critique request for sharpness

[owlsnotbears]

I am learning my first DLSR (Nikon 5300). Rereading purchased books by Steve (how can a manual be so fun to read!!). Would you critique especially to get more sharp? Had to crop slightly and reduce JPEG to be able to send in this forum.... f/10, SS 1/2500, Matrix, EV -0.7, used BBAF, taken from window of parked car with normalized temperatures

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[bsinc1962]

The tree looks sharp, the owl is a bit soft. Even at f10 depending on the lens focal length and your distance from the subject it may be beyond the depth of field if you grabbed focus on the trunk.

What was your focal length, your approximate distance, as well as what focus mode did you use on the camera?

 

[owlsnotbears]

I was between 25-30 feet away. I thought the tree was more in focus than the bird too! I was on single AF point (center) on the bird in the back. Focal length was 400 mm (I have a sigma 400-600mm lens). Manual focus with Auto ISO (BBAF). I am new at DSLRs and forums so all advice appreciated.

 

[bleirer]

I think in general it's a good result. The focus seems pretty on to my eye. Some of the bark around the same focus depth as the subject is sharp so I think you are on or close. That's the kind of image you could do something with in post if you have the ability to select areas. For example in Lightroom or Photoshop. You might increase overall sharpening just a little and try dehaze and clarity just a touch. There is no haze, but these tools also affect local contrast. Also masking for the owl and brightening a bit to help it stand out, and selectively sharpening and brightening the eyes. Just don't overdo it.

 

[Ralph]

In a situation like that I would of tried spot metering as well. That way you are exposing for the subject and not the tree and possibly get more detail on the owl.

 

[owlsnotbears]

Thank you so much. I will look into Lightroom next (i use GIMP in a limited capacity presently) to learn to use these needed adjustments. I am trying to be watchful of ISO (max is set on 3200), and attempting to keep SS between 1/1250 and 1/2500 in case the momma came back for a landing BIF, but didn't know if a longer focal length than f/10 was better or keeping ISO lower in the dark hole. Unfortunately shooting outside golden hour. Thank you again for all the suggestions, and would appreciate anything else I can adjust. Mary

 

[bsinc1962]

I was between 25-30 feet away. I thought the tree was more in focus than the bird too! I was on single AF point (center) on the bird in the back. Focal length was 400 mm (I have a sigma 400-600mm lens). Manual focus with Auto ISO (BBAF). I am new at DSLRs and forums so all advice appreciated.

With those numbers you have a depth of field of about 6 inches. So depending on how deep that cavity is that might be a contributor.

 

[bleirer]

Thank you so much. I will look into Lightroom next (i use GIMP in a limited capacity presently) to learn to use these needed adjustments. I am trying to be watchful of ISO (max is set on 3200), and attempting to keep SS between 1/1250 and 1/2500 in case the momma came back for a landing BIF, but didn't know if a longer focal length than f/10 was better or keeping ISO lower in the dark hole. Unfortunately shooting outside golden hour. Thank you again for all the suggestions, and would appreciate anything else I can adjust. Mary

Gimp should work, I'm told it can do most of what Photoshop can do. You seem to have plenty of room to brighten the owl selectively.

 

[Palouse]

f/10, SS 1/2500, Matrix, EV -0.7

f/10 is rather slow, and not your sharpest aperture. Try f/8. EV-0.7 seems odd, since the owl is still underexposed. Spot metering would have ignored the bright sky.

 

[bajadreamer]

I was between 25-30 feet away. I thought the tree was more in focus than the bird too! I was on single AF point (center) on the bird in the back. Focal length was 400 mm (I have a sigma 400-600mm lens). Manual focus with Auto ISO (BBAF). I am new at DSLRs and forums so all advice appreciated.

I am assuming you meant "Manual Mode" not manual focus. I agree with Bill about post processing helping this image. The owlet is pretty low contrast in a dark area-often difficult for the camera and lens to "see" and focus. With some brightening and sharpening I think could be a memorable image. Certainly better than most of my images when I was starting out.

 

[Rassie]

I agree with bleirer's comments. Your shutter speed was way higher than was needed, and I'm pretty sure that resulted in a high ISO. High ISO robs you of IQ in several ways.
Focus was pretty good. I processed the image similar to the way I would have if it were mine, so reduced the white sky highlights around the trunk, reduced shadows on the owl inside the dark tree, sharpened up the image a bit. Again, this incorporates a number of the points mentioned by bleirer.

