Not a bird

Discussion in 'Photography' started by PeterN, Jan 1, 2014.

  1. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    PeterN, Jan 1, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  2. PeterN

    Savageduck Guest

    Nice capture!

    However, once again there are issues which nag at my image quality
    sensitivities. That image as you have resized for sharing shows JPEG
    compression issues. Then you continue to insist in hobbling a perfectly
    good lens, this time by adding the TC1.7 and the -5/3 EV which is
    compounded by a further negative tweak in ACR with exposure (not too
    serious), but a more harmful -13 shadow adjustment.
    Not quite the way I would have gone about PP on that image, but I
    cannot deny it is a nice capture.
    Savageduck, Jan 1, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  3. Very nice!
    I had to go to a site in northeast Houston Tuesday and there
    was a street vendor by the RR tracks selling "COON".
    So I had to go look and he had about 10 skinned and butchered
    racoons on ice ready for BBQ. No photos though since I doubt he
    had a Houston food vendor license and the police were there
    talking to him.
    Paul in Houston TX, Jan 1, 2014
  4. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    As in many things, lens selection is a compromise. the 200 by itself, is
    not long enough. The 80-400 is a sharp lens, but is not fast enough for
    the early morning light, or lack of it. Also, the focusing is not fast
    enough to capture most birds in flight.
    I freely admit that I cannot hand carry a 400mm. So I use a compromise.
    Thanks for your comments.

    In addition to my above comments, remember, My set up is for birds, many
    of which are completely or partiall white. Hence my EC. Without that I
    could not even get shots like this.

    PeterN, Jan 1, 2014
  5. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    Thank you for your comments.
    PeterN, Jan 1, 2014
  6. PeterN

    Eric Stevens Guest

    I also wonder about colour spaces. See

    For what it is worth, I am using Firefox.
    Eric Stevens, Jan 1, 2014
  7. PeterN

    Savageduck Guest

    I still think you are going about this the wrong way. I am not going to
    question you rationale for the choices you have made, I just know I
    wouldn't have done the same. You say your set up is for birds, yet your
    bird shots are no better than the raccoon shot.
    While getting that Bald Eagle shot was a great opportunity, the image
    as presented is not particularly good. There is a halo around the bird,
    the dark detail of the bird is lost. As to the TC, you are using your
    D800 and with planned exposure you should have a quality NEF which
    could handle a crop with room to spare. I dare say I would have done
    better using my D300S and the 70-300mm. Using the 70-200mm f/2.8
    without the TC on the D300S would have given me better than TC
    performance on the D800.

    I just think that many of the opportunities you have been presented on
    this trip have been wasted by some questionable equipment and exposure
    choices. Just my thoughts on what you have shared with us so far. Once
    you get home and can work on your desktop you might be able to do
    something better in PP.
    Savageduck, Jan 1, 2014
  8. PeterN

    Savageduck Guest

    I would add, if I can get an image such as this, using a D300 + 70-300mm:
    < >
    Then you should be able to get much better detail in your bird shots
    with your far superior camera and lens. As I say, you are going about
    this the wrong way and you are not actually achieving your goals using
    the choices you have made. You have no problem capturing the subject,
    but fall down with the quality of RAW captured, you might well have
    done better with a 4/3 super-zoom of some type. Your equipment isn't
    performing to its full potential, and I don't believe it is a problem
    with lens or camera. These might be some hard truths, but you need to
    rethink your methods.
    Savageduck, Jan 1, 2014
  9. Makes good sense to me...

    I'll grant that when I first looked at the Exif the idea of using spot metering on that
    subject raised an eyebrow. Then of course I see what the intended subject matter
    was, and can agree totally with Peter on how this configuration makes perfect sense.
    The 70-200mm f/2.8G with a 1.7X TC is an excellent lens. I don't know
    where you are coming from with this negativity, but it suggests that you've
    never seen what the camera/lens combinations Peter has available can do.
    That's a joke. Right?
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jan 2, 2014
  10. PeterN

    MC Guest


    The type of images you want to create should firstly determine what
    equipment you use and, secondly, the methods you use to utilise said
    equipment. What you are currently doing, however, is trying to sqeeze
    your ideal image out of what little you have at your disposal (wrong
    equipment, questionable technique and the reliance of post production
    manipulation) rather than using the correct tools and methods for the
    job in the first place.
    I am not saying you will not occasionally produce the odd "lucky" image
    doing what you do but, more often than not, all you are doing is
    spending 99% of your time trying to justify your photography by trying
    to create something from nothing, using images which most other
    photographers would have discarded. The one good thing about digital
    is that it does not matter if you discard 100, 200 or more shots from a
    days shoot. In fact, you will probably learn more about your
    photography by understanding why an image should be discarded rather
    than why it should be kept.

    However, unless you start to use the right equipment and methods for
    your current projects, you should seriously rethink the type of
    photography and subject matter you want to pursue

    MC, Jan 2, 2014
  11. PeterN

    Savageduck Guest

    I am well aware of what that particular combination can do. However,
    Peter is not extracting the full potential of the very good & capable
    equipment. That is why am somewhat bewildered at the poor quality of
    what we are seeing. The images captured with the equipment he has
    should be superb, they are not.

