An unscientific sharpness benchmark

[Diane Miller]

I couldn't resist the new 7DII and 100-400 II. Although I haven't used the previous models, I've been extremely pleased with both. I won't be giving up my 5D3, 300 f/2.8 IS or 600 II, plus the teleconverters, and when the successor to the 1DX comes out, I'll be first in line. But this "lightweight" rig will be useful for handholding situations, alongside the big guns.

Getting critically sharp images seems to be a major issue for folks new to long lens nature photography, and I thought there might be some interest in an example of a sharp mage with relatively affordable equipment.

The swan was not close enough for this rig (I didn't have the 1.4X on) but I made a few shots anyway, as I was evaluating AF and lens sharpness. This was handheld.

These are just processed in LR with basic tonal correction (highlights brought down at it was an intentional exposure to the right, and shadows lightened a little, but probably too much in retrospect). A middle contrast curve was applied and a touch of Saturation. Only the default sharpening and no NR. ISO 800, 1/1000 sec at f/11. 400mm. I diodn't need that small an aperture but I was shooting ducks that were much closer and didn't bother to change settings.

This image isn't a keeper but I thought it might be useful as an example of a typically sharp image with this lens at 400mm. Here's the full frame:




Here's a 100% crop. If your browser is not set to zoom in or out, this should display as you would see a 100% or 1:1 view in a raw converter.




This is a file that should be able to take a little extra sharpening in LR. If I were using it for anything other than showing here, I would be tempted to squeak the value up a little, but would be careful to watch for any oversharpening if I resized it for output.

[arash_hazeghi]

This image isn't that sharp I'm afraid Diane, sharpness is just so so (some due to diffraction at f/11 with small pixels), certainly not critically sharp if you ask me. and it's quite grainy on top of that...The 100-400 II is a good lens by itself and I love it, but with the TC and 7D it is asking for too much, stopping down is not a good solution as at f/11 it will beyond the diffraction limit (evident by the softness) not to mention lack of shutter speed for most cases.

It is not a substitute for a super telephoto lens.

[Warren Spreng]

Thanks for the demonstration Diane, it gives me an idea of what to look for when evaluating my images.

[Diane Miller]

Arash, I’m afraid you missed my point. This post wasn’t in Avian or the other critique forums, where top-notch opportunities, equipment and technique are taken for granted. It is in ETL, where it is common to see shots where sharpness and detail are not optimal.

Most people here in ETL don’t have 1DX bodies and 600 II lenses with series III teleconverters. It’s common to see the more affordable telephoto zooms used. So this post is about that affordable class of lenses, and the more affordable bodies that many people have, and used in a real-world less-than-ideal situation such as many people are dealing with. I did say I wouldn’t be giving up my 600 II and will be getting the next release of the 1DX or its successor, to replace my 5D3, but a lot of people here are working with the more affordable equipment that they have. Some of them are doing images that are excellent, but some are still aspiring to that.

Having an idea what to expect from an image at 100% is important for someone who is learning to assess their equipment and technique. That was my only point in this post. This is just a run-of-the mill image, not even a keeper, made with a body that costs $1800 and a lens that costs $2200, hand held, at about the ISO limit of the body, and cropped heavily. And I did say this is with no NR, just for a comparison of what people might see in a raw converter before improvements are made to the image. The noise in the water is because it was dark compared to the bright white bird in full sun, and was lightened in the initial tonal corrections. A songbird would probably have been a better example. I will probably post further examples from time to time.

I certainly don’t intend to compare this to what I could have shot in the same situation with a body that costs $7000 and a lens that costs $13,000. So my enthusiasm for the 100-400 II and the 7D II factors in the cost difference, in the same way that a product is often given an overall rating that factors in value. It also factors in portability and spontaneity of use, for which it will find a place for me, along with more expensive equipment.

[Sandy Witvoet]

Spot on, Diane! This type of example/explanation is so appreciated! You presented it in a way that is understandable, verbally and pictorially. Your approach to the image, equipment definition and PP provides an excellent synopsis and quick tutorial (without getting "tied up in one's knickers".) So very helpful here in ETL! Thank you!

