soft raptors

[Dave Viklund]

Hi, I am new to the site. I am Dave Viklund from Molalla Oregon USA.

I have started with a D5100 and a Sigma 50-500. I am finding I am having trouble getting a good photo of raptors, especially Northern Harriers and Kestrels. I have tried focusing on the bird, on the feet, on something by them or that they are on etc. I have changed ISO, SS, and Aperture settings and there does not seem to be a difference. I have tried hand held and on tripod, the subject still and in motion. There is some talk about the d5100 having some focus problems and I would go with that if other birds were not coming out okay. I do notice in some sparrows and Towhees I was shooting the other day that some seem to focus back of the subject.

I posted a sample on 500px yesterday (the sample was one of the better sharpness but a long way from acceptable) and got one response; it was in relation to ISO 900 possibly being the issue. The others that came up were just likes and favorites to get votes for their pics (not sure many even looked at the photo). I am not sure if I know how to link that photo to here so you all can see an example. If I have it correct the link is http://500px.com/photo/54517336

What I tried to do to it Lr 3:
sharpening 55
radius 22
detail 51
masking 22
luminance 30
detail 68
contrast 9

There is no reasoning to what I did; just moving sliders till I thought I had the clearest I could get. Clarity of the kestrel was more important then the background noise. If I took out the background noise it did not help clarity of the subject and gives the plastic look. I do understand that you can not take a poor pic and expect to fix it afterwards. What I did was for an example of my problem not to save the pic (but hopefully be able to capture some on another date that could be saves )

Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Thanks
Dave Viklund

[Diane Miller]

Hi Dave, and welcome! This is the place to learn about shooting birds.

Drop in to the Introductions etc, forum when you have time and introduce yourself.

There is information on how a non-member can post a link directly to an image, in the Sticky at the top of this thread titled, "Please Read Before Posting..." If you become a member, it is very easy to export an image from Lightroom with the proper size and then post it directly from your computer. And it's the best $20 you'll ever spend, for an ongoing workshop!

This does look like an issue with focus, and I'm sure others who are familiar with your camera can offer some specific suggestions. It sounds like you are aware of the need for fast shutter speed at telephoto magnifications, but this doesn't look like obvious camera shake so much as a focus issue. If an image isn't sharp at a 1:1 view in Lightroom, there isn't a lot you can do in processing except at that very "microscopic" level. No real magic in Photoshop, either. Often an exported JPEG can be made sharper -- that's about it.

I'll look forward to following the thread.

[Diane Miller]

Another thought occurred to me. The character of the OOF trees in your image could indicate some degradation form "heat waves" in the atmosphere. I don't now how far you were from this guy, but that can cause problems in some subjects, and I have a feeling that it can confuse AF systems. And it doesn't have to be very hot for it to happen. Getting close to a subject is a great help, although not easy.

[Dave Viklund]

I was about 50 yards off and the temp was right around 32 degree f. so right around freezing. The Harriers I was after the other day had about the same temp and came to within about 30 yards of where I was. It seems like Kestrels and Northern Harriers have the problem, Hawks come out a little soft but still able to do something with them. it is a frustrating problem.

I had tried to do the link like the post said in the top of the eager to learn and all that came was the box with the x in it. That is the reason I put in a link.

[Dave Viklund]

Thank You Diane. I should have started with that comment,

[Dave Viklund]

http://500px.com/photo/54517336 Do either of these work?

[Diane Miller]

There is just one link, and it works, but it goes to the 500px page, not just the image. I don't know if that is an issue here -- I'm too new to know. Hope some others will come in with advice.

Maybe not heat waves then, although I'm not certain how temperature-related they are -- it is an issue of air of different temperatures (thus refractive indices) churning around. Heat rising off desert pavement is a classic example.

But getting enough "pixels on the subject" at an ISO that gives good detail resolution, and, of course, good focus, are probably the factors here.

[Iain Barker]

Hi Dave and welcome to the site.
I don't know much about your camera but the image seems to have a large amount of noise for ISO 900. I am presuming that as the sensor size is the same as my D7000 the sensor is very similar. I can usually go way above ISO 900 without that much noise Has the photo been cropped and if so how much? Cropping an image make as huge difference to the quality of an image.
If it is not cropped I am not sure what would cause that amount of noise.

Iain

[Diane Miller]

Noise is really brought out if exposure is increased in processing. A quick review of the histogram and blinkies while shooting can help keep exposure as high as possible without blowing out highlights. You'll capture more tonal values that way, which will minimize posterization as you process (a comb-like appearance to the histogram). Then you can bring the exposure (and darks and lights) down in processing.

Dave, just a footnote here: I see you're using LR3 -- you might want to look at the major upgrade to tonal corrections that appeared in LR4 (ACR 7). You have remarkably more ability to bring out shadow and highlight detail.

