Masked Lapwing or Plover. I liked the yellow flowers. The blue is the sea crashing behind down a small cliff. The time of day was not ideal. I would have liked to have seen his feet.
Canon 400D
100-400mm EF IS USM @ 400mm
1/400 @ f7.1
ISO 100
Hand Held
Processed in PS with hue and satuation layers and levels
Cropped to straighten
Nice setting and pose! The color of the flowers is perfect for the bird! Normally I'd try for a higher shutter speed with hand-holding -- a slightly higher ISO should be fine if you don't underexpose and bring out noise in bringing it back up.
I'm seeing what looks like a JPEG compression look in the body feathers. Don't know if it was from the original -- too much noise reduction -- or in the creation of a JPEG for posting. How does the original look?
Trying for noise reduction then sharpening never works. The flower look fine -- feathers seem to show issues when maybe there weren't any.
Thank you Diane. I have posted another image, two frames before the OP. I know the bird is walking away and he is a bit soft and I can't see his feet and... just an example. (I have managed to delete a heap of files unintentionally, and the raw file for the OP, I believe was one of them!) The new image is only saved as a jpeg for posting here. Untouched in ACR or PS (apart for the resize and save for web.)
In the OP, I have cloned out some pesky flowers that were heading toward the birds' bottom. I didn't think I ran NR on the bird, only the background. This image was shot with an old Canon 400D. Do you think it has something to do with the sensor size?
When changing the image size to the required 1200 x 800 what resolution should I be using? 240 or 300 dpi? I do like taking photos, I just don't like all the technical stuff that goes with it, but it seems to be a necessary evil to understand it.
Sympathies for the lost files -- it has happened to almost everyone.
A quick search for 400D says it is one of the Rebels and only 10 MP. The lower level bodies like that have been outpaced for AF, noise and resolution, as has the older 100-400 for sharpness. So all things considered, I'd say you did OK given the circumstances. Good you were shooting raw, even if the files didn't survive.
Just curious, was the JPEG from a RAW + JPEG capture in-camera? The in-camera processing would account for the somewhat noise-reduced and sharpened look. And I'm not sure the newest cameras are a lot better in that regard.
Noise reduction and sharpening are both very limited in what they can do, and largely work against one another. Nik's Dfine is the best tool I have found for NR.
OK. The little 400D was my first DSLR and I just loved it. It was a kit with a wide angle and a 300mm telephoto. It started my obsession.
The image is not a RAW + JPEG in-camera. Just a raw converted for posting here.
I have been using Topaz Noise Reduction for the NR and sharpening in PSCS6. Usually USM or smart sharpen. I make a "selection" of the subject and sharpen only that or invert the BG to NR. I would think that would be OK and they wouldn't be working against each other?
I'll have a look at Nik. They might have a free trial period.
I have tried Topaz for NR and prefer Dfine, but others may have a different result. It looks at different parts of the image and treats them differently, and it will often reduce noise in a BG and leave a bird's fine feathers virtually untouched.
But yes, sharpening and NR do work against one another, no matter what you use. I keep LR (same with ACR) at the default sharpening of 25, which compensates for the softening from the anti-alias filter. (With one of the newer cameras that omit it, I'd want to consider leaving it at 0.) It is very rare that I would ever sharpen the full-sized master file in PS, or with the LR/ACR sliders. I will sometimes use the NR sliders there, but more often will wait till PS and use Dfine. It seems to do a better job on the original fine-grained noise frequency.
Sharpening isn't sharpening -- it is the introduction of edge effect artifacts that give the appearance of an image being sharper. And if done on the master file those artifacts can cause problems when it is re-sized for a web JPEG or printing. After exporting a small JPEG I will often bring it back into PS and do a very small radius Smart Sharpen, with the Lens Blur setting.
If an original capture wasn't sharp, you can rarely improve it. It really pays to use the new cameras and pay careful attention to focus and eliminate even tiny motion blur.
Thank you Diane. Once again, you are clear and concise. Your comments on the sharpening are interesting. Is this the way most people work on their images? I look at the beutiful "avian" forum and can't imagine they don't sharpen. I agree with trying to get things sharp at capture. Needless to say, I have lots of "just out of focus" images to play with...and eventually, delete.