I might also have cropped tighter to exclude the white beyond the tree trunk altogether.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[bleirer]

I agree with bleirer's comments. Your shutter speed was way higher than was needed, and I'm pretty sure that resulted in a high ISO. High ISO robs you of IQ in several ways.
Focus was pretty good. I processed the image similar to the way I would have if it were mine, so reduced the white sky highlights around the trunk, reduced shadows on the owl inside the dark tree, sharpened up the image a bit. Again, this incorporates a number of the points mentioned by bleirer.

I might also have cropped tighter to exclude the white beyond the tree trunk altogether.

View attachment 35123

Nice job!

 

[owlsnotbears]

Thank you all! The photo processed above is amazing. The processing you all described above are techniques I never heard of- would you suggest I look into Lightroom? The one thing about GIMP (other than I do not know if it can do many of the adjustments mentioned) is that it also does not use RAW. Thank you again for your patient advice.

 

[Rassie]

Thank you all! The photo processed above is amazing. The processing you all described above are techniques I never heard of- would you suggest I look into Lightroom? The one thing about GIMP (other than I do not know if it can do many of the adjustments mentioned) is that it also does not use RAW. Thank you again for your patient advice.

When I started on my digital photography path I shot all images in JPEG only, but after a while I learned of the extra benefits that come with shooting RAW. After starting to shoot RAW I never looked back, and that's probably true for most of the folks who post here. For that reason, yes. I would absolutely advise you to shoot in RAW if you want to pursue photography as a serious hobby. And that means using editing software that can edit RAW files. I use Photoshop myself, but I suspect the majority of folks on these forums use Lightroom, since that is probably a less costly option. And I've never seen any of them complain that Lightroom cannot do for them what they want with editing. So if you use Lightroom you will be in good company here. It is a very capable and popular program.

Oh, and in the beginning while you still learn editing RAW images, you can set your camera to record both RAW and JPEG images at the same time, That way you'll still have a JPEG of every image you shoot (JPEG for quickly reviewing and perhaps emailing or posting somewhere, and RAW for doing some serious editing to turn the image into a masterpiece).

 

[bleirer]

Thank you all! The photo processed above is amazing. The processing you all described above are techniques I never heard of- would you suggest I look into Lightroom? The one thing about GIMP (other than I do not know if it can do many of the adjustments mentioned) is that it also does not use RAW. Thank you again for your patient advice.

For $10 per month subscription to the Adobe photography plan you can get Lightroom and Photoshop. Definitely worth it. Photoshop is more like GIMP so you will be familiar with some of the tools. Lightroom is a raw converter that is best for global adjustments, though you can do selective adjustments with masking. It has a really good organizer/library. Photoshop is for when you want to work in layers or need better selection tools. Some people work mostly in Lightroom. I personally work more in Photoshop after doing basic adjustments in Lightroom. You can jump from Lightroom to Photoshop easily and save the work back in the Lightroom library.

Definitely a learning curve, but there are tons of free tutorials and videos.

 

[Woody Meristem]

In the roughly 20 years since I switched from film to digital I've always shot JPG and have only occasionally shot RAW images to see if using RAW was worth the increased editing it required. The conclusion has always been the same -- nope. My favorite software for editing JPGs is PhotoScape although I occasionally use FastStone, both of which can be downloaded at no charge.

Here's a quick and dirty edit on PhotoScape, I sharpened the photo, backlit it, darkened the tree, lightened the owl, raised the color temperature to cool down the reddish bark and cropped out most of the sky and part of the tree --

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[owlsnotbears]

I attempted to change to shoot in RAW + fine JPEG, but the camera burst decreased from about 5 shots per second down to one shot per second (or painfully longer) and I am using a Lexar Professional SD card (read 160 mb/s, write 70 mb/s) that the camera shop told me was the fastest read my Nikon D5300 can use. So I will stay with JPEG for now until I learn more about the camera before tackling Lightroom. It's good to know that JPEG is an acceptable format.

 

[bleirer]

I attempted to change to shoot in RAW + fine JPEG, but the camera burst decreased from about 5 shots per second down to one shot per second (or painfully longer) and I am using a Lexar Professional SD card (read 160 mb/s, write 70 mb/s) that the camera shop told me was the fastest read my Nikon D5300 can use. So I will stay with JPEG for now until I learn more about the camera before tackling Lightroom. It's good to know that JPEG is an acceptable format.

There are many benefits to raw, would be worth getting more information and learning more about it. Definitely not the majority view that jpeg is just as good when you need the latitude to make adjustments.