[Dave Viklund]

Thanks Iain, I have been told that the 7000 and the 5100 have the same sensor. If that is true or they are just really close I am not sure. I do get that noise each time I try to photograph either of those birds so based on what you have said combined with Diane; maybe if I metered out of camera rather then using the ttl meter of the camera I would expose better on these and then not get the noise. I will try that next time I get a chance at these. Thank you both for your input.

Diane I am upgrading to Lr5 this month (4 and 5 were same price at the local store so figured newer = better, hopefully).

[Linda Dulak]

Dave: For what it's worth, I was never able to get a really sharp image with the Sigma 50-500. After several years of trying with different cameras, we sold it. We've been able to get good images with our other lenses but not the 50-500. It has been a critique of that lens. You might want to try renting another lens to see if that is part of the problem.

Linda

[Iain Barker]

Hi Dave

I also wonder if this is a combination of your sharpening and noise reduction in Lightroom. If you apply noise reduction to the whole image in lightroom it will affect the detail in the bird. Also if you do not mask the background full in the sharpening it will increase the noise in the background. I think that in newer versions of lightroom these can be applied more selectively than in LR3. Most people seem to use Photoshop to apply sharpening and noise reduction more selectively. One thing to keep in mind if updating Lightroom as you mentioned you may do, is that it no longer supports windows XP after version 3 which is the reason I currently still use LR3.
Are you able to link and unprocessed version of the original file?

Iain

[Steve Kaluski]

David, the first simple questions are:

- Is the RAW sharp, forget about applying anything to it in any RAW converter, as it stands from the camera, is the image sharp?
- How big is the subject within frame i.e. as posted?
- If it's quite small then is this a heavy/substantial crop, if so IQ will drop off and any noise/grain will become more evident?
- Have you tried using the camera with another lens, do you have the same issue?

Try a simple test, set up the camera on a tripod, rock steady, in good light with decent ISO ie400, manually shoot a few frames then try auto focus with the same object i.e. some large type or a building with lines, does the RAW look soft or sharp when viewed on a computer screen at full resolution size, not the LCD of your camera? If it's soft which setting, then there could be a calibration issue.

If the RAWs are not sharp then bin, no matter how good a Harry Potter you are in PP your image will never be great, plus they just take up valuable disk space.

Steve

LR version is now 5.3

[Dave Viklund]

Hi Linda, that is good to know. What I am getting with this lens is better then what I am getting with the kit lens that came with the camera. The frustration is coming in that I am getting these results on these specific birds not all birds.

[Dave Viklund]

Hi Iain;
I do not have the raw anywhere other then on my computer so do not know how to create a link to that. If I get comfortable with this form I am thinking of becoming a member then I think I would be able to do it. The sharpness in what is posted is an improvement on what is there is the raw. I know the photo is not salvageable it is just an example of what I am getting while trying to photograph these birds and trying to figure out why I am not able to get a usable shot.

[Dave Viklund]

Hi Steve:

This shot is done on a tripod. it is about a %50 crop from the original raw file. The raw is not good, like I mentioned to Iain, the sharpness has been improved over the raw image. I know so little about post processing, I can not depend on my abilities there to save a photo. I am just trying to figure out how to get a usable raw image of Kestrels and Harriers. My hawks also lack a little sharpness but nothing compared to these other two birds

I had not thought of manual focus in the same situation, that would tell me if it is a focus problem (sometimes the obvious is so easy to overlook).

Thank you all for the input, I am sure it all will help.

[Diane Miller]

Hi Iain;
I do not have the raw anywhere other then on my computer so do not know how to create a link to that. If I get comfortable with this form I am thinking of becoming a member then I think I would be able to do it. The sharpness in what is posted is an improvement on what is there is the raw. I know the photo is not salvageable it is just an example of what I am getting while trying to photograph these birds and trying to figure out why I am not able to get a usable shot.

That's OK -- that what we are all about here! You could export the RAW, with minimal processing, to a web site and link from there. It doesn't necessarily have to be visible on that site, but maybe with posting sites like 500px you don't have that option -- I don't know. For $20 for a year, save yourself the hassle and give us a try! You can post so easily by uploading an exported file from LR that's in a folder right on your computer.

I wonder if there is something about the feather patterns on these birds that is challenging your AF system? Also, there do seem to be a lot of examples here where a bird appears to be sharp except the head. Sometimes I wonder if we're jinxed....

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Dave, just try the simple test focusing manually & auto focus on a stationary object that is simple to see if it's sharp or not. If not and this happens with other lenses then there is an issue. I have seen it happen with Canon's 500mm where the IS or Auto focus has failed, rectified, but at a cost.

