Add to that high megapixel camera bodies and you have a great recipe for mashed potatoes.
The #1 Sharpness Killer For Wildlife Shooters
- Thread starter Steve
- 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).
I experience this issue most of the time when shooting over open wateer. I live near Lake Michigan which presents issues quite often (most of the time). This past weekend we were out and the air temp was about 67F/20C while the water temp was closer to 45F/8C. Close objects were Ok, but those rafts of duck and other birds offshore were all wavy from the distortion at the warm air/cold water boundary. I have found this to be an issue when shooting across the open deeper water in our area. Good info Steve to keep in mind and in practice.
ARClark
Well-known member
It could be possible down the road. But for now, recognizing and avoiding it is still a significant aspect of wildlife photography field craft.
Cameron T
Well-known member
If it gets to that point, the programs may as well just download other images for you and overlay them.
That's probably exactly how it would work.
Cameron T
Well-known member
And then it becomes not your pictures imo. It becomes making things up. At least current denoise still doesn't add anything in (to the best of my knowledge)
I have to disagree with Steve here in that I think while it COULD work this way, there's no reason to think it would HAVE to. I can vaguely reason out in my mind a general idea of how some software could genuinely work to remove distortion without just overwriting the image with a sharper version.
Calson
Well-known member
A pro photographer usually can take as much time as needed to get close to their subjects and get the best possible images. The hobby photographer does not have that luxury and so takes various "shortcuts" which includes using more image magnification. Few photographers own or use blinds/hides in the USA.
@Steve...great video and excellent use of the graphics you came up with. It's been interesting lately to see some of the threads here and on other sites, blow up with all sorts of technical dissertations and blathering about this or that mfr's focus capabilities or using the wrong AF modes, etc., when the real answer is more commonly the simplest one...atmospherics, speaking in a broad sense.I think it's mostly to spin a polarizer if there's one attached with the hood onBut it works as a vent too
Thanks also for mentioning the slot in the Canon hood...now that's a great idea...I'm going to see if can cut a slot in the hood for my 600pf for the lever of my VND filter (for shooting video on sunny days) to poke through so I can easily adjust it with the hood on.
I just looked and there is a step on the inside of the hood that extends 5mm from the end of the lens where the filter thread is and that may be an issue, though I could always use a spacer to move the VND out enough to clear. I have an old clear filter that came with the 200-500 I owned...could take the glass out of that and just use as a spacer.
Where's my Dremel tool???
GregT943
Well-known member
This was a big issue for me attempting to get shots out of the bus window in Denali National Park
Anjin San
Well-known member
I recognize a good number of those situations from a couple weeks back
.
.
Great video! Now I know why some of my photos from Africa are not sharp! Specially those of some birds like the crane and the secretary birds who spend most of their time on the ground.
Thanks Steve! Next time I know how to try to avoid this problem.
Thanks Steve! Next time I know how to try to avoid this problem.
Archibald
Well-known member
That was me mentioning the Canon hood. The gap is intended for access to adjust a polarizer, but I never use a polarizer with that lens; and anyway, the hood is not so deep that I couldn't adjust it from the front. But that little hatch makes a handy ventilating port.@Steve...great video and excellent use of the graphics you came up with. It's been interesting lately to see some of the threads here and on other sites, blow up with all sorts of technical dissertations and blathering about this or that mfr's focus capabilities or using the wrong AF modes, etc., when the real answer is more commonly the simplest one...atmospherics, speaking in a broad sense.
Thanks also for mentioning the slot in the Canon hood...now that's a great idea...I'm going to see if can cut a slot in the hood for my 600pf for the lever of my VND filter (for shooting video on sunny days) to poke through so I can easily adjust it with the hood on.
I just looked and there is a step on the inside of the hood that extends 5mm from the end of the lens where the filter thread is and that may be an issue, though I could always use a spacer to move the VND out enough to clear. I have an old clear filter that came with the 200-500 I owned...could take the glass out of that and just use as a spacer.
Where's my Dremel tool???
You can buy cheap knockoff filters off Amazon - get one, paint it white, and make a gap in the bottom.
Another great video Steve! Another good reminder for us all. The one aspect that surprised me was the issue of the bright sun beating down on my lens hood and creating a temperature differential. I’ve used that trick of removing the hood several times and it’s saved some images. Again….great job!
I was just tongue in cheek about the ai, but when you look at the gains in computational photography they are putting into cell phones these days, it might not be that far into the future. Interchangeable lens cameras are behind the curve a little in terms of what is done in-camera.
