Does it always need to be in focus?

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

aussiewild

aussiewild

Member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
Hi all,

Not sure how to introduce myself here maybe we could start a thread for that. Anyways I love wildlife and about the only time the shutter button is clicked by me some type of creature is in the viewfinder. I have been reading the posts here as much I can, although spending more time at the computer is not my favorite thing. Enjoying this site and everyones images, banter and discussion. After finding Steve on youtube and buying his guides and books I had to show support for this forum. He already convinced me (without ever meeting or corresponding) to cross over to Nikon from Canon and I always think about him when looking at my credit card statement! ;-)
Now to my question I pose with the image I'm making my big debut with on BCF. Does it always need to be in focus from snout to ears? Clinical. I don't know but sometimes when the light is gone and you cross the edge into the darkness the options are limited anyway. Wide open and thin DOF. Interested in your thoughts and what makes you happy in a wildlife image. Obviously eyes are very important, well to me anyway.
This badger image was taken just before the fires started in my part of the world. It was dark and I had to scurry down an embankment to find somewhere this fella would pop out of the tall grasses. Nikon D850, 600mm F4/E, F/4.0, ISO 1100, 1/800 Cropped just a tad to remove some useless crud around the edge.
Well here goes!
Cheers
Randall

badgersniff.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
aussiewild said:
Does it always need to be in focus from snout to ears?
Click to expand...
Personally I'd say no, it doesn't 'always' need to be in focus from snout to ears. But personally I always want the eyes to be sharp even if other parts go a bit soft. I'd also say for a full facial type shot it usually works better if there's enough DOF in front of and behind the eyes to capture most of the facial and head features. But 'always' is a strong word and lot's of wildlife images work fine with portions going soft as long as the eyes are pretty sharp.

There's also a strange thing where folks tend to accept the background going soft (e.g. ears) better than the foreground going soft (e.g. snout) but again no real rules.

I like the image with a pretty soft expression for a Badger which often look a lot tougher up close. Nicely done. If you had the chance to shoot it again it would be nice to try for a bit more DOF but some of that out of focus foreground grass might have created other troubles if you had kept enough DOF to cover the eyes and snout.

FWIW, I'll easily push my D850 past ISO 1100 when the light demands it and similarly shoot a fairly static subject at slower than 1/800" so I suspect you could have achieved a bit more DOF in this image by trading a bit of shutter speed or a bit of ISO and still ended up with a crisp image (no motion blur) and low noise.

All that's to take a stab at answering your question but really it's a cool image of a Badger. Nicely done!
 
I don't know any of the rules but I think this is pleasing to the eye. Especially since it is a badger. :cool:(y)
 
Member's gallery
Hi there,

From my POV I'd say definitely not, but depending on what you want from the image, and... are you happy with it.

My first bigger outing with my 400/2.8 i shot at 2.8 a fair big because i was in a rainforest, I got shots that I may not get again so I'm very happy to have the shot. It would have been great to have more DOF, but my ISO would have been way too high and too much motion blur would have been apparent at lower shutter speeds.
 
Member's gallery
Hi Randall. I reckon that's a pretty good intro, though I am curious. Your name suggests Australia but your avatar along with your statement about your part of the world says otherwise? BTW, my name is Peter and maybe I should change my avatar. We are all here because of cameras, so having a picture of one doesn't reflect me at all.

Love your image as is and my only question would be "Have you played around with the sharpness of it?" I suspect there may be a little bit of info in the detail that could be enhanced.

Hut said:
any of the rules
Click to expand...

Rules:
  1. Rules, there are no rules
  2. Rules are meant to be broken especially the rule of thirds
  3. Rules stifle innovation
  4. Rules - who cares
 
Member's gallery
[
DRwyoming said:
Personally I'd say no, it doesn't 'always' need to be in focus from snout to ears. But personally I always want the eyes to be sharp even if other parts go a bit soft. I'd also say for a full facial type shot it usually works better if there's enough DOF in front of and behind the eyes to capture most of the facial and head features. But 'always' is a strong word and lot's of wildlife images work fine with portions going soft as long as the eyes are pretty sharp.

There's also a strange thing where folks tend to accept the background going soft (e.g. ears) better than the foreground going soft (e.g. snout) but again no real rules.