[arash_hazeghi]

Arash, I’m afraid you missed my point. This post wasn’t in Avian or the other critique forums, where top-notch opportunities, equipment and technique are taken for granted. It is in ETL, where it is common to see shots where sharpness and detail are not optimal.

Most people here in ETL don’t have 1DX bodies and 600 II lenses with series III teleconverters. It’s common to see the more affordable telephoto zooms used. So this post is about that affordable class of lenses, and the more affordable bodies that many people have, and used in a real-world less-than-ideal situation such as many people are dealing with. I did say I wouldn’t be giving up my 600 II and will be getting the next release of the 1DX or its successor, to replace my 5D3, but a lot of people here are working with the more affordable equipment that they have. Some of them are doing images that are excellent, but some are still aspiring to that.

Having an idea what to expect from an image at 100% is important for someone who is learning to assess their equipment and technique. That was my only point in this post. This is just a run-of-the mill image, not even a keeper, made with a body that costs $1800 and a lens that costs $2200, hand held, at about the ISO limit of the body, and cropped heavily. And I did say this is with no NR, just for a comparison of what people might see in a raw converter before improvements are made to the image. The noise in the water is because it was dark compared to the bright white bird in full sun, and was lightened in the initial tonal corrections. A songbird would probably have been a better example. I will probably post further examples from time to time.

I certainly don’t intend to compare this to what I could have shot in the same situation with a body that costs $7000 and a lens that costs $13,000. So my enthusiasm for the 100-400 II and the 7D II factors in the cost difference, in the same way that a product is often given an overall rating that factors in value. It also factors in portability and spontaneity of use, for which it will find a place for me, along with more expensive equipment.

Diane,

with all due respect, not sure if I agree You called this a sharp image but IMO is not sharp and it's noisy. It's not a quality avian shot and not something one would aspire to. It would be difficult to make a sharp clean output from such RAW and I think that's what our members need to know. It is difficult to process a lacking RAW into something useful. Some folks think that by some magic processing you turn a soft/lacking RAW file into a nice output, that's not the case IMO. The key to getting a good quality file is to have tack harp RAW to begin with.

I should also point out that your stopping down to f/11 has made it worse because of diffraction effect.


This isn't a keeper file in my book. IMO instead of such a compromise one should work on their field technique to get closer to their subject and produce a better file, which is def. possible even with lower end gear. It's not about how much money you spend but how you use your gear, be it a 7D or a 1DX. This is just an example of what you shouldn't do IMO. Just my 2 cents.


best

[David N Smith]

Thanks for this thread Diane. I have pretty much quit posting on this forum because in my opinion many members act as if you don't have "pro level gear" you cannot take good images so I figure why waste my time posting (I have a 7D2, 60D, with Tamron, Sigma, and one Canon L lens, the 24-105). With this gear I have taken images that have taken 1st place in club compitions several times.
I am in awe of some of the images I see on this forum and it does give me a goal to strive for. After looking at images posted by Dan Cadieux I think excellent images can be made with the equipement you are talking about and if members have to have the pro gear to make good images maybe they need to work on their technique.

David

PS: A lot of what I said is the reason I have not renewed my membership this year.

[Diane Miller]

Thanks for the comment David! Pro gear can broaden the possibilities, but sometimes at a cost that is more than financial, such as lugging around and setting up while the subject bugs out. (Not all of us can handhold a 600.) And yes, it's about a lot more than equipment. Composition and artistic factors are very important, but at least for me, there is a base level of craft that makes an image art. But we can aspire to shoot what our equipment and fieldcraft allow and get excellent images.

I hope you have found the critique here more useful than offensive. Even without renewal (although the financial support is what keeps this place going) you can still post, and I hope you will continue to do so. If the feedback you get is not useful, say so! It goes both ways -- criticize the critiquers!

