Equipment, Process or Unreasonable Expectations?

largelylivin

I am less than a year into Digital photography and this is my first DSLR (see sig). Recently I took up bird pics, bought a Sigma 50-500, and began experiencing frequent disappointment in the results.

1. Unresolved conflict between the reliability of auto-focus and what I see as being a largely impractical situation to use manual focusing
2. Noise especially in anything not well lit, shadow areas, anything under-exposed. Taking photos in the evening, which seems to be their prefered time to come out and get their picture taken, brings out the worst of everything: noise, auto-focus, low light....
3. When significantly cropped and enlarged: halos on edges, fringing, etc.

Most of the time I have focused on getting rid of the noise starting in either ACR or Pentax Photolab, then later using Neat Image. I am trying to get a feel for how much filtering you can do before mosaic effects set in. Lately I have resorted to filtering the subject and sky separately.

So here's a sequence of photos showing my raw and processed results. THis is far from my worst photo. Its a good photo that still illustrates the problems. Advice, thoughts, suggestions, questions? I will appreciate all.



Orginal Uncropped Raw Photo from ACR with Camera Settings: ISO 400, handheld, exposure 1/1000, f11, 35mm equiv focal length 630.



From ACR: Cropped, Exposure +2.0, ColorNoiseReduction:25, IlluminesenceSmooting: 20, Sharpness: 25.


Zoom of ACR output




Filtered using Neat Image, Automatic Profiling, Default Filter settings except: High Frequence Noise Reduction set to 50%, Sharpen Y channel set to 150%.




Zoom of Neat Image FIltered Output

This is the what I have found to be the maximum level of filtering before you start getting an unacceptable level of mosaic. From here, I would separate the subject and sky, filter the sky using the D&S filter, apply sharpening to the whole thing, add a bit of gausian noise.

Here's my original fully processed result (Not exactly the same crop or whitepoint.).




I'm not that happy with the result and wondering what to do next.



You can see my birds in general here: http://smile-123.smugmug.com/gallery/3301938/8/219628121#P-1-15

claudermilk

Is that shot at 500mm? There's just not all that many pixels on the bird to work with. You really need the uncropped shot to look like that first crop for better results. Beyond that, I'll let the BiF photographers weigh in with more advice.

CatOne

There's a reason they say "Fill the frame." You're nowhere near that -- that's just not a good shot to work with if you want a blow-up.

If that's shot at 500 mm then you need to get closer (sure, maybe not practical but there's a reason we don't have crystal-sharp pictures of the planet Pluto, either ).

Can't say on the focus tracking... with my 1D mark II I have AI Servo mode which continuously focuses on a target based on some criteria. Were you in AI servo mode and panning?

You may want to experiment here, you should be able to do better but also note that shooting at 500 mm and with imperfect technique will lead to poor photos. Almost by definition at 500 mm you'll have a tough time getting a sharp shot -- you'd want a shutter speed of 1/1000 or faster. BTW what were the ISO and Aperture you shot at? I can't imagine the bigma is very fast on the long end.

Oh, and Exposure +2.0 in your edits? Hello, and welcome to noise :-)

largelylivin

claudermilk wrote:

Is that shot at 500mm? There's just not all that many pixels on the bird to work with. You really need the uncropped shot to look like that first crop for better results. Beyond that, I'll let the BiF photographers weigh in with more advice.

So, you're saying that I need a bigger lens? Are you saying this is the best you can hope for at that degree of magnification?

Richard

largelylivin wrote:

So, you're saying that I need a bigger lens? Are you saying this is the best you can hope for at that degree of magnification?

