Jump to content

Welcome to NikonForums.com
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Please Critruque and help


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1
Steve M

Steve M

    Loyal Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 238 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationSE Minnesota

Site Supporter

I took this photo along with many others. I am still a newbie but I thought this was a good photo. The eyes are very crisp but I was told it was a very poor photo. Yes I was hurt as I was told I either have a bad camera or I don’t know what I am doing. The grass and many areas are out of focus. And they are right.

The photo
2500 Shutter Speed. Yes a bit high but was taking fast moving trains before. Plus since they are hitting me with Chemo (everything will be fine just a bit of a rough road) I have issues with shaking but I do try and rest the camera on something.

D7200
Manual Mode
Aperture is 10
ISO is Automatic

AFC WITH 9 points and single point metering.


8559_FBD9-_B758-44_E4-_A610-6_B925_F1_C6


Now I found a similar place since this place was far away and changed the Aperture to 20 leaving all the rest the same. Again the background is the same.

7_F886628-_A789-4588-_A4_B4-_D37_DD2_BA5



Also I took out my old D40x and I get the same results.

So anyway I would appreciate any help or advice.

#2
ScottinPollock

ScottinPollock

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 648 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationWest Slope Northern Sierra Nevada
I don't think this is a bad shot (short of the harsh light). You shot it at 370mm... even at f32 you won't get the background sharp. The more the focal length/magnification, the shallower the depth of field.
 
For me, having a sharp, contrasty, busy background is a huge distraction. I would have opened the aperture for a nice, soft blur to the background that would make the bird stand out.
 
Note that the below is a really rough composite to demonstrate what I would have gone for.
busybackgroundFix.jpg


#3
Malice

Malice

    Loyal Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 212 posts
  • Country Flag

Site Supporter

The eyes are very crisp but I was told it was a very poor photo. Yes I was hurt as I was told I either have a bad camera or I don’t know what I am doing. The grass and many areas are out of focus. And they are right.

 

You shouldn't take everything to heart that you are told.

 

This is a good photo. Okay, maybe it's not perfect, but it's far from bad.

 

When taking photos of individual subjects like this bird here, it is very often a wanted technique to separate the subject in the foreground from the background by having the latter out of focus. I.e. this is often done on purpose. There's nothing wrong with that. Rather to the contrary.

 

As has been mentioned by ScottinPollock already.



#4
Colin B

Colin B

    Active Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 56 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationPerth Western SAustralia

Well, all I can say is "I wish I had taken that shot".

 

Yes, a cleaner background, or one blurred into insignificance would be nice but it is not as if you could say "Hey, birdie, just step over here into this open patch of ground away from that clutter.... :P " Too much fluffing around with the camera or shifting positions and all you get is a flap of wings and a missed opportunity, especially with these guys as Egrets are very wary birds.

 

The only thing I would change is to go back in my time machine and let the bird take one more step past that whitish log(?) behind its head but a bit of fiddly work in Photoshop could fix that.



#5
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,587 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

That is definitely not a poor photo. It is not the best it could be, but far from poor.

 

Those who want more in focus are used to bridge cameras where the small magnification due to the small sensor makes nearly everything look acceptably sharp, until you take a closer look and find that everything is slightly mushy and then oversharpened to compensate. This is a much better photo.

 

You would probably have got even more impact from the selective focus if you had closed the aperture down less, to f/6.3 or 7.1 rather than 10 to get better separation between background and subject. A good sample of the 80-400 is sharp enough that 1/3 step closed down is enough even at the long end.

 

The other two factors that make this far from ideal are out of your control as you can't tell wild birds to move a bit or to come back when the light is better.



#6
Steve M

Steve M

    Loyal Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 238 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationSE Minnesota

Site Supporter

Thanks everyone. These Egrets are very skittish. Outside of a vehicle you can’t get close. I drove along the highway slow but once my camera comes out the window they are off.

Again thank you for all your comments. I really appreciate it.

#7
leighgion

leighgion

    Senior Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationMadrid

Totally not a poor photo. 

 

I don't know who made the comments, but I'm going to be direct and say complaining that the background isn't in focus, especially for a shot of this nature, is straight up stupid. I know it can be very tempting as a neophyte photographer to pick certain technical aspects and use it as "objective" standard of quality, but that's just lying to yourself. 