[David N Smith]

The critiques here are very useful and I even had an image selected as image of the week in ETL one time.

I wonder sometimes if I don't know what I am looking for because in a critique at times I don't see what the critiquer is saying is wrong with the image or if the critiquer assumes there is IQ problems because lesser equipement was used.

David

[Diane Miller]

Ask for clarification -- we're all in different degrees of in too much of a hurry. Different equipment can have different challenges, such as the accuracy of autofocus, the stability of a tripod or handholding, or the need to get closer to a subject to minimize cropping. Enough light to allow a low-noise ISO, good depth of field (smaller aperture) and high enough shutter speed can be the biggest challenge, but harsh light isn't good either. It's a frustrating pursuit.

[dankearl]

David,
Not sure if anyone was saying you had to have a big lens at all.
That is not what Arash was saying and is not really a consensus at all.
Look at Stuart Bowie's gull photo tonight ( a 24-105 lens), or Enrique Patino's IOTW.
A 7D with a 70-200.
I think you are projecting a bit.
You pointed out Dan Cadieux, he produced incredible work with the old 100-400.
Arash was just pointing out that images need to be sharp, nothing about lens at all.
I use a 300 and use extenders, it suffices for my needs.
Keep posting......

[arash_hazeghi]

Thanks for this thread Diane. I have pretty much quit posting on this forum because in my opinion many members act as if you don't have "pro level gear" you cannot take good images so I figure why waste my time posting (I have a 7D2, 60D, with Tamron, Sigma, and one Canon L lens, the 24-105). With this gear I have taken images that have taken 1st place in club compitions several times.
I am in awe of some of the images I see on this forum and it does give me a goal to strive for. After looking at images posted by Dan Cadieux I think excellent images can be made with the equipement you are talking about and if members have to have the pro gear to make good images maybe they need to work on their technique.

David

PS: A lot of what I said is the reason I have not renewed my membership this year.

What you say about BNP is not true at all. We critique a photograph based on its aesthetic and technical merits independent of the equipment used. We have plenty of IOTW and, even IOTY that were made with modest gear.

It is not "pro level gear" that makes a great photograph, but the photographer behind the camera and their talent that makes a great photograph. Just look at what Daniel had achieved with his 7d and 100-400, his work is better than many folks who use a 1DX and 600.

Sometimes a photo is bad because the photographer did not use their equipment properly within their limits, such as trying to photograph a bird from a quarter mile away with a short lens, but that's again the photographer's error. nothing inherent about the equipment.

BPN is the only site where you will get honest critique instead of just a "great image" comment, not everyone can handle critique, but those who do, will def. see an improvement in their work. I have personally learned a lot from the critique forum on this site and that's something BPN is proud of.

Good luck

[arash_hazeghi]

David,
Not sure if anyone was saying you had to have a big lens at all.
That is not what Arash was saying and is not really a consensus at all.
Look at Stuart Bowie's gull photo tonight ( a 24-105 lens), or Enrique Patino's IOTW.
A 7D with a 70-200.
I think you are projecting a bit.
You pointed out Dan Cadieux, he produced incredible work with the old 100-400.
Arash was just pointing out that images need to be sharp, nothing about lens at all.
I use a 300 and use extenders, it suffices for my needs.
Keep posting......

exactly

[Arthur Morris]

This image isn't that sharp I'm afraid Diane, sharpness is just so so (some due to diffraction at f/11 with small pixels), certainly not critically sharp if you ask me. and it's quite grainy on top of that...The 100-400 II is a good lens by itself and I love it, but with the TC and 7D it is asking for too much, stopping down is not a good solution as at f/11 it will beyond the diffraction limit (evident by the softness) not to mention lack of shutter speed for most cases.

It is not a substitute for a super telephoto lens.

Arash,

Thanks for dropping by at ETL. First a word on critical sharpness: Arash has a very demanding eye when it comes to critical sharpness and fine feather detail. His comments on some of the images that I sent him for the DPP 4 Raw Conversion Guide that we co-authored were quite similar to the comment he made here above: "Artie, it ain't very sharp at all." I saw many of those images as professionally sharp and have no doubt at all that they were more than sharp enough to sell.

