Views: 122 (60 Unique) 
Vote 19
Award Shortlist   

Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


Enter ePHOTOzine's Prize Draw, with fab gifts for everyone! Click Here

Comments


Chrisjaz 5 14 France
2 Mar 2013 4:53PM
Beautiful shot , so clear ,sharp and vibrant , the little blue tit is gorgeous

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

mcgannc 7 389 3 England
2 Mar 2013 5:42PM
My observation here is that the noise reduction/sharpen details work that has been done on this detracts from the final image. I know it's difficult when you need to crop, however if you know this when taking the shot then it's worth seeing what you can do to limit the noise you will get...knowing that it will be exaggerated when you crop in.

I noticed that your shutter speed looked a bit high and it made me think that you may get away with a slower speed - say 250 or 125 maybe. And also the aperture may possibly have been a bit larger - say 5.6. All this would allow to reduce the iso to a maximum of 1000 (potentially lower) and therefore reduce the amount of noise to remove. Obviously I don't know what the light was like for you but I know you've talked in the forums about noise so thought this might be a useful observation.

There's another shot that was uploaded recently that shows these sorts of settings and what can be achieved. I'm not saying the other shot is perfect, and it looks like they may have been much closer than you were to your subject but the exif info may be useful for you.

Cheers,
Chris
2 Mar 2013 7:56PM
Hi John, lovely shot.
Nice meeting you at Warnham today.

Jeff
DerekL 11 167 24 England
2 Mar 2013 10:39PM
Agree with "mcgannc", the use of a high ISO setting and over sharpening has spoilt the image.

It may have been cropped excessively also, or the original was underexposed, as there is a lot of artefacts noise visible in the image.
2 Mar 2013 11:18PM
If I want critique I will ask for it, thank everyone that voted positively on my image
2 Mar 2013 11:19PM

Quote:My observation here is that the noise reduction/sharpen details work that has been done on this detracts from the final image. I know it's difficult when you need to crop, however if you know this when taking the shot then it's worth seeing what you can do to limit the noise you will get...knowing that it will be exaggerated when you crop in.

I noticed that your shutter speed looked a bit high and it made me think that you may get away with a slower speed - say 250 or 125 maybe. And also the aperture may possibly have been a bit larger - say 5.6. All this would allow to reduce the iso to a maximum of 1000 (potentially lower) and therefore reduce the amount of noise to remove. Obviously I don't know what the light was like for you but I know you've talked in the forums about noise so thought this might be a useful observation.

There's another shot that was uploaded recently that shows these sorts of settings and what can be achieved. I'm not saying the other shot is perfect, and it looks like they may have been much closer than you were to your subject but the exif info may be useful for you.

Cheers,
Chris

2 Mar 2013 11:22PM
because a 1200 lens was used the shutter speed has to be high, you will know this by the rule of thumb....?
Quote:My observation here is that the noise reduction/sharpen details work that has been done on this detracts from the final image. I know it's difficult when you need to crop, however if you know this when taking the shot then it's worth seeing what you can do to limit the noise you will get...knowing that it will be exaggerated when you crop in.

I noticed that your shutter speed looked a bit high and it made me think that you may get away with a slower speed - say 250 or 125 maybe. And also the aperture may possibly have been a bit larger - say 5.6. All this would allow to reduce the iso to a maximum of 1000 (potentially lower) and therefore reduce the amount of noise to remove. Obviously I don't know what the light was like for you but I know you've talked in the forums about noise so thought this might be a useful observation.

There's another shot that was uploaded recently that shows these sorts of settings and what can be achieved. I'm not saying the other shot is perfect, and it looks like they may have been much closer than you were to your subject but the exif info may be useful for you.

Cheers,
Chris

jimthistle73 12 2.4k 1 United Kingdom
2 Mar 2013 11:43PM
Lighten up fella Smile You've been given some genuinely helpful advice. All we can do with such advice is scrutinise it, decide whether or not it's useful and either learn from it, or move on.

In this case, I'd have to agree with mcgannc's well put observations. If it was a "1200 lens", why does the EXIF say 400mm?

Composition is very good Smile
alistairfarrugia 4 164 88 Malta
3 Mar 2013 12:00AM
I think the lack of image stabilisation meant that your shutter speed had to be about 1/640 (400mm x 1.6 crop factor) if you are to follow the rule of thumb.
Your settings were: 1/500, on ISO 2000 and an aperture of f/7.1. I'll try to work out different settings for you that would give a similar exposure and the see the effect that would have on the picture.

Your aperture was 2/3 of a stop higher than f/5.6, so let's assume you could use 2/3 of a stop lower ISO (1,300 range) and used f/5.6 instead of f/7.1. That would already result in lower ISO. Now, since 1/500 is slower than the rule of thumb would have you use, let's assume you lose 1/3 of a stop of light and go up to a shutter speed of 1/640. By opening aperture further, to f/5.0, we could gain that lost 1/3 of a stop back.

From this step on, much depends on how far away you were from the bird. Going up to f/4.0 would enable you to go down to an ISO of around 640 - 800, which would give you much better noise results I guess, but the depth of field would probably be very limited to work comfortably on such a subject. I tried out some figures in online calculators and it seems that for a bird 10 metres away, you'd have a field of only 10 cm length at such a focal length, at f/4.0.

Given all these calculations, I think a high ISO was in a way a requirement here, particularly if the shot was hand-held rather than from a tripod.
3 Mar 2013 11:24AM
Alistair Thank you for your critique, I now understand the calculations thank you for taking the time to investigate I should know all this being I was bought up on film, but being that I only had the shot in the view finder for a minute I stuffed up on the settings, the lens was on a tripod, in a hide, through a very small window on a block of wood, I have had the lens for about a month and still getting used to it,


Quote:I think the lack of image stabilisation meant that your shutter speed had to be about 1/640 (400mm x 1.6 crop factor) if you are to follow the rule of thumb.
Your settings were: 1/500, on ISO 2000 and an aperture of f/7.1. I'll try to work out different settings for you that would give a similar exposure and the see the effect that would have on the picture.

Your aperture was 2/3 of a stop higher than f/5.6, so let's assume you could use 2/3 of a stop lower ISO (1,300 range) and used f/5.6 instead of f/7.1. That would already result in lower ISO. Now, since 1/500 is slower than the rule of thumb would have you use, let's assume you lose 1/3 of a stop of light and go up to a shutter speed of 1/640. By opening aperture further, to f/5.0, we could gain that lost 1/3 of a stop back.

From this step on, much depends on how far away you were from the bird. Going up to f/4.0 would enable you to go down to an ISO of around 640 - 800, which would give you much better noise results I guess, but the depth of field would probably be very limited to work comfortably on such a subject. I tried out some figures in online calculators and it seems that for a bird 10 metres away, you'd have a field of only 10 cm length at such a focal length, at f/4.0.

Given all these calculations, I think a high ISO was in a way a requirement here, particularly if the shot was hand-held rather than from a tripod.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.