To me, forget about PP (Post Production), if the image isn't sharp, but shot on a rock steady platform, good techs, well exposed etc then you can start to identify the issue and then take the required steps. If the RAW image is sharp then you need to look more into your steps in PP. Looking at your pre sharpening your Radius can vary between say 0.8-1.2 (personal preference), Detail & Masking is a little more tricky, but remember, Masking will decrease the detail, so you do not want too much. Dave, just pull back the Radius to 1.00 and look at the image now?

Any cropping will reduce IQ, plus you are also throwing away valuable information the camera has captured. Even at 50% this image should be far better. Plus, you must, once you have produced your final file and it's saved, crop and re sharpen the image. Sharpening must only be applied at the last stage of PP and to the FINAL output size each time so it's 'fit for purpose', but always retaining your master file at full size i.e. 5184x3456px.

[Diane Miller]

There is a very good article in the new Outdoor Photographer (the Feb 2014 issue -- already!) by Rob Sheppard titled "Sharpness, The Deadly Dozen" in which he discusses many factors that can affect sharpness in the field. It is well worth reading!

[Dave Viklund]

Hi Steve, thank you for the information. I did not realize you wanted to sharpen last, I have been doing it first and if happy then move on.

Diane, I will have to go look up that article. I am not so sure of being jinxed but have thought conspiracy; the birds just want to see how far they can push before they have to allow us a good shot

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Dave, whether IMHO you do any pre sharpening or not, it's entirely how you wish to do things, some say yes, others no, prior to exporting to say PS for final 'tweaks'. As I said, you need to change the Radius figure, I'm running LR5.3 and Radius only goes to 3, so is 22 correct?

FYI, every time you recrop from your Master file for the various outputs required, only then, do you apply sharpening to that image, you sharpen only for that size. Note, sharpening for web will be a lot less than when you 'pre sharpen' (ie do any sharpening in LR/ACR).

I think your main/biggest issue is finding the cause of your unsharp images, the sharpening side is a walk in the park thereafter.

[Dave Viklund]

Hi Steve, The radius should have read 2.2 not 22 sorry. I guess I can see what you are saying; if the raw file holds a good image there really should not be a reason to pre sharpen.

At this time I do not understand the pp well enough to do much beyond basic Lr. Is it better to sharpen in a program like photoshop (I actually have Gimp not photoshop) rather then in lightroom ? if I am not planning anything in the other program can I just make the sharpening the last step before exporting from lightroom? Is the sharpening for the web less because the quality of the image (because of file size restrictions) is not good enough and just a waist or does it effect the viewing experience?

I am looking forward to the walk in the park part.

I was talking to someone the other day and they made a comment about the more silent the flyer the harder it is for your camera to focus. So what I am working with now is: Size of subject in the photo (more pixels on subject), ISO, making sure my technique is good, hopefully giving me shot I can spend the time in pp.

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Dave, pre sharpen or not, it's a personal thing and irrespective whether the image is sharp or not. If the RAW is soft/not sharp, then in my book it goes.

PP takes time, however there are some basics you need to grasp and PP is an integral part of Digital Workflow. No idea what Gimp is, sorry. I never export an sRGB web image from LR although I know you can. I would look at Artie's site and his store. He sells a PDF that may help you, but I'm sure you would need PS https://store.birdsasart.com/shop/item.aspx?itemid=252

I was talking to someone the other day and they made a comment about the more silent the flyer the harder it is for your camera to focus.

Lost me here?

So what I am working with now is: Size of subject in the photo (more pixels on subject), ISO, making sure my technique is good, hopefully giving me shot I can spend the time in pp.

Great.

[Dave Viklund]

Thanks Steve, your information is very helpful. I agree that if the raw is not sharp it should go, I just struggle letting them go till I do have a sharp raw image of the subject (I wonder if that is a bit of a hoarder mentality ;-) ?)

Gimp is an open source program that some people will use rather then Photoshop.

The silent flyer thing is: the more noise the bird makes in flight the broader the structure of the feathers making it easier for the focusing system to focus on. They were saying the tighter feathers reduce the contrast making it harder to focus on. They focus on feet on their bird of prey shots for that reason. If a person subscribes to this, there is dof to deal with then to get eyes shape since eyes and feet are not always on the same plane.

Thanks for the link. I am going to go check it out now.

[Steve Kaluski]

OK Dave, I'm now a little more the wiser.

As I shoot Canon I don't know about Nikons focus points and how many you have etc, however you should always try to get the focus point on the head, however with modern technology coupled with DOF you can settle for on the body, I personally always go for the head or eye with my subjects. I still think you need to check the focusing system, plus look at Artie's rear/back button focusing. I've been using it since the MKIII came out and now it's the first thing I set up on all new camera bodies. I hope this has helped, wish we could talk as there could be so much that could be addressed I'm sure with a short conversation.

Good luck, try and do as much 'in camera' as possible and remember, the more you shoot, the better and easier it becomes.

[Dave Viklund]

thanks Steve, your input does help. It does seem like a conversation does always make things more clear.