A longer lens (or getting closer) would give you more pixels to work with. More light would let you shoot at a lower ISO, which would reduce the noise in the pixels you have. In this case, you might have tried shooting at a wider f/stop. You could have then shot at a lower ISO and/or increased the shutter speed, which would lessen any motion blur. But unless you can get the bird to occupy more pixels on the sensor, there are definitely limits to how good the detail will be.

saurora

You might want to move this thread to the nature forum where all the birder's can (and will) comment. Those guys really know their stuff from gear to good exposures (for detail) to the best techniques for processing the sometimes 'necessary' crops. It is disappointing to buy a long lens and then realize those darn birds are farther away than you realized! That is probably not an uncommon discovery. Even a 500mm lens has it's limits, and accessibility to an area where you can get physically closer to the bird is going to help you alot.

largelylivin

rsinmadrid wrote:

A longer lens (or getting closer) would give you more pixels to work with. More light would let you shoot at a lower ISO, which would reduce the noise in the pixels you have. In this case, you might have tried shooting at a wider f/stop. You could have then shot at a lower ISO and/or increased the shutter speed, which would lessen any motion blur. But unless you can get the bird to occupy more pixels on the sensor, there are definitely limits to how good the detail will be.

THIS IS A NEW IDEA TO ME! Smaller f-stop = less light = more noise. I am not kidding, I really just think of depth of field as being the primary product of the appature. I was actually driving for smaller f-stops so that my focusing would not be so critical. This seems to be an example of learning to "think" a little differently in the digital world.

Thanks. You said it just right and I understood. That's doesn't seem to happen so often for me anymore.

largelylivin

saurora wrote:

You might want to move this thread to the nature forum where all the birder's can (and will) comment. Those guys really know their stuff from gear to good exposures (for detail) to the best techniques for processing the sometimes 'necessary' crops. It is disappointing to buy a long lens and then realize those darn birds are farther away than you realized! That is probably not an uncommon discovery. Even a 500mm lens has it's limits, and accessibility to an area where you can get physically closer to the bird is going to help you alot.

Yes saurora, this is my first truly super telephoto and I could not imagine ever needing one longer, but I don't think there IS a long enough lens for birding! It is proving very tough to get great sharp photos of birds, especially when they are flying. I am only realizing that this is an application that really stresses the envelope.

jfriend

largelylivin wrote:

I am less than a year into Digital photography and this is my first DSLR (see sig). Recently I took up bird pics, bought a Sigma 50-500, and began experiencing frequent disappointment in the results.

1. Unresolved conflict between the reliability of auto-focus and what I see as being a largely impractical situation to use manual focusing

I'll add a few comments about the auto-focus aspects of this problem. If you understand or think about how an auto-focus system works in a camera like this, you will realize that this shot is an extremely difficult scenario for the auto-focus system for the following reasons:

• The center auto-focus sensor is probably larger than your bird. That means that the sensor is seeing a mix of data from the background and the bird. Until you get the desired focus subject to be larger than the focus sensor, it is next to impossible to get optimal results.
• The foreground is darker than the background. While this is a common occurrence when shooting birds-in-flight, it is yet another challenge to the auto-focus system because dark subjects contribute a lot less light (and correspondingly data). This combined with a mix of data from the lighter background could easily create a situation where more than half the total data coming to the auto-focus sensor is coming from the background. The ONLY solution to this is to get closer to your subject so that it fills at least 1/3 of your frame so the foreground object covers the entire focus sensor. This advice, by the way, is also important for sports shooters.
• The amount of data the auto-focus sensor gets is directly proportional to the max aperture of your lens at the focal length you are shooting. Thus an f/2.8 lens supplies twice as much auto-focus data as an f/4 lens and four times as much data as an f/5.6 lens. The bigger aperture lenses for birding are very expensive, but they do indeed help.

So, given that, you just have to make the subject larger in the frame. If I were you, I'd start by saying that you have to work harder to position yourself where you can be close enough with the equipment you have and/or be pickier about the situatoins that you spend a lot of energy shooting in.

When I go out to the local marshes for a few hours, I've learned that my goal is to put myself in a position where I can get some pretty close shots of some interesting target birds and then wait to focus my energy entirely on birds that actually get close enough.

