Softness again, is the subject too small (far away) am I asking too much?

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).

AndyL3

AndyL3

Member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
Ok posted before so sent both camera and ens to Sony. A92 and 200-600. This is a representative image directly out of camera, Is the subject too small? Should I wait until it fills more of the frame? Shooting Af-c Zone, 3200 , iso 6400, f6.3, the af was on the harrier and was on for an extended burst, an all of them kind of look mushy? Thoughts? Thanks
do you shoot when the light is overcast and when the subject doesn't fill the frame?
DSC09024.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
I too have had this experience., but with different equipment.... which would confirm at least one commonality, you have to get closer to your subject. That's not to say I may not try to sharpen and denoise it in post processing and then decide if it can hold up to any cropping or if the composition needs or would benefit from it. I do shoot in cloudy and overcast conditions as I do not have to be as concerned about sun angles or harsh light, but it's a trade off as your ISO usually goes up and noise starts to enter the equation. See what you can do with the photo in Topaz Denoise or Sharpen, you may be surprised.
 
Member's gallery
Yes we all get this from time to time and if its a bird you have sharp shots of or an animal that you see often then who cares. Today's just not the day. But if it's a rare has hens teeth critter or bird then for me it's a keeper until I get a better shot. You can only do the best with the situation you have. I have got to the stage now where I know it's not going to work and I don't waste the bullets.
 
Member's gallery
No heat distortion, was 30 degrees F. This is straight from camera, No cropping yet. I can probably Denise and sharpen, but shouldn't this image be sharper than it is with all my variables? Thanks for the help
 
Member's gallery
Looking at the aspect ratio it looks like you already cropped the image. Can you post it uncropped so we can see the relative size of the bird in the frame?
 
Member's gallery
AndyL3 said:
No heat distortion, was 30 degrees F. This is straight from camera, No cropping yet. I can probably Denise and sharpen, but shouldn't this image be sharper than it is with all my variables? Thanks for the help
Click to expand...
For the record, you can get heat distortion at any temp, even sub-zero. It's about the differences in temp, not the actual temps :)

By chance were you shooting this from a vehicle?
 
Member's gallery
Andy, was this at Fernald in Ohio? If so, I think I know where that bird was and it was pretty far out. Even if it wasn't where I think it was, I think you have a couple factors conspiring against you here:
1) as Steve said, heat shimmer (distortion) is present on cold days. In fact, I see it more in winter than in summer.
2) you were at a pretty high ISO which, even with a low light beast like the A9 is reported to be, won't do a lot for overall crispness.
3) Looks like a kid of cloudy day which could mean a slight amount of fog or moisture in the air which would be magnified with the telephoto lens.

Botom line, given the conditions it's not a bad photo. I'd try it on a day with better shooting conditions before giving up on the camera / lens combination.

Hope this helps.
Jeff
 
Member's gallery
Wasn't from a vehicle, agree the weather wasn't great, this is in NJ so even at 600 the harrier was as close as he will normally come to me and I am not allowed to get closer to him, (preserve rules). I did run it thur Topaz with better results
DSC09024-DeNoiseAI-clear (1)-SharpenAI-focus.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
Andy second shot looks better. The reason I asked about location is we have a preserve here in Ohio where harriers overwinter and the "lay of the land" looks very much like where your preserve is. I wouldn't give up on the camera/lens just yet.
 
Member's gallery
I was puzzled by your lack of sharpness until you showed the hugely better PP image (Topaz DeNoise AI is magic). I have the Sony a7R4 which allows more cropping and the a9 shouldn't miss AF often. Great picture of the Northern Harrier!
 
Member's gallery
There's lots of reports of softness with that lens and the A7R IV on Sony (sub) forums. I'm not across them but you have high a res sensor so try shooting at 1/4000s to better control for camera movement.
It may be haze but where I shoot with my Sonys that's a warm weather thing.
OSS settings matter too so vary those.
You can find out if there are AF points on the bird with https://github.com/SK-Hardwired/s_afv
And there's been some posts from users whose 200-600 has become soft over time. It's happened to my 400 2.8 which Sony has sent back to Japan for repair.
 
Member's gallery
I'd caution you about trying to assess your technique and capability of your gear using a moving subject. Most likely the issue is related to your technique, and the degree to which you obtained accurate focus. Don't evaluate the camera and lens until you can produce sharp images at a similar distance of a static subject using those settings. Unless you can get tack sharp images on a consistent basis with a static subject, you should not be concerned with fast moving subjects in medium to low light. Once you have confirmed you and your gear can capture a sharp image of a static subject from a similar distance, you can address technique for birds in flight and sharp focus.

While the subject is soft in your initial image, the background was nice. The second version has a sharper subject, but the background has a lot of artifacts from sharpening. Layering the two images, or masking the second version, would led to a better result.
 