    Why do I have the feeling that if you had gone on the same trip as
    Peter using your similar equipment, shooting at the same subjects, we
    wouldn't be having this discussion regarding image quality? I suspect
    you would have given us very good quality images of the same subjects.
    Not quite a joke, in the case of Peter's images on this trip I am
    perfectly serious. Personally I would prefer to use a D800 and both of
    the lenses he has on his current trip. I don't have that luxury.
    This is a D300 + 70-300mm shot. Peter should have been able to produce
    a far better quality image of the same subject, showing the feather
    detail he values so much, with any of his D800 combo choices.
    Savageduck, Jan 2, 2014
  12. PeterN

    Savageduck Guest

    BTW: These examples are the sort of quality images I would expect to
    see from your D800 and either of your lenses. I believe that you, your
    choice of locations and kit are all capable of producing similar. There
    are just some other hurdles to surmount.
    < >
    < >
    < >
    < >
    < >
    Savageduck, Jan 2, 2014
  13. PeterN

    Savageduck Guest

    There is nothing wrong with Peter's equipment. He has great equipment
    for his current project, and I envy him for that. However, he has just
    made some choices I don't agree with, and has combined those choices
    with badly planned, and in my opinion not particularly well thought out
    exposure settings which are exacerbated by some odd metering, or don't
    take into account the use of a TC, particularly with the 80-400mm. He
    should be getting better out of what he has, and the experience he has.

    He has the experience and knowledge, I just don't buy his rationale for
    some of the choices he has made on this trip
    Savageduck, Jan 2, 2014
  14. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    That is a very interesting discussion. I suspect that since I do my PP
    for printing, and web display, I should convert the profile, and then
    export. But, as I said in another thread, these images are getting rough
    processing with an uncalibrated 14" monitor.
    PeterN, Jan 2, 2014
  15. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    I do not take your comments badly. Indeed, you are not wrong. Yes when I
    do something intentionally, I say so in no uncertain terms. what bothers
    me is that a lot appears to be related to exposure issues, particularly
    in high contrast light. I will not comment on the processing issues, as
    you and I have different tastes, and that has been discussed ad nauseum.

    Here are prior years captures.

    <'t Come Back.jpg>

    < Heron.jpg>
    PeterN, Jan 2, 2014
  16. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    What do you think my exposure issue is?
    Could it be equipment, error, or user error.
    If the former, I either need to switch to my D300, or am screwed on this
    If the latter, what would you suggest?
    PeterN, Jan 2, 2014
  17. PeterN

    Whiskers Guest

    Interesting thread. I'm not familiar with any of the kit being
    discussed; my own efforts at wildlife photography were pre-digital, with
    little or no automatic anything, and that obviously colours my ideas
    about how to do it. But I believe taking a wholly manual approach is
    the best way to learn what is possible, and which factors have what
    effect on the results. Only the photographer 'knows' what should be in
    focus or out of focus, and only the photographer 'knows' which details
    in the image 'should' get optimum exposure - and what that exposure is.
    Setting these things in advance, by anticipating where the subject will
    be and in what sort of light, makes it possible to frame and shoot
    instantly with no reliance at all on the electronics guessing what you
    want and calculating all the settings for you after you've squeezed the

    Through-the-lens manual focussing is the most accurate option when using
    long lenses, and through-the-lens metering can be useful too as long as
    you know exactly what is being metered and how to interpret the reading
    to get the result you're after - if your 'spot' covers the whole of the
    important part of the subject, it isn't a 'spot' it's in effect a basic
    reflected-light averaging meter for that subject; you still have to
    decide whether to adjust the reading to give more exposure for the dark
    bits or less to stop the bright bits from 'blowing'. This is tricky for
    digital sensors as they seem to be much less forgiving than film.
    Familiarity with your own kit is what counts here.

    Hand-holding a lens longer than (in 35mm camera terms) about 200mm is a
    waste of time (although modern anti-shake systems undoubtedly help, if
    they don't introduce a delay that makes choosing the moment to squeeze
    the button more difficult). From an unstable base such as a boat, all
    your difficulties are amplified.

    I found using a hand-held incident-light exposure meter to be the
    simplest approach; a hand-held 'spot' meter (with a tiny spot) is fine
    for static subjects, but takes too long for anything moving, and of
    course requires the user to decide where on the dark/light scale the
    chosen spot should be in the final image. Bracketing exposures (in
    small steps, ideally) takes care of minor light changes - and this is
    something electronic cameras are very good (and quick) at.

    For speed of action, I still prefer a range-finder camera to an SLR;
    that may seem eccentric for shooting wildlife but until you've tried
    it ... but I find SLRs difficult to focus, as my eyesight seems to lack
    the accuity required for assessing sharpness on the eye-level focussing
    screen. The genuine split-image from a real range-finder is much easier
    for me. Knowing in advance what distance to set also helps, of course!
    (Zoom lenses rarely have distance scales that are much use - another
    reason for using prime lenses).

    I haven't digitised my film images, otherwise I'd share some of my
    own efforts here. So feel free to ignore my unsubstantiated waffle ;))
    Whiskers, Jan 2, 2014
  18. PeterN

    Sandman Guest

    Surely that's Peter mangling his photos in posts, as usual? I'm sure the
    halo is from unsharp mask and then he's cranked up the contrast. I'm sure
    the original NEF looks quite allright.
    Yeah, why use TC on a D800... Strange.
    Sandman, Jan 2, 2014
  19. PeterN

    Sandman Guest

    Sandman, Jan 2, 2014
  20. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    Well, the judges in several competitions decided otherwise. The first
    did fairly well, and the second was runner up in several others.
    PeterN, Jan 2, 2014
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.