And Owls even more yet
Is Reach overrated?
- Thread starter Tom Reynolds
- 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).
O
Well-known member
May i ask do find this image acceptable or unaccpetable
Dave Wo
Active member
Filling the frame is sometimes more of a challenge than the crop of something far off for sure. I shot 2 eagles at a long distance and the crop was ineffective. They became soft and not pleasing. Due to he terrain I could not get closer. I did capture 2 eagles in the wild and that's ok in my book even if they are a touch soft. I have had great luck with hawks and filled the frame where no crop was necessary at all-that was fun! I shoot FF and crop bodies with my 200-500mm lens depending on distance of subject.
I don't have anywhere near the experience and capabilities of many of the folks here and who have responded, so take it for what it's worth ....
As several have said, it's a very personal thing. What's acceptable to some is not to others. Also, to reiterate what one person said - people like hawks more than herons. It's not fair, but it is what it is.
The places where I post have many other people posting with wide varieties of abilities, experience and equipment. Often someone will post something similar to one of mine but was clearly (to me) shot with a shorter lens and/or cropped heavily and/or highly processed - usually all 3. Invariably my similar post will get 10X or more the reactions and comments, with people commenting like they feel like they're right there, or that it has a "3D quality" to it, or it seems so lifelike.
That being said, I've tried very, very hard to ignore the number of likes/reactions a post gets (or at least not stress that as the main factor for determining how good a photo is). There is *SO* much that goes into the number of likes, it's almost impossible to tease it all out. Depending on the time of day you post, your post might or might not get seen by very many people initially. If it gets seen by a lot, it's likely to get more likes, which pushes it higher in the social media algorithms, causing more people to see it, causing more likes ... lather rinse repeat. Conversely you can have a beautiful photo which, for whatever reason, didn't get seen very many times, so not very many likes initially, so it stays low in visibility, doesn't generate likes, continues to stay low in visibility, etc. Nothing to do with how good or bad a photo is, it's the social media algorithms.
But back to the original topic of reach being over-rated .... it really comes down to you and your audience. For some/many that photos you posted would be considered a great, or at least very good photo. To my eye it looks highly processed, to the point of almost being CG. If it were me, I would have masked the bird when applying any sharpening. The sharpening on the wood is just exacerbating/highlighting the issue. As a comparison, here is a red-tailed hawk I shot recently - it's not one of my best (I have a terrible organization probably I need to work through) - it's just one I happened to manage to find quickly, and one that was similar to yours (e.g., not a bird-in-flight or one with really great composition or other elements, etc. - just a hawk sitting there). But if you and/or your audience were choosing, which would you pick? If the answer is "they're both good, I'd take either" then in your case reach is over-rated. If the answer is "this photo, definitely" then maybe reach isn't over-rated (FWIW, this is taken with an 800+1.25 so 1000mm on a D850 - cropped down to 23MP - whoops, seems like that's too big to include here, so I've scaled it down to my "social media" size 11MP and higher JPG compression)
Also, as another recent example .... my (and many) feeds often have quite a few hummingbird shots. I tend not to post hummer shots because I don't have a feeder setup or have hummers that come to my yard (or at least not often) so my shots are all "out in the wild" as a stumble across them on walks/hikes. In that scenario, it's much more difficult to get great composition shots, well-focused shots, etc because you can't just set up with focus right next to a particular feeder/flower and wait for them and take a bunch of shots. You gotta get them as they're doing their thing in the wild. I got lucky last week, and happened across a hummer who was preening and didn't seem to mind me getting fairly close. I got some decent shots, not nearly as compositionally great as many I've seen, but I posted them anyway and got an extremely strong response due, I think in large part, to the greater detail afforded by "long lens small bird".
But it really comes down to what is your standard and what's it worth to you? If you like your photos, and the people you show them to like them - it doesn't matter what some "expert" says, or what the photography elite think, nor does it matter if someone else can take a "better" photo (for some definition of better).
What I tell people who ask me is that while there is truth in the old adage that it's the photographer, not the equipment - that doesn't mean you can take *any*/*every* photograph with any equipment. There are some shots you just can't get with some setups. The real key is learning what shots you can take with your equipment and focusing on that and try to focus on being happy with the shots you're able to get, and show compassion for yourself when comparing to photos from others. If you just can't get the shots you really want, then you have to figure out if getting the necessary equipment is worth it to you to be able to get those shots.
So in my opinion, there's only one person who can answer the question "is reach over-rated" and that's you.