Folks need to understand that has very high standards, far higher than those of most folks, and far higher than mine. Perhaps this is due in part to the fact that Arash Hazeghi, Ph.D. is a senior electron device engineer. He received his MS.c. degree and Ph.D. degrees in Electrical Engineering in 2006 and 2011, respectively from Stanford University. His pioneering research on Carbon Nanotubes and quantum capacitance have been cited many times. He is currently focused on the development of cutting edge memory technology.

In short, the man is no dummy and his intentions are always good. And also like me, he is often perceived as a bit too opinionated, a bit too brash, and a bit too full of himself :). Folks need to consider all of the stuff above and try not to take things personally.

Arash, can you please write a short, easily understandable explanation of these statement and share it with us here:

"some (sic: unsharpness) due to diffraction at f/11 with small pixels" and in the same vein, this one: "stopping down is not a good solution as at f/11 it will beyond the diffraction limit (evident by the softness)."

Please note, the camera was the 7D II and no TC was use to create this image.

Respectfully.

[Arthur Morris]

I couldn't resist the new 7DII and 100-400 II. Although I haven't used the previous models, I've been extremely pleased with both. I won't be giving up my 5D3, 300 f/2.8 IS or 600 II, plus the teleconverters, and when the successor to the 1DX comes out, I'll be first in line. But this "lightweight" rig will be useful for handholding situations, alongside the big guns.

Getting critically sharp images seems to be a major issue for folks new to long lens nature photography, and I thought there might be some interest in an example of a sharp mage with relatively affordable equipment.

The swan was not close enough for this rig (I didn't have the 1.4X on) but I made a few shots anyway, as I was evaluating AF and lens sharpness. This was handheld.

These are just processed in LR with basic tonal correction (highlights brought down at it was an intentional exposure to the right, and shadows lightened a little, but probably too much in retrospect). A middle contrast curve was applied and a touch of Saturation. Only the default sharpening and no NR. ISO 800, 1/1000 sec at f/11. 400mm. I didn't need that small an aperture but I was shooting ducks that were much closer and didn't bother to change settings.

This image isn't a keeper but I thought it might be useful as an example of a typically sharp image with this lens at 400mm. Here's the full frame:




Here's a 100% crop. If your browser is not set to zoom in or out, this should display as you would see a 100% or 1:1 view in a raw converter.




This is a file that should be able to take a little extra sharpening in LR. If I were using it for anything other than showing here, I would be tempted to squeak the value up a little, but would be careful to watch for any oversharpening if I resized it for output.

Thanks for posting these Diane. While I agree with Arash that this is not the sharpest image ever made, I do believe that the new Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM lens and the Canon EOS 7D Mark II will quickly come to revolutionize modern day bird photography. And I fully expect that this rig will be fully capable in competent hands of creating superb images files especially with subjects at relatively close range.

I am equally confident that Canon's Digital Photo Professional 4.0 (latest version DPP 4.1.50) would do a noticeably better job of converting all 7D II files than LR.

Arash, can you let us know if and in what ways distance-to-the-subject affects image sharpness. I have noticed that heat shimmer is often a degrading factor when I use the 7D II with my 600 II and a TC on sunny days....

Lastly a question for Diane. You wrote, "This is a file that should be able to take a little extra sharpening in LR. If I were using it for anything other than showing here, I would be tempted to squeak the value up a little, but would be careful to watch for any oversharpening if I resized it for output."

Are you talking about sharpening your optimized TIFF file?

[Arthur Morris]

Arash, I’m afraid you missed my point. This post wasn’t in Avian or the other critique forums, where top-notch opportunities, equipment and technique are taken for granted. It is in ETL, where it is common to see shots where sharpness and detail are not optimal.

