How sharp is sharp

[dirk_van_der_merwe1]

How much detail should I expect to see on a well exposed bird in the

area that is in focus? Please look at the attached photograph and tell

me whether the detail visible is reasonble for a Canon f5.6 400mm

lens. The photograph were taken tripod mounted, f5.6 1/350s. Thanks in

advance.

 

Dirk(www.wildphotographs.com)<div></div>

[hans_beckert]

Was this made on film? If so, what kind?

[mbb]

Very nice portrait but on the 'soft' side judging the uploaded JPEG. Best regards, Mark

[mark_chappell]

It's not really possible to judge how sharp the original image might be from a JPEG

this small (590 X 824 pixels). Of course, if the image were really soft, that would be

obvious. But both 35mm film and digital images can hold far more detail than would

ever be visible with this image size. Consider that a reasonable film scanner has

roughly 3000 dpi resolution, so a scan of a full-frame 35mm slide would contain

perhaps 4500 by 2250 pixels. A typical DSLR image has perhaps 3000 by 2000

pixels (for a 6 megapixel sensor).

[greg s]

Dirk, In focus (on bird's eye), but slightly soft. My guess is that if you had taken the shot at f/8 it would be visibly sharper. I have a Nikon 300 f/4 which I routinely stop down to f/8 to get the super sharp results it delivers at that aperture. --Greg--

[jose f.]

Look at Doug Herr's photos <a href="http://www.wildlightphoto.com">here</a>

<P>

That's how sharp.

[dirk_van_der_merwe1]

Hi,

The photograph was taken with Canon Eos 10D, I added the cropped section of the photograph. Is it possible to get more detial? And if so how? Thanks

 

Dirk (www.wildphotographs.com)<div></div>

[mbb]

Try NeatImage.

[mbb]

Dirk, I downloaded your cropped version and if this is a part of original than you have too little details to work with. If you don�t have details you can�t �make� them. Sharpening won�t help much. I still recommend NeatImage � it�s free. Also convert your photos to sRGB IEC61966-2.1 profile before uploading here. It will show colors much better in browser. On another hand you can�t do nothing to avoid photo.net compression and this can ruin some photos � make them look soft.

[doug herr]

Looks like there's some motion blur. The catchlight and a few

highlights on the bill are oblong, all in the same orientation.

[mbb]

Best sharpness I was able to get.<div></div>

[bernhard]

Not sharp at all, motion blur as said above. With proper techniques you should see an eye-popping difference to this.

[don_cooper]

Here's your photo run through Focus Magic.<div></div>

[jemini_joseph]

Dirk <br>

What tripod you are using? After working with 500mm for a while I'm a big fan for Gitzo and their tripods :). After trying many tripods I settled with G1548 which is truely amazing. If the image was hanld held, it's quite possible that softness is because of lens shake. <br><br><a href="http://www.color-pictures.com" target="w-2">Color-pictures.com</a>

[greg s]

Take 2 photos of same stationary subject (well defined address on side of a house from a distance works well, easier to objectively judge sharpness) with lens on tripod and use the timer or remote. First photo is taken wide open at f/5.6 (as per this bird photo) and the 2nd at f/8. Compare the results... I believe you'll get significantly better resolution of the address at f/8 and sharper chickadee pics as well. -- Greg --

[doug herr]

Greg S wrote: <I>you'll get significantly better resolution of the address at f/8 and sharper chickadee pics as well</I><P>

Not nessesarily. Chickadees move - <I>FAST</I> - and the faster shutter speed will reduce the chances of blur from camera and subject motion. Ideally, use a lens that is essentially optimum at full aperture to use the fastest possible shutter speed. For most lenses it still might be best to use the lens at full aperture if camera or subject motion is an issue.

[sergey_oboguev]

5.6 is usually not enough (or just barely enough) even for bigger birds and absolutely not enough for small birds. The smaller is the subject, the greater gets magnification (for the "same" frame-filling shot), the shallower is the DOF.

 

DOF shrinks as inverse *square* of magnification. For subject 10 times smaller, it is 100 times smaller in absolute terms, or 10 times smaller relative to subject size.

 

Even for bigger birds I usually try to use as narrow aperture as the lighting allows (within constraints of reasonably short exposure, depending on subject behavior), unless I can keep bird perfectly parallel to the camera and aim to achieve background blur.

 

For bird of this size and in this position I'd use f/11 at least and if possible f/16. Use flash, with flash extender, especially if ambient light is dim. Boost ISO to 200 or even 400.

 

Finally, since your lens is non-IS, to control shake (and also subject movement) in low-light conditions you might want to use flash as the main light in regular (rather than high-speed) mode and keep exposure at 1/200 or under, relying on flash pulse to freeze the image.

 

In postprocessing, use sharpening plugin like FocalBlade, and optionally NeatImage if image got noisy because of high ISO.

 

This should give you crisp feather-level detail.

[ShunCheung]

I am with Douglas Herr on this issue. You want to freeze motion and the fastest shutter speed is key. Depth of field is going to be shallow, but the key is to get the eye sharp. If you want to use a flash and f11, you'll need a very powerful flash with a tele-flash concentrator to blast the poor bird.

[dirk_van_der_merwe1]

I am using a Bogen 3443 tripod with 3437 Head. I believe the tripod is stiff enough, but the head might be a little flimsy for the lense camera setup. I wonder whether that is a contributing factor. There is probably a some operator shake as well, It was a refreshing -20F up here in Jefferson, NH when I took the photograph

 

Dirk (www.wildphotographs.com)

[gloria_hopkins]

Another sharpness tip: You can use the 2sec. timer (to avoid camera shake) with birds that stand as still as statues (like herons and egrets). I use it all the time in low light situations.

[marco_p1]

I posted a similar question a couple of days ago, regarding a different setup. I am afraid the problem with DOF with such little subjects is real, as is the problem with subject motion (I actually see a little movement blur in the head of your subject). I see you are shooting digital so you may boost the iso to 400 or 800 and try to close down a bit and use faster shutter speeds. It seems you shot in an overcast day, I see no evidence of direct sun light... that's a kind of light i also like best, but it only makes things more difficult. I for me would avoid having flash light as the principal source of light hitting the subject: it's going to be very sharp but unnatural also, in my opinion. Besides, if think it's a nice shot. Good Luck,

Marco P

[hique]

I think it is when you crop a photo a lot, but still have a picture with fine details, only with more obvious grain/noise.

 

Unfortunately your picture did suffer from motion blur.

[pontus_gustavsson]

Since these small birds move in such a twitchy manner, increasing the shutter speed may not solve the problem with slight blurring caused by the bird turning the head from side to side very quickly, if you don't use something like 1/1000. When they move, they move fast. When they're still, they're completely still. So do everything right to avoid camera shake and then take multiple exposures. In one if them the bird will be still.

 

/Pontus, Sweden

[mark_lagrange3]

If the problem is lens shake, another support system that I have come to perfer is a bean bag.

 

When shooting "big glass" with teleconverters, I use the Wimberely head. I find this to be an adequate set up. However, any lens movement is still magnified when using greater focal lengths.

 

The bean bag offers resistance that dampens large lens movement amplification. Assuming there is a place to rest the bean bag, I prefer this setup. ...and its a pretty cheap piece of equipment :)