As several have said, it's a very personal thing. What's acceptable to some is not to others. Also, to reiterate what one person said - people like hawks more than herons. It's not fair, but it is what it is.
The places where I post have many other people posting with wide varieties of abilities, experience and equipment. Often someone will post something similar to one of mine but was clearly (to me) shot with a shorter lens and/or cropped heavily and/or highly processed - usually all 3. Invariably my similar post will get 10X or more the reactions and comments, with people commenting like they feel like they're right there, or that it has a "3D quality" to it, or it seems so lifelike.
That being said, I've tried very, very hard to ignore the number of likes/reactions a post gets (or at least not stress that as the main factor for determining how good a photo is). There is *SO* much that goes into the number of likes, it's almost impossible to tease it all out. Depending on the time of day you post, your post might or might not get seen by very many people initially. If it gets seen by a lot, it's likely to get more likes, which pushes it higher in the social media algorithms, causing more people to see it, causing more likes ... lather rinse repeat. Conversely you can have a beautiful photo which, for whatever reason, didn't get seen very many times, so not very many likes initially, so it stays low in visibility, doesn't generate likes, continues to stay low in visibility, etc. Nothing to do with how good or bad a photo is, it's the social media algorithms.
But back to the original topic of reach being over-rated .... it really comes down to you and your audience. For some/many that photos you posted would be considered a great, or at least very good photo. To my eye it looks highly processed, to the point of almost being CG. If it were me, I would have masked the bird when applying any sharpening. The sharpening on the wood is just exacerbating/highlighting the issue. As a comparison, here is a red-tailed hawk I shot recently - it's not one of my best (I have a terrible organization probably I need to work through) - it's just one I happened to manage to find quickly, and one that was similar to yours (e.g., not a bird-in-flight or one with really great composition or other elements, etc. - just a hawk sitting there). But if you and/or your audience were choosing, which would you pick? If the answer is "they're both good, I'd take either" then in your case reach is over-rated. If the answer is "this photo, definitely" then maybe reach isn't over-rated (FWIW, this is taken with an 800+1.25 so 1000mm on a D850 - cropped down to 23MP - whoops, seems like that's too big to include here, so I've scaled it down to my "social media" size 11MP and higher JPG compression)
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Also, as another recent example .... my (and many) feeds often have quite a few hummingbird shots. I tend not to post hummer shots because I don't have a feeder setup or have hummers that come to my yard (or at least not often) so my shots are all "out in the wild" as a stumble across them on walks/hikes. In that scenario, it's much more difficult to get great composition shots, well-focused shots, etc because you can't just set up with focus right next to a particular feeder/flower and wait for them and take a bunch of shots. You gotta get them as they're doing their thing in the wild. I got lucky last week, and happened across a hummer who was preening and didn't seem to mind me getting fairly close. I got some decent shots, not nearly as compositionally great as many I've seen, but I posted them anyway and got an extremely strong response due, I think in large part, to the greater detail afforded by "long lens small bird".
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.
But it really comes down to what is your standard and what's it worth to you? If you like your photos, and the people you show them to like them - it doesn't matter what some "expert" says, or what the photography elite think, nor does it matter if someone else can take a "better" photo (for some definition of better).
What I tell people who ask me is that while there is truth in the old adage that it's the photographer, not the equipment - that doesn't mean you can take *any*/*every* photograph with any equipment. There are some shots you just can't get with some setups. The real key is learning what shots you can take with your equipment and focusing on that and try to focus on being happy with the shots you're able to get, and show compassion for yourself when comparing to photos from others. If you just can't get the shots you really want, then you have to figure out if getting the necessary equipment is worth it to you to be able to get those shots.
So in my opinion, there's only one person who can answer the question "is reach over-rated" and that's you.
I find that if I show images to non-photography people they will absolutely love them even if I think they going to the trash bin (out of focus, soft, bad comp, noisy etc). If that is the audience you are going for then yes, reach is overrated because your output will meet the needs of the people you are sharing with. If that's the case then spending 20k on the Z9 and 400 is a waste. As others have mentioned as well, reach is not about shooting further away, it's about filling the frame with close-enough subjects.
Your D500 and 500PF is 750mm f/8 equivalent. The 400 with the TC engaged will be 560mm f/4 or 840mm f/8 equivalent if you crop to APS-C. So really in terms of reach you aren't getting all that much (90mm).
I mention that because the reason to spend the $20k shouldn't be about "reach" IMO. For the body it should be because you want the best AF Nikon has with the advantages of mirrorless (Bird Eye AF, WYSIWYG EVF, silent shooting). For the lens it should be because you want the ability to shoot earlier in the morning or later in the evening when light gets low or get more subject isolation.