Most people here in ETL don’t have 1DX bodies and 600 II lenses with series III teleconverters. It’s common to see the more affordable telephoto zooms used. So this post is about that affordable class of lenses, and the more affordable bodies that many people have, and used in a real-world less-than-ideal situation such as many people are dealing with. I did say I wouldn’t be giving up my 600 II and will be getting the next release of the 1DX or its successor, to replace my 5D3, but a lot of people here are working with the more affordable equipment that they have. Some of them are doing images that are excellent, but some are still aspiring to that.

Having an idea what to expect from an image at 100% is important for someone who is learning to assess their equipment and technique. That was my only point in this post. This is just a run-of-the mill image, not even a keeper, made with a body that costs $1800 and a lens that costs $2200, hand held, at about the ISO limit of the body, and cropped heavily. And I did say this is with no NR, just for a comparison of what people might see in a raw converter before improvements are made to the image. The noise in the water is because it was dark compared to the bright white bird in full sun, and was lightened in the initial tonal corrections. A songbird would probably have been a better example. I will probably post further examples from time to time.

I certainly don’t intend to compare this to what I could have shot in the same situation with a body that costs $7000 and a lens that costs $13,000. So my enthusiasm for the 100-400 II and the 7D II factors in the cost difference, in the same way that a product is often given an overall rating that factors in value. It also factors in portability and spontaneity of use, for which it will find a place for me, along with more expensive equipment.

Hi Diane, I agree with several others below in feeling that you and Arash are simply not doing a good job of communicating :). Arash simply stated that the image is not critically sharp. I should have mentioned in my previous comments above that I do take issue with part of his original statement: "It is not a substitute for a super telephoto lens." The new 100-400 or the 70-200II with or without TCs are not intended to be "substitutes for super telephotos lens." I see and use them as auxiliary lenses to be used in addition to whatever big glass i have on my tripod. There are innumerable situations where the longest lens is not the best tool for the job.

I agree with you 100% that the 100-400L IS II/7D II will prove to be the perfect rig for countless folks who do not have $10-20K to lay out for photography equipment. And as I stated above I will be shocked if this combo is not capable of creating sharp, high quality image files. Perhaps even some that might meet Arash's high standards :). I do know that I wish that I had gotten one to take on my recently concluded Southern Oceans trip....

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks for this thread Diane. I have pretty much quit posting on this forum because in my opinion many members act as if you don't have "pro level gear" you cannot take good images so I figure why waste my time posting (I have a 7D2, 60D, with Tamron, Sigma, and one Canon L lens, the 24-105). With this gear I have taken images that have taken 1st place in club compitions several times.
I am in awe of some of the images I see on this forum and it does give me a goal to strive for. After looking at images posted by Dan Cadieux I think excellent images can be made with the equipement you are talking about and if members have to have the pro gear to make good images maybe they need to work on their technique.

David

PS: A lot of what I said is the reason I have not renewed my membership this year.

Hi David,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I am baffled by what you wrote, "in my opinion many members act as if you don't have "pro level gear" you cannot take good images."

I have never seen any such comment on BPN (and that includes this post). Please do post a link or two here to an image that you posted that supports your point of view. Or shoot me some links via e-mail if you like.

I do agree that many folks need to spend more time practicing, studying, and learning than they do lusting after the latest, greatest, most expensive gear. And I state that clearly often on my blog. While lenses and camera are good tools they are not capable of making a single image. That is the job of the photographer.

[Arthur Morris]

What you say about BNP is not true at all. We critique a photograph based on its aesthetic and technical merits independent of the equipment used. We have plenty of IOTW and, even IOTY that were made with modest gear.

It is not "pro level gear" that makes a great photograph, but the photographer behind the camera and their talent that makes a great photograph. Just look at what Daniel had achieved with his 7d and 100-400, his work is better than many folks who use a 1DX and 600.

Sometimes a photo is bad because the photographer did not use their equipment properly within their limits, such as trying to photograph a bird from a quarter mile away with a short lens, but that's again the photographer's error. nothing inherent about the equipment.