 

As other posters have noted, not only a soft background not in any way an indicator of "badness," in cases like this shot, an even softer background would have been an aesthetic benefit.



#8
nbanjogal

nbanjogal

    Nikonian

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,094 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUT, USA

Site Supporter

I'll just add my +1. I agree with everyone else. Not a poor photo. At all. As has already been mentioned several times, you don't WANT a sharp, busy background. You want to isolate your subject, and having a soft, blurry background is a really good way to do that (it's called "bokeh," and photographers who know what they're doing use it all the time). ScottinPollock's example is just what I'd go for as well. So, my friend, I would actually say that whoever gave you those comments is the one who doesn't know what he is doing. Take the comments with a grain of salt.

 

And hey, I hope your health is ok. Good luck with the chemo. I know that's not a pleasant process.



#9
sunshine

sunshine

    Loyal Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationVirginia

Steve - I'm with everyone else here.  That's a good shot.  If you look at very much wildlife imagery you will quickly see that blurred, unrecognizable background is preferred.  As has been stated above, a wider aperture could have provided more bokeh, and morning or evening sunlight might have improved the overall look, but it's still a good shot.  Take a look at Steve Perry's "Backcountry Gallery" for examples.

 

Here's one I got this weekend.  Your original critic would probably think this is an awful photo, too.  I like them both - mine and yours.  Mine looks a little dark, and I haven't had a chance to work on it with Lightroom yet.  (I'm limited to Apple Photos on my company macbook until I get home.)  But there's certainly nothing wrong about yours.

 

41586047122_3537b41210_h.jpg

dinner by Mark, on Flickr



#10
Steve M

Steve M

    Loyal Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 238 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationSE Minnesota

Site Supporter

 
And hey, I hope your health is ok. Good luck with the chemo. I know that's not a pleasant process.



Thank you so much.

#11
Steve M

Steve M

    Loyal Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 238 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationSE Minnesota

Site Supporter

I was able to get out yesterday and go back to look for the Egret. I did find him but also found a pair of Sandhill Cranes.

Little editing just from my iPad

SS 2000 Aperture 5.6

85752884-5_B0_E-4_D65-_B053-6_BA287_F384


Aperture at 13 just for kicks


2818_AABA-0348-4_F06-_A4_A0-_B92_F2_C822


Aperture 5.6

8_B90_B1_C3-_B04_E-4_ACC-_ADAD-7_A95470_

#12
leighgion

leighgion

    Senior Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationMadrid

You notice that your last shot looks especially good because most of the background is water, making it very smooth.

 

If you want to use this as an opportunity to deepen your understanding of depth of field and quality of bokeh/out of focus areas, you could consider the technical characteristics of the out of focus trees in the background of the other shots. They're soft, but not as smooth as they could be, which is a characteristic of the lens that isn't in your control. When people get deep into this subject, lenses get judged on the quality of their out-of-focus rendering, aka "good" and "bad" bokeh. 

 

Couple examples following the bird theme:

 

1466347018_ee7bc5ead2_z.jpg?zz=1

Fishing in the Shallows by Leigh, on Flickr

 

The 500mm mirror lens, renders tiny doughnuts of light due to its particular design.

 

4628832004_d8b1e54287_z.jpg

Eavesdropping Robin by Leigh, on Flickr

 

70-200mm f/2.8 renders much smoother. 



#13
mikew

mikew

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 798 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationNorth East Lincs

You have been told a load of crap about the first image,yes it could be improved but as you say you are learning, out of focus back grounds are just what you want for most wildlife shots, perhaps the person who said these things needs to learn about depth of field and the fact you used it correctly.



#14
fallout666

fallout666

    Nikonian

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,098 posts
  • Country Flag
  • Locationcfl area of space coast

all your pictures look good. since out focus spots are out focus and spot need to be in focus are but few area will be hit and miss since subject will grab the ground with subject too. 



#15
Nikon Shooter

Nikon Shooter

    Nikonian

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,041 posts
  • Country Flag
  • Location: French Canadian living in Central Europe

Hey Steve,

 

the key word here is background separation!

 

This may be achieve in mainly three ways:

  1. chrominance separation
  2. luminance separation and
  3. focus (includes detail) separation

Here, the third point would work best in this scene. The problem

is your chosen aperture: ƒ 10 was not the right choice as a much

bigger on would have nailed it.

 

All the best!  :P