I like the image with a pretty soft expression for a Badger which often look a lot tougher up close. Nicely done. If you had the chance to shoot it again it would be nice to try for a bit more DOF but some of that out of focus foreground grass might have created other troubles if you had kept enough DOF to cover the eyes and snout.

FWIW, I'll easily push my D850 past ISO 1100 when the light demands it and similarly shoot a fairly static subject at slower than 1/800" so I suspect you could have achieved a bit more DOF in this image by trading a bit of shutter speed or a bit of ISO and still ended up with a crisp image (no motion blur) and low noise.

All that's to take a stab at answering your question but really it's a cool image of a Badger. Nicely done!
Click to expand...

Thank you ! Yep yep only had a few seconds to lay down and find an opening to get the shot here. This is a safety shot I did start with lower speed but this nugget was on the move. It’s a younger badger they can sometimes be playful and intrigued before any fear kicks in. Cranky ones look different :) Great reply DR
🍻
 
Member's gallery
ruley74 said:
Hi there,

From my POV I'd say definitely not, but depending on what you want from the image, and... are you happy with it.

My first bigger outing with my 400/2.8 i shot at 2.8 a fair big because i was in a rainforest, I got shots that I may not get again so I'm very happy to have the shot. It would have been great to have more DOF, but my ISO would have been way too high and too much motion blur would have been apparent at lower shutter speeds.
Click to expand...

👍yep agree take when you can get them. Sometimes you get lucky. I shoot images just like that! Mostly should’ve beens, would have beens and could of beens.😂 Were where you in Costa Rica or likes?
 
Member's gallery
Oztours said:
Hi Randall. I reckon that's a pretty good intro, though I am curious. Your name suggests Australia but your avatar along with your statement about your part of the world says otherwise? BTW, my name is Peter and maybe I should change my avatar. We are all here because of cameras, so having a picture of one doesn't reflect me at all.

Love your image as is and my only question would be "Have you played around with the sharpness of it?" I suspect there may be a little bit of info in the detail that could be enhanced.



Rules:
  1. Rules, there are no rules
  2. Rules are meant to be broken especially the rule of thirds
  3. Rules stifle innovation
  4. Rules - who cares
Click to expand...
Strike me pink Peter you’ve gone and pointed us both out. And taking about breaking rules to boot. They already said they don’t want trouble makers. Now they will have an eye on us 👁 Australians no one like them:)
Born and bred in South East Queensland. Run off with an American girl who fished on my boat. Long story but 23 years of adventure and counting.

Yeah no one likes camera selfies ;) spice it up Ma8tey😂

I did edit it Peter it looks/seems pretty sharp in the right places on my computer.But that’s why it’s posted here as my eyes are shite these days. Nice to meet you! Still on lock down there?
 
Member's gallery
aussiewild said:
👍yep agree take when you can get them. Sometimes you get lucky. I shoot images just like that! Mostly should’ve beens, would have beens and could of beens.😂 Were where you in Costa Rica or likes?
Click to expand...
nope... Straya also... the outing I'm referring to was Lyrebirds up at O'Reilly's... I've got plenty of average photo's but none with clean backgrounds etc.
Alberts Lyrebird.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
Got distracted by the mates here discussing the spice of life that the badger sort of slipped to the BG!
Agree with Dave ~ 1st comment. If you are a member of a camera club, the answer would probably be, yes it does! But it is your image, your gut-feel, you liking it or not. When the eyes are in focus, little else realy matters. Compare with gazing into the eyes of the ever loving wife!
If you would like maybe a bit more sharp nose, try Sharpen, Shake Reduction - it can be severe but yo could always tone down the opacity!
Lovely sighting and critter!
 
Member's gallery
ruley74 said:
nope... Straya also... the outing I'm referring to was Lyrebirds up at O'Reilly's... I've got plenty of average photo's but none with clean backgrounds etc.
View attachment 3726
Click to expand...
O lord another Aussie
ruley74 said:
nope... Straya also... the outing I'm referring to was Lyrebirds up at O'Reilly's... I've got plenty of average photo's but none with clean backgrounds etc.
View attachment 3726
Click to expand...

