Tern Problems

[Harold Davis]

another from boynton inlet sunday afternoon. this was processed with capture nx. established my b&w control points first, then darkened the bg just a bit and added some contrast. the only thing i did to the bird was tone down a spot just above the beak. i did not change the exposure at all on the bird. i think i added just a bit of contrast to the bird, but that's it. and i sharpened the eye, and added a little light and contrast to the eye to give it some depth and definition. my question is why is there so much noise in the bird? is it because of the higher ISO? there's so much that i cant sharpen the bird at all. the exposure on the bird looked spot on to me. and the crop is very little. maybe 15-20%.

D300, Sigma 50-500 at 500mm, f/7.1, 1/1600s, 0EV, ISO 800

thanks for the help and appreciate your comments

[Gus Cobos]

Good show Harold,
Love the gliding pattern and the sky with the clouds...:D

[Roman Kurywczak]

Hi Harold,
I might have the answer..........but it might just be an equipment issue. A very good friend of mine had the 50-500mm lens.......got rid of it because the AF and sharpness.....just weren't there. Do know that I have 2 Sigma lenses (180 macro and the 300-800) and absolutely love them both..........but this might be worth a rental test/comparison at the very least. From what I've seen..........the 200-400 is superb and I'm sure there are other 3rd party manufacturer lenses in that range that are very capable.........mine are proof............but everyone I know who has had that lens (3 people) got rid of it for the above mentioned reasons.
Roman

[Harold Davis]

thanks, roman. i will have to do some research and testing. are you referring to the nikon 200-400 or a 3rd party?

[Roman Kurywczak]

thanks, roman. i will have to do some research and testing. are you referring to the nikon 200-400 or a 3rd party?

First let me state.........I shoot Canon. My very good friend has the Nikon 200-400VR lens......looks tack sharp to me. I'm sure there are 3rd party lenses that are fast and sharp......and not nearly the cost$$$.......but I can't make a recommendation on 3rd party lenses other than the 2 lenses I own. Since I've heard nothing but raves on the 2-4VR.......if in the budget, I would start with that. BTW.....only negative I ever heard on the lens.......it's heavy. You should try my Pigmonster.........then we'll talk!
Roman

[Alfred Forns]

Hi Roman You are correct on the sharpness issue In order to see is best to compare side by side. An image might appear sharper until you see one critically sharp !!!

When I was doing B&W prints. My photo guru was Fred PIcker form Zone Vl Studio He would always say "Similar is different and different is not the same" For prints he insisted we bought critically sharp and perfectly developed to hang on a wall. Those would be used to compare with our own. At first the ones I had and thought they were excellent came down a few notches!!!!!

Harold in areas of low contrast like the under wings area noise will be accentuated. If you get for example an osprey's head in good light the grain would be zero!!! I find the D300 very good noise wise but you need good light. With favorable light you can probably shoot up to 1250 or so with excellent results. In the case of the gull maybe you could only go to 400 before the noise would creep up!!!!

......... btw all the properly developed and critically sharp images came form him !!!!! :) Oh and in the subject of sharpness .. you should see the quality from an 8x10 view camera and contact print !!!!

[Harold Davis]

the photo was taken at 6:22 pm. i didnt think the light was harsh at all. and even the bg is showing grain.

so what do we have to do to get critically sharp images? i have a feeling this answer is going to hurt!!

and on the subject of an 8x10 view camera: the negative is sooooo big, you could have a print the size of a garage door and not have grain!!!!! those things are way cool. i'm not sure about doing flight shots though!!:eek::D

[Bruce Gove]

Don't know why it's not sharper Harold. I like the image however. It's just not "critcally sharp" like Al and Roman said. It seems hard to believe that with a shutter speed that fast, and a not that high ISO of 800, you should have a sharper image - Maybe it's the lens!!

Best,

Bruce