When I first moved from Nikon to Sony I went from a D500/500PF to the A9II/200-600 so I was actually giving up "reach" but all the other things made my photography more enjoyable. Getting the A1 made up the "reach" difference. When I added the 600f4 I wasn't getting any additional "reach", but I got it for the extra stop (for ISO and separation), faster AF and slightly better IQ (but that was last on the list).
O
Well-known member
Last Saturday I jumped on a train into the city of Sydney and the harbor, i added a ferry ride of 90 minutes, just stunning journey, strolled around the foreshore with all the ferry's coming and going, had dinner at a brilliant authentic Thai restaurant, walked across the street jumped on a train home......just a stunning day and the camera was
Nikon DF 16mp having the D4 sensor, and a 18-70 3.5 4.5 DX yes DX lens, ok so i thought i had the 50mm 1.4 Ziess on it LOL.
You know what, i put the FX in to DX, shot raw and Jpeg in mono, raised the sharpness by 2, contrast by 1, dropped the ev back to zero, used matrix, floated the ISO to 8000 and had a ball shooting in manual.
Basicly it made me work with what i had........
Its not an esoteric lens, nor is it a Ziess, its a minding lens from my D300 days, but gee it still made the sensor on the DF look amazing.
The people who looked at the finished images several days later just loved the story's and images.
Above all i had a brilliant day out..........i could have used the phone but hey like a lot of mirror less gear, you don't really need any skill sets anymore.
Next time i will make certain the Ziess is on LOL.
Nikon DF 16mp having the D4 sensor, and a 18-70 3.5 4.5 DX yes DX lens, ok so i thought i had the 50mm 1.4 Ziess on it LOL.
You know what, i put the FX in to DX, shot raw and Jpeg in mono, raised the sharpness by 2, contrast by 1, dropped the ev back to zero, used matrix, floated the ISO to 8000 and had a ball shooting in manual.
Basicly it made me work with what i had........
Its not an esoteric lens, nor is it a Ziess, its a minding lens from my D300 days, but gee it still made the sensor on the DF look amazing.
The people who looked at the finished images several days later just loved the story's and images.
Above all i had a brilliant day out..........i could have used the phone but hey like a lot of mirror less gear, you don't really need any skill sets anymore.
Next time i will make certain the Ziess is on LOL.
Joelb
New member
For those using zoom lenses a brief search with Lightroom targeting focal length of lenses can often yield some interesting information. For example with most of my African wildlife I found that over 75% of my mages did not excede 350-400mm so this would help to define your particular situation. Another factor to influence your decision.
What I happen to find acceptable is not the question I am asking as I am a wildlife photograph focused on sharpness, feather detail and subject separation.
The question I asked, rephrased is "Is the 360K photo of the hawk more or less pleasing to the general viewer than the technically superior Hawk picture posted by Nautiboy further down the thread. Looking at these photos with "new eyes", what I see in the 365K photo is a "stark image of a bird waiting to kill something". What I see in Nautiboy's hawk picture is a "very good bird ID shot of a very pretty and interesting bird". In other words, the 365K photo tells a story.
Normally the 365K photo would hit my trash can instantly. I only adjusted it because a couple of novices wanted to see what the bird looked like. I posted it because the novices wanted to see the bird. A bad picture received an inordinate number of likes I believe because it tells a story about what the bird is doing.
Tom
A demonstration that content beats technical perfection every time. At least among non-photographers. Also a demonstration of why so many people are perfectly happy using their cell phones to take photos. If the viewing audience is John Q then the simple answer to the original question is, yes, reach is over rated.
Regarding the comparison of the two hawk photos presented in this thread. The second one tells just as much of a story IMO plus is technically superior. Hawk looks just as intense and I can see that look in the eye much better. I's bet that even John Q would like a similar image that's technically superior.
Given the point you are making and who participates in this forum the title of this thread doesn't really hit the mark IMO. Results similar to the image in the OP don't only result from extreme cropping/low resolution. Heavy processing to recover an image from OOF, motion blur, extreme noise, etc, look much the same. Maybe the title should have been something like "Is image quality over rated?". Besides IQ of heavily cropped images can look pretty good displayed at web resolution assuming good IQ of the original.
Great observation, as you said it's about IQ not reach.
arbitrage
Well-known member
Both hawk photos are pretty similar. Neither are much more than a simple nice portrait shot. I don't really get the sense of any drama or intense stare from either of them. The first has half nictitating membrane showing which for me is insta delete anyways.