BPN is the only site where you will get honest critique instead of just a "great image" comment, not everyone can handle critique, but those who do, will def. see an improvement in their work. I have personally learned a lot from the critique forum on this site and that's something BPN is proud of.

Good luck

As above, I agree 100%.

[Joseph Przybyla]

I am going to throw a thought out into this discussion. I believe that photographers who began with film and transparencies are more tolerant of critical sharpness. Also we are more tolerant of noise in images. In the age of slides/transparencies the sharpness of an image was determined on a light table with a 10X loupe. Grain was in many instances was part of life and carried over into the final image. Any thoughts regarding this?

[Daniel Cadieux]

Interesting thread! If the cropped image was a full-frame image then I would think it is not critically sharp and lacking fine detail, but heavily cropped as it is this is the type of IQ I would expect from my 7D + 100-400L, believe it or not. If this were full frame I'd expect to see every individual barbs on the wing feathers, and the gear Diane used is certainly capable of that. Taken into context I think Diane's example works well to show what to expect from this type of gear with "extreme" cropping and distance of subject. That type of IQ from a heavily cropped image from a 7D and 100-400L never really worried me as I do not crop my images that much to begin with...I only crop to help the composition. If I need to crop to get the subject bigger in the frame then that is a deleted file, or I just do not take the image to begin with. Knowing the limitations of ones gear helps in getting the most out of ones results.

Having said this I still love my 7D, and I've kept and still use (and still love) the 100-400L....I can only imagine having the MkII's of both of these!

[Diane Miller]

Good point, Joseph -- I've shot a lot of film, and when I first used a friend's Canon 20D (was that back in the last century?) and saw the results on the "loupe" of my computer screen, I never shot film again, including with my medium-format Mamiya RZ-67. There are many instances where I dislike noise and I'm very happy we have ways to minimize it now. I do have some tolerance for it as long as it gives an image some "tooth" instead of just being ugly splotches. (And I dislike the loss of dynamic range and resolution at high ISOs, but I also dislike blurry images.) Every NR technique I have tried (like sharpening techniques) has limitations. But if I were posting this image for its own sake, I would certainly deal with the noise in the water. The idea was to do minimal processing to evaluate "sharpness" at 100% as people might first see an image coming into their raw converter.

I do have better examples, and may post some from time to time.

My point in shooting the image above wasn't to minimize noise, or to demonstrate critical sharpness, but to have a quick look at the camera and lens combo in a less-than-ideal spontaneous situation. (I was at f/11 because I was shooting closeups of ducks, where f/11 wasn't quite enough but offered the best compromise balanced with ISO and SS. I just swung around when I saw the swan preening, in hope it might do a wing flap or something interesting. But I really didn't have enough SS for that and should have opened up the aperture. Basically I was just screwing around with a new body and lens, to see what different things looked like. That's probably a bad habit.) My idea was to encourage people to look at images at a 100% crop, rather than to post a serious image at that magnification. And I did say, at least twice, once in the original post, that the image was not a keeper, just what I though was a slightly interesting comparison.

[arash_hazeghi]

Thanks for posting these Diane. While I agree with Arash that this is not the sharpest image ever made, I do believe that the new Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM lens and the Canon EOS 7D Mark II will quickly come to revolutionize modern day bird photography. And I fully expect that this rig will be fully capable in competent hands of creating superb images files especially with subjects at relatively close range.

I am equally confident that Canon's Digital Photo Professional 4.0 (latest version DPP 4.1.50) would do a noticeably better job of converting all 7D II files than LR.

Arash, can you let us know if and in what ways distance-to-the-subject affects image sharpness. I have noticed that heat shimmer is often a degrading factor when I use the 7D II with my 600 II and a TC on sunny days....

Lastly a question for Diane. You wrote, "This is a file that should be able to take a little extra sharpening in LR. If I were using it for anything other than showing here, I would be tempted to squeak the value up a little, but would be careful to watch for any oversharpening if I resized it for output."

