Very frustrated
I am new to dgrin, and looking for some advice
I am somewhat new to photography and started getting into wildlife photography in the spring. I think I am stuck on figuring out a few things :scratch
I am using a canon 50d, 400mm 5.6, 2x&1.4x extenders, 430ex flash with better beamer extender.
First, when I use the 400 with a 2x or 1.4x extender, it seems the only way I can get sharp focus is if I use liveview zoomed in (still hard to see with image bouncing around), even then it is iffy. Am I doing something wrong? (or maybe I just need glasses :dunno)
Another area I am having trouble, I have been taking a lot of photos of this eagle, and it seems like every time I think I got good shots, but they end up not being so good. I have yet for a perfect time to happen, were the light is great to combine with the eagle being in a perfect situation/position
Here is a example, I have been going out in the morning and it always seems to be really low contrast, at times hazy. How do you get more contrast in the photos? or is it all just photoshop skill, or coming back at a different time of day (with higher contrast?)
Here is a example,
I loaded the raw images into photoshop raw program, and VERY randomly adjusted all the sliders back and forth till I got this, still not as good as I am looking for (I guess I need to get a book on how to process raw also!)
Then I tried again by messing with the curve to try to get good contrast?, and added a TON of sharpening :scratch
I am somewhat new to photography and started getting into wildlife photography in the spring. I think I am stuck on figuring out a few things :scratch
I am using a canon 50d, 400mm 5.6, 2x&1.4x extenders, 430ex flash with better beamer extender.
First, when I use the 400 with a 2x or 1.4x extender, it seems the only way I can get sharp focus is if I use liveview zoomed in (still hard to see with image bouncing around), even then it is iffy. Am I doing something wrong? (or maybe I just need glasses :dunno)
Another area I am having trouble, I have been taking a lot of photos of this eagle, and it seems like every time I think I got good shots, but they end up not being so good. I have yet for a perfect time to happen, were the light is great to combine with the eagle being in a perfect situation/position
Here is a example, I have been going out in the morning and it always seems to be really low contrast, at times hazy. How do you get more contrast in the photos? or is it all just photoshop skill, or coming back at a different time of day (with higher contrast?)
Here is a example,
I loaded the raw images into photoshop raw program, and VERY randomly adjusted all the sliders back and forth till I got this, still not as good as I am looking for (I guess I need to get a book on how to process raw also!)
Then I tried again by messing with the curve to try to get good contrast?, and added a TON of sharpening :scratch
Todd - My Photos
0
Comments
RAW images never look like the finished product. No - I should re-phrase - they RARELY look like the finished product.
That said, the nicest images are usually the result of minimal processing - i.e. apply those changes with a gentle hand - so you get 'just enough' to enhance the photo without making it look phony.
Welcome - and have fun!
http://www.imagesbyceci.com
http://www.facebook.com/ImagesByCeci
Picadilly, NB, Canada
I think I need to read up on the best steps to process the raw images
Thanks
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
If you get camera shake in winds....is that super heavy strong winds...ie...50-65mph or it with a breeze ...ie under 15mph.......Giottos is a very good brand of pod,
however if your pod is not rated for the weight that is ontop of it then there will be shake.....ball head needs to be rated for your camera + heaviest lenses and accessories
attached to it or again it will show camera shake.......also for wildlife , you should be shooting with camera on tripod and the center column should be at its lowest UNRAISED position
as that will cause shake...also make sure if your lens is a VR lens that the VR function is turned off...as that can cause shake in your photos........
For good raw processing book...Scott Kelby's LR2 or 3 books for Photograhers is a great place to start..........
The extenders also reduce image quality somewhat, both because they are adding their own optical aberrations and because they are magnifying the imperfections of the primary lens. I have used Canon's 1.4x extender and gotten good results, but most people say the 2x extender is worthwhile only with the very best faster-aperture long primes. Ideally, to allow autofocus to work well, the 2x extender should be used with f/2.8 lenses, which in the super-telephoto range are super-expensive.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
Thanks
Not sure I understand though, are you saying that I shouldnt crop the photos, or simply saying that getting closer would give better results then a crop?