Doug Herr
Well-known member
We all have our own image quality standards, but the original photo isn't one I'd dedicate any hard drive space to. The half-nictitating membrane by itself would be an instant delete. Aside from this, the weak image quality would have to be overcome by some extraordinary behavior or by rarity of the species for me to display or keep this photo, and I don't see that in this case.
Quality standards for bird photos are probably a separate discussion. I do think it can be better to crop or frame looser if the image does not hold up to tight scrutiny. The same photo may be fine for a Facebook post, be marginal as a web post here, and fail completely as a 16x24 print or stock photo. It's important to know the difference.
I make a lot more environmental images of birds than close ups. To a large extent, the close ups start to all look the same. There needs to be something special for a frame filling portrait to be successful - usually lighting, eye contact, action or behavior, breeding plumage, or a combination of those elements. Environmental images provide more of a story with a sense of place or context. In a portfolio of images, you need both tight shots and environmental context.
It also depends a bit on your purpose. If you intend to use the image in contests, it needs to have something special. A large, slow wading bird or a perched hawk are not likely to be anything special. I judged a contest last year that had 35 photos submitted with great blue herons, great egrets, or snowy egrets. The contest had nine submissions of ospreys - eight of which were carrying a fish. I don't want to see another photo of a brown bear with a salmon at Brooks Falls, a lion in a tree, or an elephant grazing or standing on a plain. On the other hand, those photos in a personal book or social media post may be part of the perfect story about your trip, and would go well with photos of your plane, lodging, and other animals.
I make a lot more environmental images of birds than close ups. To a large extent, the close ups start to all look the same. There needs to be something special for a frame filling portrait to be successful - usually lighting, eye contact, action or behavior, breeding plumage, or a combination of those elements. Environmental images provide more of a story with a sense of place or context. In a portfolio of images, you need both tight shots and environmental context.
It also depends a bit on your purpose. If you intend to use the image in contests, it needs to have something special. A large, slow wading bird or a perched hawk are not likely to be anything special. I judged a contest last year that had 35 photos submitted with great blue herons, great egrets, or snowy egrets. The contest had nine submissions of ospreys - eight of which were carrying a fish. I don't want to see another photo of a brown bear with a salmon at Brooks Falls, a lion in a tree, or an elephant grazing or standing on a plain. On the other hand, those photos in a personal book or social media post may be part of the perfect story about your trip, and would go well with photos of your plane, lodging, and other animals.
Calson
Well-known member
The outstanding wildlife photographers like Moose Peterson, Art Wolfe, and Thomas Mangelsen, have one thing in common in that they leave breathing space around their subjects. It is obvious that the animals were not photographed in a zoo or game farm but out in the wild.
Sensor resolution is critical to the "reach" of any lens. I was surprised with the files from my D800e that I could get more enlargement without pixalation shooting a JPG with this camera than with Raw from the D750. The D850 to this to another level though with the productivity impact of much larger files to process. The image size from the D5 with a 600mm lens is on par with that of a D850 using a 500mm lens. The shooter with a 600mm lens on a D5 needs to get much closer to the subject than the shooter using a D850 camera that provides more than double the resolution. Canon stayed with the 24MP sensor for their R3 for sports shooters but Nikon appears to have moved on with the 45MP Z9 which is great for wildlife photographers.
The downside to higher resolution is that any imperfections in focus or shooting technique is much more apparent. The Z9 with its not needing AF adjustment to compensate for the light path with the mirror of a DSLR and with its in camera image stabilization provides the photographer with a much more capable tool regardless of the lens being used.
Sensor resolution is critical to the "reach" of any lens. I was surprised with the files from my D800e that I could get more enlargement without pixalation shooting a JPG with this camera than with Raw from the D750. The D850 to this to another level though with the productivity impact of much larger files to process. The image size from the D5 with a 600mm lens is on par with that of a D850 using a 500mm lens. The shooter with a 600mm lens on a D5 needs to get much closer to the subject than the shooter using a D850 camera that provides more than double the resolution. Canon stayed with the 24MP sensor for their R3 for sports shooters but Nikon appears to have moved on with the 45MP Z9 which is great for wildlife photographers.
The downside to higher resolution is that any imperfections in focus or shooting technique is much more apparent. The Z9 with its not needing AF adjustment to compensate for the light path with the mirror of a DSLR and with its in camera image stabilization provides the photographer with a much more capable tool regardless of the lens being used.