Are you talking about sharpening your optimized TIFF file?

Hey Artie,

Thanks, I think the main reason this photo is not as sharp as it could be are

1) subject distance: swan is a big bird, and from it's size in the frame I can tell he was pretty far and would be a heavy crop. When the subject is so far it is often difficult to make a tack sharp file because of possible atmospheric effects like heat shimmers you mentioned. sometime they do come out sharp but sometimes they don't. IMO a far subject is not ideal for evaluating or demonstrating sharpness because of these factors.

2) short zoom lens plus TC on a camera with small pixels: these all add together to create a less than ideal combination to achieve critical sharpness at pixel level

3) diffraction: A camera like 7D becomes limited by diffraction at smaller apertures sooner than cameras with larger pixels. The DOF will still increase with smaller aperture but the image will become slightly softer as aperture is close down. Although this impact might be small here (f/11 is border line), I think f/8 would have had better if not identical results (at least faster SS).

Overall I think the same image would have been a lot sharper had the swan been closer and the same image was taken with the bare 100-400 and 7D2. And it would be a lot easier to produce a high quality file too


best

[Diane Miller]

Artie, to answer the question about a little extra sharpening, I did mean in LR. That's not something I do routinely but there are a very few occasions where it can be done with a slight advantage. (Of course, you don't know that until the final resizing is done for whatever output is desired, so it's a try-it-both-ways situation.) LR processes a raw file in LAB mode and sharpening is done on the L channel, so it is less prone to artifacts than sharpening a rasterized file. (I assume DPP works in the same way.)

LR has a default sharpening that compensates well for the softening of the antialias filter and demosaicing, but some people advocate bringing that down to zero and doing all sharpening in PS. I can't say which is best.

[Diane Miller]

Arash, whatever gave the impression that I was using a TC? Or that this 100% crop (or even the original full-frame presentation) was intended to be a final or serious image?

A lot of the shots presented in ETL are made in less-than-ideal circumstances. The criteria by which they are evaluated for IQ is a learning opportunity, just as equipment choice and fieldcraft is.

[Arthur Morris]

Artie, to answer the question about a little extra sharpening, I did mean in LR. That's not something I do routinely but there are a very few occasions where it can be done with a slight advantage. (Of course, you don't know that until the final resizing is done for whatever output is desired, so it's a try-it-both-ways situation.) LR processes a raw file in LAB mode and sharpening is done on the L channel, so it is less prone to artifacts than sharpening a rasterized file. (I assume DPP works in the same way.)

LR has a default sharpening that compensates well for the softening of the antialias filter and demosaicing, but some people advocate bringing that down to zero and doing all sharpening in PS. I can't say which is best.

I don't know a thing about LAB channels, demosaicing, or LR but I do use a small amount of out of camera sharpening in DPP: Sharpness at 3. In addition I often apply a Contrast Mask (Unsharp Mask at 15/65/0 or thereabouts) in Photoshop. So it sounds as if we are somewhere on the same page :).

[arash_hazeghi]

Arash, whatever gave the impression that I was using a TC? Or that this 100% crop (or even the original full-frame presentation) was intended to be a final or serious image?

A lot of the shots presented in ETL are made in less-than-ideal circumstances. The criteria by which they are evaluated for IQ is a learning opportunity, just as equipment choice and fieldcraft is.

Sorry you are right, I see that you didn't use a TC, my bad . You just mentioned it. The sharpness would have been even worse if you had used a TC.

but you said "This image isn't a keeper but I thought it might be useful as an example of a typically sharp image with this lens at 400mm."

IMO, this is not a typical sharp image example, sharpness could be a lot better. Because this is ETL, I think one important message is that you may not be able to make a great photograph when conditions are not right such as when the bird is far and you are using a short lens.

As Artie mentioned, it is more productive to work on the filed craft and get closer in this case.

Doug Brown posted examples of a sharp image with the 7D2 and 100-400II in this thread

http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...he-New-100-400!

