Piecat
Active member
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Last edited:
DOF at f8, thought that would have enough. Suggestions...
- Thread starter Piecat
- Start date
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).
When you get to really long focal lengths (like 500mm used here), depth of field decreases dramatically. For a scene like this where the birds are at different planes, honestly you could probably not get them all sharp even if you stopped down to f16. You would need to do focus stacking, which is difficult with moving animals.
Also it looks like your sharpening software is making the background wonky (some parts sharp and some not). Are you using Topaz Sharpen AI? I have noticed this effect at times when I use it.
Also it looks like your sharpening software is making the background wonky (some parts sharp and some not). Are you using Topaz Sharpen AI? I have noticed this effect at times when I use it.
I like the way you are thinking about this - you thought about settings and how to use it to achieve your goal. Good thought process. Where you came short lack of technical knowledge - which you will now be able to think about differently next time - as you will know more about how this works. This is how one learns. We all do.
As Mr Fotofool said - a long lens wont wax it. Not even close.
If you calculate depth of field on a DOF calculator - you can see exactly what the effect of a long lens, distance, settings etc has on depth of field
www.photopills.com
There is something very weird happening in the background - what exactly did you do in post production?
As Mr Fotofool said - a long lens wont wax it. Not even close.
If you calculate depth of field on a DOF calculator - you can see exactly what the effect of a long lens, distance, settings etc has on depth of field
Depth of Field (DoF) calculator | PhotoPills
This Depth of Field (DoF) calculator will help you get the creative control on the design of your photos. Decide the zone of sharpness you need to tell the story you want and get your message across.
www.photopills.com
There is something very weird happening in the background - what exactly did you do in post production?
I can't come up with any theory about how you got that background wonky. Did you use any NR software? Or is this a stack or composite? In a way it looks like a composite where parts of a sharper in focus image are revealed using a lot of mask. Be interesting to see other similar shots with the same camera/lens.
Another thought on the DOF is to remember as mentioned that the plane of sharp focus runs parallel to the sensor, at least that's what the lens maker tries for, so if your camera is angled to the subject the dof is also angled.
Another thought on the DOF is to remember as mentioned that the plane of sharp focus runs parallel to the sensor, at least that's what the lens maker tries for, so if your camera is angled to the subject the dof is also angled.
jfredrick
Well-known member
As Elsa mentioned, you have the right idea. If you were 100 ft away from these birds then at f8 your Depth of Focus Field was only about 2 ft. At f16 you would double the DOF at around 4ft or moving back half as far (150ft) to get about 8ft DOF. Shooting the same scene with a few different f stops may be best. In your case... you could even zoom out. 
I have seen this same"wonky" background as Fred using Topas Sharpen AI. I love the software but some of the parameters can be aggressive with hit/miss areas like this.
I have seen this same"wonky" background as Fred using Topas Sharpen AI. I love the software but some of the parameters can be aggressive with hit/miss areas like this.
Jim DeLuco
Active member
Personally I would have selected either the Glossy Ibis's or the Great Blue Heron, even though it is an interesting image. The other thing you can do is shoot it at 200mm, since you have the 200-500 zoom. Of course you would have to crop in and the D500 won't give you particularly large files. Might be large enough to post online, though.
So, 200mm, F8 or F11 might get you enough depth of field if you focus on the bush between your subjects.
By the way, I have the D500 and love it for wildlife. The D500 is a crop sensor, so you are actually getting 300-750mm magnification.
So, 200mm, F8 or F11 might get you enough depth of field if you focus on the bush between your subjects.
By the way, I have the D500 and love it for wildlife. The D500 is a crop sensor, so you are actually getting 300-750mm magnification.
jfredrick
Well-known member
Whoops.... APS-C sensor. Correction: If you were 100 ft away from these birds then at f8 your Depth of Focus Field was only about 1.4 ft. At f16 you would double the DOF at around 2.8 ft or moving back half as far (150ft) to get about 6.5ft DOF. 9ft DOF if you zoom into 200mm, f8, and are about 100 ft from your birds. Then crop as needed. 
Good advice above, both on the DoF issue and the background artifacts issue.
FWIW:
- On the background artifacts and assuming you used a tool like Topaz Sharpen, I often send an image from LR to Topaz Sharpen and when it's finished if there are artifacts in the background and out of focus areas I'll open both the image I sent to Topaz and the sharpened image as layers in Photoshop and use layer masking to remove the sharpening from the out of focus background areas but leave the sharpening in the areas where I want sharpening.
- On the DoF issue, as others have said it's really hard to pull multiple subjects at different distances from a long telephoto lens into crisp focus. Sometimes you can stop down a bit further but for a scene like you show my best results have been a two or three image focus stack, each shot focusing on one or more subjects at the same distance from the camera. I've done this very successfully with owls and other relatively still subjects but as posted above it doesn't really work if the wildlife subjects are moving around a lot.
FWIW:
- On the background artifacts and assuming you used a tool like Topaz Sharpen, I often send an image from LR to Topaz Sharpen and when it's finished if there are artifacts in the background and out of focus areas I'll open both the image I sent to Topaz and the sharpened image as layers in Photoshop and use layer masking to remove the sharpening from the out of focus background areas but leave the sharpening in the areas where I want sharpening.
- On the DoF issue, as others have said it's really hard to pull multiple subjects at different distances from a long telephoto lens into crisp focus. Sometimes you can stop down a bit further but for a scene like you show my best results have been a two or three image focus stack, each shot focusing on one or more subjects at the same distance from the camera. I've done this very successfully with owls and other relatively still subjects but as posted above it doesn't really work if the wildlife subjects are moving around a lot.
CentralCoast
New member
Nice work
this won't directly answer your question but when faced with a scene like this, I will typically focus on the ones closest to the camera (Ibis in this case). I think the eye will naturally see the closest ones and if they are sharp will "forgive" the ones farther away if they are a little out of focus. This is how our mind tends to process scenes. To keep the Ibis' and Herons in focus, you're probably looking at some type of focus stack or other composite image.
Next time faced with this situation, you can try one of the focus stack methods and see how it works for you or just focus on the closest animal and let the. background feac to out of focus.
Hope this was helpful.
Jeff
Next time faced with this situation, you can try one of the focus stack methods and see how it works for you or just focus on the closest animal and let the. background feac to out of focus.
Hope this was helpful.
Jeff
Piecat
Active member
TY Haven’t tried stacking yet. But it makes sense now. Yes I do use TSA, messed with the clarity slider and it changed the bokeh.
I usually leave clarity alone.
Piecat
Active member
I noticed a bokeh change, using the clarity slider after Topaz AI. Maybe that was it.I like the way you are thinking about this - you thought about settings and how to use it to achieve your goal. Good thought process. Where you came short lack of technical knowledge - which you will now be able to think about differently next time - as you will know more about how this works. This is how one learns. We all do.
As Mr Fotofool said - a long lens wont wax it. Not even close.
If you calculate depth of field on a DOF calculator - you can see exactly what the effect of a long lens, distance, settings etc has on depth of field
Depth of Field (DoF) calculator | PhotoPills
This Depth of Field (DoF) calculator will help you get the creative control on the design of your photos. Decide the zone of sharpness you need to tell the story you want and get your message across.
There is something very weird happening in the background - what exactly did you do in post production?
tclune
Well-known member
Using the masking tool in Sharpen AI is easy and effective. I would also mention that selecting a different sharpening model than whatever the program defaults to can often have strikingly different results. FWIW
I think its Topaz AI ...
Topaz AI can make things appear a little wonky to begin with and I often have to use the detail slider in it to decrease its effects. Sometimes I don't use it at all, especially on long focal lengths. I often see people trying to create sharpness when there's a lack of it and it just doesn't look good, it appears unnatural. also, cropping in too much on such photos hurts the detail and bg. Anymore I try to frame the picture when taking it how I would crop in post so as not to have to crop and lose any detail.
Piecat
Active member
You are correct. I’ve been trying to up the ISO & shutter speed (like Steve said) to avoid motion blur. But with this lens, I’m still just not getting the clarity I want unless the subject is relatively still. That’s when AI comes in.
Thought it was Auto correct, what are the best manual corrections to start with?
Thought it was Auto correct, what are the best manual corrections to start with?
I have extensive experience with that body and lens combination. s/s 1/2000 and F5.6 - depending on the light. With those settings, (sort of a great go-to setting) you should get good results - for birds in flight, go up to 2500, or 3200 if you can. NOT cast in stone though.
Understand what DOF and general results you can achieve in a situation with specific settings. I do think your technical knowledge is limiting you currently, but by posting and asking, you can remedy that.
"But with this lens, I’m still just not getting the clarity I want unless the subject is relatively still. That’s when AI comes in."
nope. It's not a "cure" It's a subtle "assist". Sometimes it's a rescue, but not as a rule. If you need AI to make your photos acceptable, there is something wrong.
Last edited:
Piecat
Active member
You are right about everything. The plan was to get it right, in the first place.
I’ll try your suggestions, glad I found someone who uses my combo.
Yes I do know what DOF is, applying the right combination is my problem.
I’m always trying something different, that’s why I’m asking for help. Thanks.
I’ll try your suggestions, glad I found someone who uses my combo.
Yes I do know what DOF is, applying the right combination is my problem.
I’m always trying something different, that’s why I’m asking for help. Thanks.
Half of South Africa used that combo - and I bet just as much everywhere else. It's a very good combo - keep shooting.
The_Wild_Chesapeake
New member
OP, You have gotten some good advice here; I would add the following. I know a lot of folks are gung ho about Topaz AI and similar, but I would say forget about that and focus on your fieldcraft first, along with knowing your camera like the back of your hand. I know that's not as sexy as AI processing but it's vastly more important in my view. The image you posted is at best a record shot if you have never captured a Glossy Ibis or a Great Blue Heron, but the birds are really too far away, and the light is harsh and uninteresting, There is a heavy shadow on the GBH and the head is relatively overexposed. If photography is just a hobby one may not be able to get out at will, but if you are out at sunrise and sunset the light is much more interesting. Also, if you can, it's nice to go to different locations, but it is also good to go back to a specific location repeatedly and learn the particulars of what wildlife is there at what time of year, and where to go at sunrise or sunset to get the best angles, and also to figure out how to get closer. You don't need to pet the birds, but getting closer beats post-processing solutions every time. Oh, and there is luck involved. I've gone to locations repeatedly and the birds are 300 yards out and backlit, then just once I show up and the bird happens to be relaxing, casually looking at me 25 feet away.
The other day I did a count, and I have about 500K images on my NAS. Out of that, I would say 100K or so I should be ashamed that I didn't delete them; as for the rest, most are uninteresting or have technical issues, others are FB or IG worthy at best, then maybe 50 or 100 or so images from the last seven years are National Geographic quality. So put another way, you don't hit a hole-in-one every time you play golf, and likewise every picture can't be saved with post-processing voodoo no matter what the software marketing material suggests otherwise. The bottom line here is that there is not much you can do for this image in post. It's a numbers game; shoot shoot and shoot some more. As for your specific question, I would say you can't get the Ibis and the GBH in focus in the same frame. I don't know about your particular circumstances in this image, but GBHs tend to stand statue still for long periods. I would have tried the get a decent shot of the Ibis then grabbed focus on the GBH and done a composite later in PS. The relatively undefined water behind the GBH would make that task a bit easier. So this image was good to get you thinking about DOF issues, and maybe if you want to experiment with compositing (if you have any images where the GBH was in focus, there you go) but otherwise I wouldn't spend a whole lot of time trying to resuscitate this particular shot, as it was mostly DOA. Good luck and good light!
The other day I did a count, and I have about 500K images on my NAS. Out of that, I would say 100K or so I should be ashamed that I didn't delete them; as for the rest, most are uninteresting or have technical issues, others are FB or IG worthy at best, then maybe 50 or 100 or so images from the last seven years are National Geographic quality. So put another way, you don't hit a hole-in-one every time you play golf, and likewise every picture can't be saved with post-processing voodoo no matter what the software marketing material suggests otherwise. The bottom line here is that there is not much you can do for this image in post. It's a numbers game; shoot shoot and shoot some more. As for your specific question, I would say you can't get the Ibis and the GBH in focus in the same frame. I don't know about your particular circumstances in this image, but GBHs tend to stand statue still for long periods. I would have tried the get a decent shot of the Ibis then grabbed focus on the GBH and done a composite later in PS. The relatively undefined water behind the GBH would make that task a bit easier. So this image was good to get you thinking about DOF issues, and maybe if you want to experiment with compositing (if you have any images where the GBH was in focus, there you go) but otherwise I wouldn't spend a whole lot of time trying to resuscitate this particular shot, as it was mostly DOA. Good luck and good light!