Photo 1 is a uncropped photo, and photo 3 is the same photo with a crop, and resize to make smaller/sharper.
anyway, I understand that getting closer would give better picture/more detail, obvious, but the problem is getting closer, because I was about as close as I can get without causing it to fly off. Getting close enough to have the eagle fill the frame would be pretty nice, but even using 800mm (400+2xtc) I would need to get pretty close, and that eagles I have found wont tolerate that.
I guess I have a few options then, I could travel to were the city eagles are (that let you get much closer), I could live with that being as close as I get, or I could set up a blind a few trees over and wait.
What has been stopping me from setting up a blind, is fear that I would cause it stress (if it noticed me), or that I would get a (very large) fine for harassing a eagle
It is hard to tell unless I switch to live view, then I can see the shake when there is a breeze (I have been just waiting till the wind stops to take a shot). I was thinking that I needed a new head, but now I think I am pretty sure I need something better. My tripod is rated for 17lbs, and the head is rated for 13. My camera with 400mm and everything weighs 8-10lbs. The head is rated for 13, but there is no way it will hold 13 (max is probably around 5), so I think I need a better head
Thanks
Have you tried hanging a weight from the bottom of the center post? That might help dampen vibrations. You have to let it settle down though.
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
I'm certainly not saying not to crop. I'm just pointing out, as you've intimated, that getting closer is always better for image quality. More data is never worse than less data:D. I think most of the spectacular bald eagle shots are taken at much closer distances than the shot you posted. I live on the east coast, and I guarantee you, I can't get as close as YOU DID to the eagles available to me.
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
Saw your post, and then looked at your EXIF Data,
from what I saw your settings were, it seems that you need
to really bump up the ISO, and The Shutter Speed might help some.
Exposure Time (1 / Shutter Speed) {0x829A} 1/40 second ===> 0.025 second
Lens F-Number / F-Stop {0x829D} 14/1 ===> ƒ/14
ISO Speed Ratings {0x8827} 400
Original Date/Time {0x9003} 2010:08:12 08:29:49
Focal Length {0x920A} 800/1 mm ===> 800 mm
I am not a Wildlife Shooter, so maybe the Folks on here could advise you
of settings that might get you better results.
I'll be interested to see what their recommendations might be.
Must be wonderful to see Eagles!!!
Craig
Burleson, Texas
Thanks, I will have to give that a try
I know of 6 adults and at least 3 juveniles around, but I usually end up taking photos of the same two adults and there 'kid', because it is easier to keep track of there habits, were they go, the trees they fly to.
It is so much fun, there is so much you cant capture with the camera, for instance, when I was taking this shot, the juvenile started squaking/calling, getting all excited, and the next thing I know, half a fish fell from the sky as one of the adults flew over
Use a tripod with good long glass technique. Shooting at 400 mm and greater is very demanding of shooting technique if you want sharp photos. Post processing will help good images look better.
Like Craig pointed out, the 50D requires at least f5.6 to achieve autofocus, and f4 or faster is better. My 50D will achieve AF at f6.3 sometimes, if the target is well lit with good contrast and sharp borders. At f8 it simply will not af reliably. so what you gain with your TCs, you lose in autofocus ability. Try to get closer if possible. Long glass is not awfully expensive, but good, fast long glass is very expensive and not easy to finesse in the shade of a forest.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
I try to get the best balance I can over the head, but the head just wont clamp tight enough most of the time. The tightest I can clamp it, I can still move the lense around without unclamping it
Anyway, I went out today to try out everyones tips, but really didnt see much, just a eagle fight with a osprey that was to far away to get a great shot.
One reason I didnt use a higher iso then 400, was because with 800-1600+, the noise was VERY bad, and I could get better image quality with a lower iso/longer shutter speed.
So today I tried shooting with a higher iso to get the proper shutter speed like was suggested, and while processing them, I figured out that actually the iso noise was not that bad, but the way I was processing the raw image made the noise much worse! (at least I think thats were I went wrong)
I read this about shutter speed (and have read similar other places)
http://enginova.com/Minimum%20Shutter%20Speed.htm
So considering that the subject is moving some (even when still I imagine wildlife is not as still as a rock), using the 400mm, I would have to use 1/800s or faster to get a sharp image, even on a tripod. So this explains why my eagle and heron shots using the 400mm+2xtc are never as good as all my other bird shots using just the 400mm with 1/1000s+, even handheld. (like the juvenile eagle example was shot with just 400mm 1/1000s at f7, iso 400)
I guess this also means that the extenders are no good, even with a high iso, unless it is BRIGHT out, inorder to get a high enough shutter speed
I got as close as I possibly could this time (to get any closer I would have had to climb a tree). I still was not close enough though?
Are these any better?
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
I was wondering if they are much of a improvement? does the exposure look correct, etc?
am I doing anything right?
f11, 1/320s, iso800, 800mm
f11, 1/320s, iso800, 800mm
f11, 1/800s, iso800, 800mm
f16, 1/400s, iso800, 800mm
Note, it was cloudy, and I think the next time I really need to take more notice to when the sun is shinning threw clouds, as you can see in the first two, that have the same settings
Thanks
This is THE answer....I saw no reply to this so I thought I'd point it out. My 400 DO IS lens won't auto focus on my 7D at any aperture past 5.6. (it's an f/4 lens)
yeah, I understood that, before I bought the lens and extenders, plus it is pretty obvious when you hit the shutter button that it wont focus, another words, you would need to be blind to be taking shots and not notice that it isnt focusing
Even with just the 400 without a tc, it wont AF to close to anything (that is within range), or has trouble with anything that isnt bright, or low contrast, so I have had a lot of practice manual focusing it.
The biggest problem that I have trying to manual focus with the 400+2x, is that the viewfinder is so dark that I cant tell if anything is in focus or not. The only way I can get good manual focus, is if I switch to live view, and zoom in, then I can get focus pretty good (manual). Not sure if there is any better technique to manual focus?
The last shots I posted, I took some shots without the extenders like was suggested, and also shot with the 2x. I was as close as I could possibly get, and the 400mm shots were definantly not as good as the shots with the 2x.
At this point, I think I am starting to see that my choices are,
1. have a techniquly perfect, really sharp image, with less closeup detail, using just the 400
2. I could use the extender, give up some of the sharpness and lens quality for close up details
3. Hit the lottery and buy a ultra expensive fast lens
The shot I took of the juvenile was with just 400mm (it was right beside my car on a a guard rail), and I cant really tell any difference in image quality from those shots, compared to the last shots I posted, that I used the 2x for? (that could just be because of my lack of knowledge/experience though)
The 40D/50D cameras do quite nicely at 800 ISO if you carefully avoid under exposure. Most of the noise in images lives in the lower quarter tones.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
That confirms something I have been noticing. Before I totally figured out how to read a histogram, I think I was underexposing most shots I tried at 800 and higher iso.
Today I spent the day taking railroad photos, all at 800 ISO, and I think the noise wasnt that bad
Crud! I was strongly considering that lens...wildlife photography is very much an exercise in futility.
With my old eyes I must rely on AF or I can't play.
I know (or at least I think I do) that the 500 is the answer...but I refuse to lug that beast around.
Link to my Smugmug site
My 100-400 consistently takes better images at 400mm than the DO does. :cry The 400 f 5.6 is supposed to be the best quality available at 400 (the f2.8 is out of the question) with decent light. In flight shots are typically very high shutter speeds so I don't think the lack of IS will matter much...unless Im not aware of something?
I could add the 1.4 tc to the DO on my pro body which made a great "in flight" setup. I sold the pro body and now have two 7Ds. It was driving me nuts to have two dissimilar cameras in the field.
Oh, that's disappointing about the DO. Well, you'd be hard-pressed to see any difference between your 100-400 and the 400 F5.6 at any aperture other than wide open. (I say your 100-400 because evidently you have a good one, as do I.) Wide open, the F5.6 lens wins, but not by a huge margin. I hardly ever used my 400 F5.6 as a result, so I sold it. Or I should say I traded it up for the 500mm.
Link to my Smugmug site