And here is a 100% crop of Doug's image with 100-400 when processed with DPP4 defaults. This is what I would call sharp for this combo


note: image heavily compressed for web posting, TIFF is even crisper.

IMO it is best to direct the ETL members in the direction to get results that are closer to this....

Best,

[Arthur Morris]

Arash, whatever gave the impression that I was using a TC? Or that this 100% crop (or even the original full-frame presentation) was intended to be a final or serious image?

A lot of the shots presented in ETL are made in less-than-ideal circumstances. The criteria by which they are evaluated for IQ is a learning opportunity, just as equipment choice and fieldcraft is.

Just to be clear, does the first image represent the full frame capture?

Was AF active at the moment of exposure?

If yes, which sensor was used and where was it placed on the bird.

Lots of images in all the Forums are created in less than ideal situations. I am not sure what you mean by this:

"The criteria by which they (images created in less than ideal situations...) are evaluated for IQ is a learning opportunity, just as equipment choice and fieldcraft is."

[Diane Miller]

This has gotten ridiculous. Drop it, boys. I'm outa here.

[Tim Harding]

David:

I would have disagree with your sentiment here. I have had two IOTW since I joined last year, both captured with a Nikon d7100 and 300mm F4 with 1.4 TC. Hardly 'pro-level' gear.

[David N Smith]

Tim:

My IOTW was taken with a Canon 60D and a Sigma 70-200 2.8, but I have seen implications that is not the set-up to use for BIF.

David

[Arthur Morris]

David:

I would have disagree with your sentiment here. I have had two IOTW since I joined last year, both captured with a Nikon d7100 and 300mm F4 with 1.4 TC. Hardly 'pro-level' gear.

Thanks Tim, and thanks a stack for your membership support.

[Arthur Morris]

Tim:

My IOTW was taken with a Canon 60D and a Sigma 70-200 2.8, but I have seen implications that is not the set-up to use for BIF.

David

Camera and lenses are tools. Some camera and lens combos are simply not as good as other for a given job. Though I have never used a 60D for BIF I would suspect that it is less than ideal for the task. I would not be surprised if some folks here expressed similar sentiments.

With regard to your original post here:

Originally Posted by David N Smith
Thanks for this thread Diane. I have pretty much quit posting on this forum because in my opinion many members act as if you don't have "pro level gear" you cannot take good images so I figure why waste my time posting (I have a 7D2, 60D, with Tamron, Sigma, and one Canon L lens, the 24-105). With this gear I have taken images that have taken 1st place in club compitions several times.
I am in awe of some of the images I see on this forum and it does give me a goal to strive for. After looking at images posted by Dan Cadieux I think excellent images can be made with the equipement you are talking about and if members have to have the pro gear to make good images maybe they need to work on their technique.

David

PS: A lot of what I said is the reason I have not renewed my membership this year.



I say again:

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I am baffled by what you wrote, "in my opinion many members act as if you don't have "pro level gear" you cannot take good images."

And again I ask:

I have never seen any such comment on BPN (and that includes this post). Please do post a link or two here to an image that you posted that supports your point of view. Or shoot me some links via e-mail if you like.

I would appreciate a response. Respectfully.

ps: the 7D II is a superb camera for photographing birds in flight.

[Arthur Morris]

The critiques here are very useful and I even had an image selected as image of the week in ETL one time.

I wonder sometimes if I don't know what I am looking for because in a critique at times I don't see what the critiquer is saying is wrong with the image or if the critiquer assumes there is IQ problems because lesser equipment was used.

David

I agree that at times critiques of my work leave me scratching my head. On many occasions I disagree right on the thread with members, participants, and moderators. Though I will always stand up for my work I try to do so in a respectful manner. Some folks feel that a critique must include at least one negative. I do not understand that stance. For me, this is a perfectly valid critique: "That is a great image and here is what I love about it: .........."

I am glad to hear that you feel the the critiques at BPN are indeed useful and am thus baffled again as to why you let your membership lapse.