Barred Wobbler
Well-known member
Spending thousands on camera bodies and lenses, then not spending a few quid on basic photo-editing software is false economy. I don't use the full photoshop, nor lightroom, because I don't like the subscription model and I don't need the full range of features, but I find that spending a few pounds one-off on Adobe Photoshop Elements and DxO fits my needs and lets the camera's potential show. I don't shoot in full Raw, I instead use cRAW, that gives as much quality as far as anyone can tell, with much smaller files to store.If I read you correctly, that you are taking .jpg images as the final output of your camera in challenging conditions, then I think you are short-changing the gear. You can do more to get more out of the camera by using full feature post-processing apps and raw images.
I am not using canon gear but feel pretty confident that the above works irrespective of brand.
Niels
EDIT. These 4 heavy crops of moving targets were taken in poor light as the Late-November (21 November at 55°N) low afternoon sun dropped behind thin cloud. ISO 4000 for the first shot and ISO 6400 for the others. (Files reduced to 2048 pixels for posting on Facebook, so not at the same quality of the original edits). I've added a couple of chiffchaff shots from the last day of October, also in not great light, ISO 5000 for the first and ISO 4000 for the other. Goldcrest ISO 8000.
Attachments
-
Short-eared-Owl-(9)-fbook.jpg619.9 KB · Views: 50
-
Short-eared-Owl-(59)-fbook.jpg908.8 KB · Views: 47
-
Short-eared-Owl-(74)-fbook.jpg659.5 KB · Views: 47
-
Short-eared-Owl-(148)-fbook.jpg745.7 KB · Views: 48
-
Siberian-Chiffchaff-(48)-fbook.jpg684.4 KB · Views: 48
-
Siberian-Chiffchaff-(115)-uncropped-fbook.jpg705.3 KB · Views: 48
-
Goldcrest-(1)-fbook.jpg864.6 KB · Views: 47
Last edited: