From a technical standpoint, is noise the only problem here?

[SCoombs]

These photos have been through LR denoise and a one or two have been through very light Topaz denoise, something I don't normally like but when used very lightly I sometimes consider the results worthwhile. They're also already reasonably healthy crops, but probably not extreme. They're down from 45.7MP to around 10MP, so in other words they're about all we'd have anyways if it was 2007.

I think they look pretty decent after some treatment, especially the more sunlit shot. Still, I feel like they're not as sharp as I'd expect from the Z8/500pf combo here, and truth be told I tracked these without much trouble so that the bird stayed pretty steady in the center of the frame. I've also posted a couple of 100% crops from the edited but not denoised or sharpened files for more meaningful inspection over forum sized "originals."

In trying to understand what to do differently the next time, I feel like most things about them are done correctly, or at least not incorrectly.

The shutter speed here was 1/4000, so that isn't too slow here, correct?

The aperture is at 8, so there shouldn't be a question of stopping down for extra sharpness or, as some people like to do, to give more of a margin for error with faster moving subjects.

What there is present here is noticeable noise. Obviously the 1/4000 speed and f8 aperture contribute to that, though I'd have thought the sunlit shot would have had a bit less. Given that these are also crops, even if not super extreme, the noise that is present is going to cut into the details even more than if these were uncropped. In other words, I'd think that if it were a bit brighter and/or if I dropped the aperture by a stop and went for a lower shutter speed I'd see somewhat better results.

My real question here is whether that's really all that it comes down to here from a technical standpoint. Is the noise combined with the crop just a little too much for a crisper photo here, but otherwise I'd expect strong results from what's going on here? Should anything about these photos cause me to question the lens (which I am still evaluating) or camera behavior? Is 1/4000 fast enough (maybe even too fast) for this situation or should I have gone faster?

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

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

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

(The 100% crop below is not the same photo as the previous one!)

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

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

 

[Calson]

Something to try is to open the file and then do a Levels adjustment before making changes to the EV with the image. This increases contrast and detail without increasing noise in the image.

Once a year I will download trial versions of 4 different NR applications and then make 4x5 inch images that are layered to make a single 8x10 image that I then can view on the monitor so see myself which one does the best job. I use a person's face as any loss of tonal fidelity is easy to see. This takes me an hour at most and I have no out of pocket costs.

 

[Nimi]

To my eyes, on my phone, these are oversharpened.

 

[SCoombs]

To my eyes, on my phone, these are oversharpened.

What makes you say that? You can see the two that have had no sharpening applied, including the straight flight image which I'd consider the best of the bunch. To me they look pretty lacking in much sharpness (and detail) and that's the basis of my question as it seems to me that high noise levels are the biggest reason. Are you seeing the noise as sharpening artifacts?

 

[Nimi]

What makes you say that? You can see the two that have had no sharpening applied, including the straight flight image which I'd consider the best of the bunch. To me they look pretty lacking in much sharpness (and detail) and that's the basis of my question as it seems to me that high noise levels are the biggest reason. Are you seeing the noise as sharpening artifacts?

Could be. They don't look overly sharp, but rather overshapened, which could be artifacts along contrasty regions.

 

[Len Shepherd]

With the ISO of 2800; putting the image through something like Lightroom Denoise could remove some noise and increase resolution in the image.

Often but not always Denoise or similar can get a 10,000 ISO image close to 400 ISO image capture quality.

 

[SCoombs]

With the ISO of 2800; putting the image through something like Lightroom Denoise could remove some noise and increase resolution in the image.

Often but not always Denoise or similar can get a 10,000 ISO image close to 400 ISO image capture quality.

I use denoise a lot and it works well. In this case the "finished product" versions have already been through it. I think the original size of some of these means that with the noise there wasn't quite enough detail in the photo to really stand out even with noise removed, and I also think the darker parts of these just didn't have enough light on them to give much regardless of how high the ISO was. Remember that the 2800 ISO is for the overall scene here, including all of the much brighter parts.

 

[CoyoteCreationsNW]

A few thoughts. I understand the argument for narrow apertures to increase DOF but my experience is f/8 is not required for most BIF photos. I find f/4 to f/5.6 will give sharp images under most lighting conditions. In the bright light of these photos an ISO of 2800 should not have excessive noise. The noise level looks a little higher than expected even after processing. How much the image was cropped will effect noise level. It is likely that the lower acuity is not a result of initial noise or the denoise software, It might help to put these in NxStudio and see where the focus point is for each image. The 500 PF lens is a little slow acquiring focus (I used one with my Z9 for months before replacing it with a Z lens) Your actual focus point location might surprise you. It might also be helpful to evaluate what autofocus settings you were using. I often start with wide area large and subject detection ON-Birds. Final point is vibration reduction. It should make little difference at 1/4000 shutter speed but for panning shots many prefer sport to on.

 

[SCoombs]

A few thoughts. I understand the argument for narrow apertures to increase DOF but my experience is f/8 is not required for most BIF photos. I find f/4 to f/5.6 will give sharp images under most lighting conditions.

I agree but I was simpy emphasizing that even if one considered this an issue that it's already stopped down here.

In the bright light of these photos an ISO of 2800 should not have excessive noise.

On the more wellnlit parts of the image I'd agree, but remember that the 2800 ISO is the ISO chosen for the entire frame. That means that the ISO 2800 is what is bringing the brighter parts of the image to where they are while the parts that are more poorly lit - like much of the bird - is more like the kind of lighting you'd get ISO 12800 or higher for.

The noise level looks a little higher than expected even after processing. How much the image was cropped will effect noise level.

Precisely, and this was a pretty heavy crop. That's the main reason I'm honing in on noise here. If this same photo had been shot much closer in, I think I'd expect more detail.

It is likely that the lower acuity is not a result of initial noise or the denoise software, It might help to put these in NxStudio and see where the focus point is for each image. The 500 PF lens is a little slow acquiring focus (I used one with my Z9 for months before replacing it with a Z lens) Your actual focus point location might surprise you. It might also be helpful to evaluate what autofocus settings you were using. I often start with wide area large and subject detection ON-Birds.

I think this is easily the least likely point to be of concern here. For one thing, the bird was tracked from its flight in the sky all the way down and through the catch attempt. The lens had focus on it and held focus. Second, the depth of field here should be more than adequate so that the bird would be in focus here. There's nothing else at a relatively closer depth in the scene which could have accidentally taken focus and left the bird just out of the depth of field... it's at a distance and spot where if the lens is targeting the bird - which it was - then even a slight miss would still leave it within the depth of field.

Final point is vibration reduction. It should make little difference at 1/4000 shutter speed but for panning shots many prefer sport to on.

I mention the VR because it's pretty commonly regarded that at higher shutter speeds it can cause a loss of acuity and should be turned off. I've noticed that I do tend to get more slightly blurred photos with it set to sport (or on) than with it off at high speeds like this.

 

[DRwyoming]

Your ISO was pretty reasonable even at f/8 1/4000" so I wouldn't expect excessive noise unless these are deep crops. If these were cropped say to half the vertical and horizontal length (basically similar to a MFT sensor dimensions) your ISO 2800 would be more like ISO 11200 (a 2 stop difference) and that's for the overall scene not taking into account any shadow pulling in post. If you cropped deeper than that the effective ISO from a noise standpoint for the same size output image would be higher.

I also agree with the over sharpening comment which is especially evident in the first tight crop in the right hand wing edges. The bright green halo on the upper wing edge and the more subtle halo on the lower edge of the right wing are classic over sharpening halos. If this was a Topaz Denoise processed image, that tool does apply a fair amount of sharpening but even a straight RAW conversion can apply a fair amount of sharpening depending on camera and import settings.

I don't see any evidence of motion blur so I'd say 1/4000" was fast enough. FWIW, one great way to pick up on motion blur in a shot like these is to look at the shape of the catchlight in the eye. Streaking catchlight or irregular jagged line catchlight is a giveaway that there was motion blur. I'm not really seeing that nor other clues to motion blur in these images.

The feather detail in the 1:1 crop images look soft which might be from the noise reduction or it could be some atmospheric softening due to outdoor temps and temperature differential to the water. The face and eye detail in that second shot looks a lot like atmospheric softening with an overall low contrast look in the shadowed face details.

FWIW I doubt it's a lens problem.

 

[SCoombs]

Your ISO was pretty reasonable even at f/8 1/4000" so I wouldn't expect excessive noise unless these are deep crops. If these were cropped say to half the vertical and horizontal length (basically similar to a MFT sensor dimensions) your ISO 2800 would be more like ISO 11200 (a 2 stop difference) and that's for the overall scene not taking into account any shadow pulling in post. If you cropped deeper than that the effective ISO from a noise standpoint for the same size output image would be higher.

I've mentioned a few times that these are heavier crops, less so on the better lit photo but still probably at least a DX crop, maybe m43 size. The others are more significant than that.

I also agree with the over sharpening comment which is especially evident in the first tight crop in the right hand wing edges. The bright green halo on the upper wing edge and the more subtle halo on the lower edge of the right wing are classic over sharpening halos. If this was a Topaz Denoise processed image, that tool does apply a fair amount of sharpening but even a straight RAW conversion can apply a fair amount of sharpening depending on camera and import settings.

As I'm sure you know, all digital photos must have sharpening applied, the question being how much. The import settings used on these photos was to match the in camera picture profile sharpening only. The profile in use was the Z8 "standard" profile. There's been no additional sharpening applied to those two very tight crops at all.

In fact, I have in the last few days made the discovery that Lr's camera matching sharpening is significantly lower than Nikon's actual in camera sharpening. In other words, if I take straight out of camera jpegs or take a NEF file and load it in NX Studio then with no other edits it will be sharpened more than what LR does - and so more than what we see here.

I really don't think these (the unedited tight crops) are oversharpened as they're literally less sharpened than what the camera does by default.

I don't see any evidence of motion blur so I'd say 1/4000" was fast enough. FWIW, one great way to pick up on motion blur in a shot like these is to look at the shape of the catchlight in the eye. Streaking catchlight or irregular jagged line catchlight is a giveaway that there was motion blur. I'm not really seeing that nor other clues to motion blur in these images.

The feather detail in the 1:1 crop images look soft which might be from the noise reduction or it could be some atmospheric softening due to outdoor temps and temperature differential to the water. The face and eye detail in that second shot looks a lot like atmospheric softening with an overall low contrast look in the shadowed face details.

FWIW I doubt it's a lens problem.

I'm pretty familiar with atmospherics and this doesn't look like it at all to me. There is a very distinct look that screams atmospherics to me and this isn't it. What's more, the conditions on this evening were ones that in all my experience I'd have expected to have no issues with it and in fact all other shots from that evening, even those taken over great distances, lacked any evidence of it.

All of this is why I asked about noose levels at higher crops. I know that is a factor in these photos - I was just trying to find out if it would be a sufficient explanation for the water they look. I appreciate the other suggestions, but for all the reasons given they don't make sense to me here.

 

[PhotoLover]

These photos have been through LR denoise and a one or two have been through very light Topaz denoise, something I don't normally like but when used very lightly I sometimes consider the results worthwhile. They're also already reasonably healthy crops, but probably not extreme. They're down from 45.7MP to around 10MP, so in other words they're about all we'd have anyways if it was 2007.

I think they look pretty decent after some treatment, especially the more sunlit shot. Still, I feel like they're not as sharp as I'd expect from the Z8/500pf combo here, and truth be told I tracked these without much trouble so that the bird stayed pretty steady in the center of the frame. I've also posted a couple of 100% crops from the edited but not denoised or sharpened files for more meaningful inspection over forum sized "originals."

In trying to understand what to do differently the next time, I feel like most things about them are done correctly, or at least not incorrectly.

The shutter speed here was 1/4000, so that isn't too slow here, correct?

The aperture is at 8, so there shouldn't be a question of stopping down for extra sharpness or, as some people like to do, to give more of a margin for error with faster moving subjects.

What there is present here is noticeable noise. Obviously the 1/4000 speed and f8 aperture contribute to that, though I'd have thought the sunlit shot would have had a bit less. Given that these are also crops, even if not super extreme, the noise that is present is going to cut into the details even more than if these were uncropped. In other words, I'd think that if it were a bit brighter and/or if I dropped the aperture by a stop and went for a lower shutter speed I'd see somewhat better results.

My real question here is whether that's really all that it comes down to here from a technical standpoint. Is the noise combined with the crop just a little too much for a crisper photo here, but otherwise I'd expect strong results from what's going on here? Should anything about these photos cause me to question the lens (which I am still evaluating) or camera behavior? Is 1/4000 fast enough (maybe even too fast) for this situation or should I have gone faster?


pictures deleted ...

For what it is worth:

• I have a 500 pf and it is a very sharp lens, even wide open at 5.6. Even for something as big as an eagle, I think 5.6 would have given you enough DOF at that distance, thus immediately cutting your ISO back down to 1400 or so.
• I think Steve says his "go to" shutter speed for BIF is 3,200 and with something as big (and relatively slow) as an eagle, 4,000 is not necessary, for that matter 3,200 probably isn't either, though sure, in general faster is better for BIF.
• So shooting at 5.6 and 3,200 or less would substantially lower the ISO. Unless I had a LOT of light, I'd not be at 8.0 and 4,000. For the apparent distance of those shots I wouldn't be at 8.0 in any case. The longer distance also implies you can get away with less shutter speed.
• I always shoot the 500 pf in sport mode, at any shutter speed and that seems to work fine. Though I'm rarely at 4,000. Again, when Steve tested this lens on dSLRS, I think he had the same experience -- sport mode just works at pretty much any shutter speed.
• At least on my cameras, I think AF acquisition with the 500 pf is quite fast, but I don't have experience with it on the mirrorless cameras.
• I suspect those photos would have looked better at a lower ISO, especially in the shadow areas. The amount of cropping you did is, to me at least, a pretty heavy crop (i.e. cropping out 75%+ of the pixels) with a higher ISO shot.

I'm using the 500 pf on D500 and D7500 crop sensor cameras.

 

[groob]

1) 1/4000 is WAYYY more shutter speed than you need for eagles. You probably would've been fine at 1/2000. And you likely didn't need to stop down at all on such a big (slow-ish) subject.
2) I am not really following your question. Are the wider views uncropped, or are they also cropped? Are you trying to get a usable headshot from these files? Or are you just zooming in that far to check sharpness? If you're trying to get usable headshots from these files, regardless of whether they were cropped initially, it's not going to work. Those crops are WAY too big and will always result in a ton of noise.
3) That said, to my eye, your denoising workflow has zapped a lot of detail from the files. You'll get a much better result if you apply noise reduction selectively on only the background in Photoshop and not to the entire image--and particularly not on the subject. Outside of rare and dramatic circumstances, I never apply NR to the subject in a wildlife photo.

 

[Flyboy]

I am not able to see the reasoning for all the drama here. Marvelous photeaux, The eye is in focus in all that are in a position to be seen, (RULE # 1!) and my definition of "oversharpening" is when there is a light-colored outline of the subject, which none of the images show. As for the choice of f/stop, ISO and shutter speed...it all worked...perhaps another combination would be "better", but it's hard to argue with success. Being from the Film Days, noise/grain is a fact of life, you do what you can to minimize it, but realize enlargements will emphasize it. From a "normal" viewing distance, hardly noticeable, and not disturbing!

 

[EricBowles]

You've got to be careful using multiple product to apply sharpening and noise reduction. The order moving through those products can be important, and you can end up sharpening the sharpening artifacts if you are not careful. It's also easy to have to add sharpening to overcome noise reduction, and the back and forth between the two can create more noise.

I'd take a fresh look at the images. I would not even consider relying on the default sharpening from the camera. The default sharpening in Nikon cameras is much more appropriate for portraits, and does not render detail well. There is no distinction based on subject matter. I like the ability to apply masking in LR - and to see what you are actually sharpening. The default value is 0 masking - and I end up with a much higher value.

I do find the noise level in the cropped images slightly high, but it does not show up in the full size image. Sharpening is a balance between enough sharpening to show up in the final image, and managing the acceptable level of sharpening in a magnified view. You should be seeing some noise in a magnified view if it is not visible in the final output.