other day about eagle being sightings up at BB, as well as other places in our area. Ah, here it is http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_S_eagle11.230ced5.html I'm dying to one one on film. but I need to plunk down some $$ for the 400L 5.6 SignatureSlack >> Technical issues aside that's a great opportunity. I still have not even >> seen a bald eagle in the wild (that is a bald eagle, eh?). [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Ah, here it is > http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_S_eagle11.230ced5.html Cool, thanks for the article. On two occasions I saw a golden eagle floating around my last place in La Canada but never had a chance to snap a photo. Greg SignatureThe ticketbastard Tax Tracker: http://www.ticketmastersucks.org/tracker.html > Technical issues aside that's a great opportunity. I still have not even > seen a bald eagle in the wild (that is a bald eagle, eh?). Oh, you almost certainly have: you just haven't noticed it. This just takes a bit of practice, then all kinds of things start to pop out. Thanks for all the suggestions. The consensus here and elsewhere seems to be that a faster shutter speed, watch the ISO and VR, and get closer if I can. I was kind of hoping you all would tell me to buy a longer lens. :-) SignatureWaddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor > The picture was > taken from the second floor of our house through an open window.) If it is warmer in your house than outside, there will be heat waves coming from your window distorting the photo. Even if you take a warm lens outside there will be some distortions until the lens acclimates to the outside temperature. Signaturem-m |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.