Cameron T
Well-known member
Yeah, but then you just make images out of whole clothe (Samsung faking moon pictures) and then it's not actually photography, just slapping your name on a picture someone else took. Computational stuff is for phones and people who'd rather skip the "photography" part and get to the "hey I want instagram likes" part
Jay F
New member
Great video! It got me thinking. I tried to shoot the moon yesterday, with my 2 day old Z8, 100-400 s lens and a 1.4 tc. The shots were horrible! Moon was totally out of focus, even though that is what I focused on. I was shooting over water right at moonrise. I was using a tripod. Is this out of focusness and rough edges of the moon caused by heat refraction? Sorry, I could not upload the image
Thanks!
Thanks!
Might be a good topic of its own to avoid sidetracking this one. I'll just say opinions vary as to where to draw the line with tech enhancements. Some would argue 120 fps with precapture and automatic bird eye tracking is a bridge too far. To me the important part is having the imagination to previsualize the final result and the know how to use whatever tech is available make it a wall hanger. A famous guy said "To have ideas one must have imagination. To express ideas one must have science"
Robert S
Well-known member
In the film 'Lawrence of Arabia' heat distortion is used constructively.
Bit of trivia:
Somewhere in Africa people recognised that there were two stars not one that the bwana type person saw. All kinds of bs was employed to explain this. Taking the trouble to check the eyesight of the locals was boring.
I once missed out on a job because I told a French mining engineer that 'preventative maintenance' was in a lot of cases similar to putting radar on a rowing boat. Being a smart arse can get you into trouble. Then again if you can't state the obvious life would become very complicated.
Keep stating the obvious Steve.
Bit of trivia:
Somewhere in Africa people recognised that there were two stars not one that the bwana type person saw. All kinds of bs was employed to explain this. Taking the trouble to check the eyesight of the locals was boring.
I once missed out on a job because I told a French mining engineer that 'preventative maintenance' was in a lot of cases similar to putting radar on a rowing boat. Being a smart arse can get you into trouble. Then again if you can't state the obvious life would become very complicated.
Keep stating the obvious Steve.
Oops, my apologies.
The hood on the 600pf is pretty deep and there's not enough room to really get in there and move the Variable ND filter by hand...have to pull the hood off to change it.
Rotationally, I'd need to be able to rotate about 50 degrees. I don't mind putting a slot in the one I have as I can't imagine ever replacing this lens.
Actually, that's pretty much how most "ai" plugins work now - extrapolating from the pixels you feed it using pixels it's seen before in other images. When I use Topaz <any of them, but particularly AI>, et al (adobe enhance, etc.) I know I'm letting them bend the reality of my capture using other people's images. It's not a direct, large area copy (e.g. samsung moon deal), but a copy of a small area/few pixels based on what other images from the training set had.
Some denoise tools (esp the older ones) don't use an AI approach, and instead just look at the local pixels in your image to make decisions. But e.g. Topaz Denoise doesn't really exist anymore - it's been swallowed by Topaz AI (which does a fine job of denoising images).
Personally, I'm not stickler for "documentation/SOOC/reality only" works, so I can accept some small alteration - but if the output from the tool doesn't match my artistic vision, I toss it. If I am trying to completely reflect the reality of what was seen, I likely won't even use those tools at all.
Cheers!
There's a LOT of atmosphere between here and there. Cold, crisp nights are usually best in my limited experience
freddd
Member
I do a lot of astrophotography https://www.astrobin.com/users/Fredd/ and air turbulence (and there is a lot of air between me and the stars...) is one of the biggest factors in terms of quality of your imaging. Many techniques have been developed around deconvolution, including AI related ones that can makes a real difference in reducing the impact of air turbulence such as the jet stream (and also optics).
freddd
Member
"Some would argue 120 fps with precapture and automatic bird eye tracking is a bridge too far."
I tend to agree. I'm not a regular birder but I enjoy trying to capture a take-off or landing (and missing some shoots). Pre-capture almost feels like cheating and removes in my view the joy of photography.
I tend to agree. I'm not a regular birder but I enjoy trying to capture a take-off or landing (and missing some shoots). Pre-capture almost feels like cheating and removes in my view the joy of photography.
It seems to me that there's a very clear and sharp difference from technologies which make it easier to capture an authentic image and those which manipulate images with inauthentic details.
I can understand why someone might not like something like precapture and/or eye tracking insofar as they detract from the personal satisfaction or fun of trying to get certain photos, but these technologies don't in any way create a captured photo which is not something that was ever really there.