Are you Australian or this was a trip? Lyrebirds are very cool. 👍
 
Member's gallery
aussiewild said:
Hi all,

Not sure how to introduce myself here maybe we could start a thread for that. Anyways I love wildlife and about the only time the shutter button is clicked by me some type of creature is in the viewfinder. I have been reading the posts here as much I can, although spending more time at the computer is not my favorite thing. Enjoying this site and everyones images, banter and discussion. After finding Steve on youtube and buying his guides and books I had to show support for this forum. He already convinced me (without ever meeting or corresponding) to cross over to Nikon from Canon and I always think about him when looking at my credit card statement! ;-)
Now to my question I pose with the image I'm making my big debut with on BCF. Does it always need to be in focus from snout to ears? Clinical. I don't know but sometimes when the light is gone and you cross the edge into the darkness the options are limited anyway. Wide open and thin DOF. Interested in your thoughts and what makes you happy in a wildlife image. Obviously eyes are very important, well to me anyway.
This badger image was taken just before the fires started in my part of the world. It was dark and I had to scurry down an embankment to find somewhere this fella would pop out of the tall grasses. Nikon D850, 600mm F4/E, F/4.0, ISO 1100, 1/800 Cropped just a tad to remove some useless crud around the edge.
Well here goes!
Cheers
Randall

View attachment 3700
Click to expand...
Certainly sharp focus is an important factor, especially of the eyes, but IMO is not the only factor that I consider when determining if a shot is pleasing to me or not. You have captured an elusive animal in a very nice pose. Lots to like in this shot. Yes, it would be nice to have the nose in focus and it would be nice to not have the OOF grass across the snout and the IF grass across the eye. However, that is not what the opportunity you had gave you, so I would certainly be happy with the shot you did get.
 
Member's gallery
@aussiewild. And blow me down if there ain't a bunch of us Aussies here too. So far, I reckon I have seen at least a dozen or so names that would suggest they are from the land downunder. I'm born and bred NE NSW. Ran off with a Japanese girl - another long story... :) Lockdown is the lowdown and still in it. :cry:

Took a look at your websites. No wonder you want to know about focus. You're always on display to the public. Love what your doing. These days all my images are for me personally or friends so I don't give a toss if something is blurred or not the right crop for a print. It's all about me. Besides, now I have time to go back through the years and play with blemished images if they have some meaning to them. Have found a lot that I really should have deleted as being unacceptable, but with the wonders of modern technology, LR, PS and Topaz, many are coming back to life.
 
Member's gallery
Oztours said:
@aussiewild. And blow me down if there ain't a bunch of us Aussies here too. So far, I reckon I have seen at least a dozen or so names that would suggest they are from the land downunder. I'm born and bred NE NSW. Ran off with a Japanese girl - another long story... :) Lockdown is the lowdown and still in it. :cry:

Took a look at your websites. No wonder you want to know about focus. You're always on display to the public. Love what your doing. These days all my images are for me personally or friends so I don't give a toss if something is blurred or not the right crop for a print. It's all about me. Besides, now I have time to go back through the years and play with blemished images if they have some meaning to them. Have found a lot that I really should have deleted as being unacceptable, but with the wonders of modern technology, LR, PS and Topaz, many are coming back to life.
Click to expand...

Thats very cool mate. Yes the software is very interesting Topaz products are very good and Ai is just scary really. I do see a lot of images now where folks are leaning heavily into Denoise or AIClear but not seeing the artifacts that this "intelligence" leaves behind. Best getting it right in camera first.
Anyway cheers cobber!
 
Member's gallery
bajadreamer said:
Certainly sharp focus is an important factor, especially of the eyes, but IMO is not the only factor that I consider when determining if a shot is pleasing to me or not. You have captured an elusive animal in a very nice pose. Lots to like in this shot. Yes, it would be nice to have the nose in focus and it would be nice to not have the OOF grass across the snout and the IF grass across the eye. However, that is not what the opportunity you had gave you, so I would certainly be happy with the shot you did get.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Yes how many times do you look at images and think if this stick or that blade of grass wasn't there? In this case I like the grass on the upper eye. To be clear just getting a shot in this situation was a blessing! ✌
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top