I can't know what most people do, but you'll often see the comment, from some of the people who post the most spectacular images, that a good image is one that is tack-sharp out of the camera. The unsharp ones get deleted, usually on the first round. Of course, not everyone can start at that level, as there is a huge investment in the best equipment and a lot of learning how best to use it. And there can be artistic qualities for some images that may trump absolute sharpness.
Good processing involves monitoring an image at various stages at 100% (1:1) where one pixel in the image is mapped to one pixel on your monitor, which should be running at native resolution.
I use Lightroom's default 25% sharpening, which is very subtle and compensates for the softening effect of the antialias filter over the sensor. Once in a great while I will sharpen further, but very rarely, as it will increase noise. Then the only other sharpening is on an exported JPEG, which sometimes gives it a punch. (Some softening occurs when an image is resized.) Often a slightly soft image can make a decent-looking small JPEG, but a sharp capture is always the best.
Thanks again! I ventured out yesterday, at the wrong time of day with a new lens. Sigma 150-600mm sport. I shot off around 270 frames and not a single one is sharp. Especially not as you mentioned above, at 100%.
In ACR the sharpening is set to the default of 25% also. I'll select one of the better shots from yesterday and apply the "Diane Miller approach" and see what I can do!
What camera body? How are focus sensors and AF set? Subject still or moving? Shutter speed? On a tripod or handholding? If the latter, how are you holding the lens? (That gets very good reviews as a great lens.)
I'll wait for the post for the answers! The problem would be with the capture. Is it possible you are inadvertently touching the MF override ring? The lens/camera would likely not be able to keep up with that.
Last edited by Diane Miller; 12-03-2015 at 05:37 PM.
Using a Canon 5D mkII. Lens is set to AF. I had OS set on 1. (I didn't have my glasses on. I think that should have been "off") Subjects were all moving, in and out of shade. Different shutter speeds to keep up with exposure. I'm trying to get the hang of manual exposure. I can't believe how much that little pointer moves around! I used a monopod yesterday. I think the problems lays with the operator.
A monopod helps with weight bearing but isn't as good as a tripod for stability, and even a tripod has limitations. Not all are created equal, and also the heads.
OS would be the Sigma version of image (optical) stabilization? I always leave mine on for all my lenses, even on the steadiest tripod, except for very slow shutter speeds. Maybe from 1/15 down you light see some movement from it trying to stabilize the image. Sounds a little crazy, but go to Live View with your longest focal length, with the camera lying absolutely still on a beanbag or the like, and watch the image look like something that's reflected in gently rippling water. A well-defined subject like a crescent moon is easiest to see the effect. I don't know your lens, and maybe it isn't an issue there, but it sure is for my Canon telephotos. If I'm shooting in very low light at a few seconds SS the image will look like I was shaking the camera.
But at normal daylight SSs I doubt it is a factor. I'd suspect the camera wasn't held steady for the SSs. Press the viewfinder hard against your forehead and hold the lens out near the end. Or maybe AF is the issue -- if the subject is still, use One Shot, if moving use AI Servo. Everyone is suspicious of AI Focus and I've never used it.
At some point you might look into focus calibration. Check out FocusTune. You can calibrate the lens at both wide and tele settings and the camera will interpolate. If the correction is way off, return the lens.
Is it possible you are inadvertently touching the MF override ring? The lens/camera would likely not be able to keep up with that.Yes it is very possible that I was touching the MF ring! I'll try the one shot. I was using AI Servo. I'll also play with the OS (optical) I will have a look at the focus calibration.
The SS was a bit slow, but it was taken with top-notch equipment and technique. You'll see that at that magnification it does look a bit soft, so it's important to get used to what 100% can look like. There is also the possibility of thermal disturbance, especially in humid or polluted air, softening a shot. The more distant the subject, the more that is a factor. (I doubt that was the case for this shot, though, as Bosque is normally very cold and dry in winter.)
Masked Lapwing
Posting Permissions