Member's gallery
EricBowles said:
I'd caution you about trying to assess your technique and capability of your gear using a moving subject. Most likely the issue is related to your technique, and the degree to which you obtained accurate focus. Don't evaluate the camera and lens until you can produce sharp images at a similar distance of a static subject using those settings. Unless you can get tack sharp images on a consistent basis with a static subject, you should not be concerned with fast moving subjects in medium to low light. Once you have confirmed you and your gear can capture a sharp image of a static subject from a similar distance, you can address technique for birds in flight and sharp focus.

While the subject is soft in your initial image, the background was nice. The second version has a sharper subject, but the background has a lot of artifacts from sharpening. Layering the two images, or masking the second version, would led to a better result.
Click to expand...
I don't see artifacts on the second image. I think he ran Topaz Denoise AI on the whole image. If I were working on this image I would have put marching ants around the bird. That separates the bird from the background. How does masking help here? I know nothing about masking.
 
Member's gallery
Larry Shuman said:
How does masking help here? I know nothing about masking.
Click to expand...
Masking is an alternative to selections but just another way to apply changes to only part of an image. Either method can work and in addition to Photoshop layer masking Topaz DeNoise has a built in masking tool that lets you restrict the noise reduction from parts of the image and only apply it to other parts.

But within PS, both feathered selections and painting on layer masks can be good ways to select which portions of the image you'd like to apply certain changes to and which to leave alone. The only advantage of the layer mask approach is you don't have to make an exact selection and a decision of how much you want to feather the selection before making the changes. You can paint black on layer mask to hide the changes from parts of your image, paint white to reveal parts or paint shades of gray which is like feathering a selection so it fades from full effect to partial helping blend the change and avoid the cardboard cutout look.

With masks if you go too far such as painting too much black on the layer mask and hiding more of the effect than you need you can just switch your paintbrush back to white and paint back over the same area revealing a bit more. IOW, it's a bit easier to change your mind about the exact area selected and how gently it's feathered compared to making selections prior to the edits.

Layer masks also let you adjust the feathering in different directions. For instance with a selection you might add a 5 pixel feather to help blend the changes back into the original image but that feather is on every edge of the selection. You can do the same with layer masks but you could also have a larger feathered area (larger area of black fading to white on the layer mask) on some edges making the transition softer and harder edges in other directions if that was appropriate for the image, that's a bit hard to do with selections.

But in the end, using layer masks is just a different way to selectively apply edits to portions of an image and using selections can be a great way to go for many images as well. Both are useful tools to have in your bag of post processing tricks.
 
Member's gallery
Larry Shuman said:
I don't see artifacts on the second image. I think he ran Topaz Denoise AI on the whole image. If I were working on this image I would have put marching ants around the bird. That separates the bird from the background. How does masking help here? I know nothing about masking.
Click to expand...

Look at the bottom left and bottom right corners of the images. Also look at the horizon line on the right side of the frame. The second image has a lot of detail that looks odd.

The Opacity slider might work, but if not using each version as layers would resolve the issue.

The problem with any global edit is you can get that kind of unintended artifact. But it shows Topaz did a good job on the subject which was the main intent.
 
Member's gallery
I always adjust levels and then check contrast before doing further work on an image. Sharpening is the last step and done after the image has been resized from the original file. I keep both the unsharpened file and the sharpened one so I have options for making tweaks in the future for a smaller image or when I have time to make other changes to the image file.
 
Member's gallery
EricBowles said:
Look at the bottom left and bottom right corners of the images. Also look at the horizon line on the right side of the frame. The second image has a lot of detail that looks odd.

The Opacity slider might work, but if not using each version as layers would resolve the issue.

The problem with any global edit is you can get that kind of unintended artifact. But it shows Topaz did a good job on the subject which was the main intent.
Click to expand...
I think I see what your talking about, however if this was my image I would crop it to keep out those areas.
 
Member's gallery
AndyL3 said:
Ok posted before so sent both camera and ens to Sony. A92 and 200-600. This is a representative image directly out of camera, Is the subject too small? Should I wait until it fills more of the frame? Shooting Af-c Zone, 3200 , iso 6400, f6.3, the af was on the harrier and was on for an extended burst, an all of them kind of look mushy? Thoughts? Thanks
do you shoot when the light is overcast and when the subject doesn't fill the frame?View attachment 11413
Click to expand...
Since that is a Harrier, you may not be able to get closer. lol
 
Member's gallery
The A99 II (is that your model?) has on- and off-sensor PDAF but not CDAF so it will be fast but perhaps not all that accurate on grey days. I'd be checking where the locks are happening. And narrowing the AF area. The factory recommends Medium Spot for BIF on the A9.

camerajabber.com

Photography News, Tutorials & Reviews

In-depth reviews of cameras, phones, accessories and software. Stay up to date with the latest photography news, tutorials and buying guides.
camerajabber.com camerajabber.com
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top