My goal is to end up with 1-5 good in-flight shots from two hours of waiting. I used to take a lot more shots including many where the bird was a similar or smaller perspective as your example, but I now no longer even take those shots because they never lead to a top result, saving my attention and focus for the closer shots. For reference, I shoot with a D2Xs and Nikkor 200-400 f/4 and occasionally with a TC 1.4 in good light. I would love to own Nikon's 600 f/4 or 400 f/2.8, but with patience I'm able to get some decent shots with my 200-400 (shot mostly at 400).

pathfinder

This thread might be more appropriate in Harry's wildlife forum, but The Technique Forum is about the use of equipment, and this is a good example of the challenges facing all shooter's with very long glass. Thus, I am moving it to the Technique Forum and out of the Finishing Forum.

Th Bigma is capable of making excellent photos, but it is not the best or the easiest lens to use effectively, as a faster optic with image stabiization is easier to use.


No matter how long your lens is, it is almost never as long as you would like when shooting birds. Nevertheless, getting closer, and then getting closer again is worthwhile skill to strive for. No matter how good your long lens is, a shorter lens will be easier to handle, weigh lots less for the same aperture, focus faster, be cheaper, and have much less air in the lightpath to your film plane. Long lenses are like sniper rifles, easy to shoot long distances, but very challenging to aim at moving targets.

Long glass needs to be shot wide open ( or at least only one stop less than wide open ) or f8 or so for a Bigma. You can shoot at ISO 400 with Canon cameras, but you will get better images at 100 or even 200.

Early morning is not very bright, and you will find yourself wanting faster glass, even with an f4 lens. Get a good tripod with a gimbal mount, an electronic shutter release, and use all of these. Learn to predict when the bird is going to move and shoot just before the movement - use a rapid series of frames, and maybe one will be perfect.

Then again, sometimes, you can get a bird in flight with a 135mm lens like this...ISO 200 f4.5 1/1600th 20D



This was a matter of being lucky, in the right place at the right time. Anyone who has shot Great Blue Herons in the midwest, will understand, as these are very wary birds to get close to.

The posters image of the bird was sharp, but just way too small in the frame ( too few pixels) to make a great image.

largelylivin

Pathfinder,

! grew-up an Anderson and graduated from Purdue, now living in Princeton. That is a fantastic shot! I had a colony of Great (White) Egrets with one lone Great Blue Heron just behind my boat all summer: that's when I just had to start taking pics of them and bought the Bigma.

Here's my best GBH shot of the summer. It pales in comparison to yours!

largelylivin

jfriend,

Thank you for that explaination. It really makes sense: my experience just hadn't got me to that level of understanding yet.

It sounds very much like I am going down the same path that you've already been. I am being much more selective now about the shots that I take versus say 2 months ago. But, on this 2 hour outing, I still took about 50 or so shots and 'published' 9 including four inflight shots of this same hawk plus the following cormorant which was probably 1/3 the distance of the hawk. I am anxious to replace several of those that I did publish with better ones when I get them!

I recently went from using the center-weighted averaging to the 'spot' metering which seems to give more consistent exposures, but focus is still a problem, as you pointed out, especially those long shots.

I am still in the process of learning what is and what is not reasonable to expect from my equipment and digital, in general, and I must say that Birding has been the most frustrating of all the photos that I take.

pathfinder

largelylivin wrote:

Pathfinder,

! grew-up an Anderson and graduated from Purdue, now living in Princeton. That is a fantastic shot! I had a colony of Great (White) Egrets with one lone Great Blue Heron just behind my boat all summer: that's when I just had to start taking pics of them and bought the Bigma.

Here's my best GBH shot of the summer. It pales in comparison to yours!

Nonsense, the light in your picture of the GBH is what makes it really stand out.

Spend some time in Harry's forum, and you will see some work by first rate shooters, (and Harry is right up at the top ).

They will also help teach you the ropes.