Trying Out my new D300 (1 Viewer)

[Des!]

Hi!

I've been trying out my D300 + 1.4 Tele & 300mm F4.

Attached are a few pics - Any Comments / suggestions?

What would be a good software program for pics?

Cheers!

Des :t:

 

[paul goode]

Looking at the images I wonder what noise reduction is set either in the camera or used in post processing because it looks to have been applied too heavily. Assuming these aren't big crops the detail in the images has been lost and it looks as if NR is to blame. Sorry to be negative but that issue has spoiled some nice images.
Out of curiosity where these taken at whitacre heath?

Re software, the photoshop family (cs4, elements etc ) are very popular but there are also free packages which people use and rate highly. A search on the forum should come up with some advice.
I stick to an entirely adobe workflow. Bridge for sorting the images out, ACR for converting the raw files and photoshop CS3 for editing the images.

 

[Fozzybear]

I have to agree, the noise reduction has given a rather blurry, halo-ey look to these. I try to use the least amount of noise reduction possible, usually only chroma NR (to reduce colour noise) and leave the luminance NR off. Other than that all I can comment on is that the Blue Tit is a bit over-exposed - otherwise they're nice close shots.

The D300 is a great camera, I think you'll really enjoy using it (I love using mine!) and if you prefer the noise reduced look then that's entirely up to you, they are, after all, your photos.

As to programs - Photoshop Elements is very good, I've used a few versions of that, and Capture NX is pretty good (albeit rather a processor hog) but I now use Adobe Lightroom for my processing (not cheap though!), which is a superb package for organising and editing photos. It has fewer adjustment tools than some packages but they are all designed for getting the most out of your photographs and it's pretty rare that I need to use anything else. I've found it much easier to get a good output image using Lightroom than any other software and immediately after I started using it the quality of my shots improved a lot. It works really, really well for me.

 

[Cristian Mihai]

IMHO the pics are a little bit overexposed. What about the WB settings (it was a cloudy day, isn't it?)? And, as all the others said, you'll have to check the noise reduction...
I agree that Photoshop and Photoshop Elements are great softwares for pp.

 

[fugl]

I agree with the others that your images are softer than they should be. What happened to the EXIF data BTW? I tried to access them in PE6 to check factors other than excessive NR (shutter speed, aperture, ISO ratings, etc) that might account for the softness, but drew a blank.

Re software recommendation--I'm pretty happy with PE6 which I've used for a couple of years now.

 

[Des!]

OK - Thanks for pointing me in the right direction - I'll see about turning of the NR.

Paul - Yes the are from Whitacre Heath - What gave it away?

What happened to the EXIF data - Not sure what that is at the mo.

I'm in Norfolk for Christmas & giving the camera a good going over.

Cheers!

Des

 

[Des!]

Try Again!

Any comments on how to sharpen up my pics? :t:

 

[JohnZ]

Either I have it all wrong or your pics now look rather noisy.
I still use PSE3 with the free Neat Image bit included. Can be picked up on fleabay for not a lot.
I am also next to useless at pp`ing so any advice from me should be taken with a shovel of salt !

 

[avwh]

Are you shooting in RAW or jpg? I'm guessing you used jpg, and therefore the camera has done all the processing, including applying noise reduction, which has taken away the feather detail in those first shots and made the bird look plasticky".

You should shoot in RAW and use Photoshop Elements (much cheaper & easier to use than the full suite) or equivalent to post-process, so you have more control over the image - if you want the best image that good, long glass can give you.

I use Photoshop Elements, and usually do just 4 things to an image (so it takes only a moment): crop (if necessary), shadows/highlights, curves/levels, and sharpening (5th, IF the image is noisy from shooting at too high an ISO, then I use Neat Image noise reduction before I sharpen).

How are you saving these image files you uploaded? The exif is stripped out. In Photoshop, you want to use "save as" to preserve the exif, NOT "save for web", which strips out the exif data.

If you want to see the kinds of images I end up with (many taken with a 300L + 1.4x, so identical reach to yours) go here:

backyard birds gallery:http://allenh.zenfolio.com/f448269862

mostly avian wildlife in parks & preserves: http://allenh.zenfolio.com/f557097489

Attached is an example w/o and with post-processing:

#1: an image that initially wasn't post-processed at all, so it's a little dull & lifeless, even though it's a very nice composition and pose, with good, complementary color balance;

#2: same image after my 5 pp steps (this image needed noise reduction) - now it "pops".

See the difference in sharpness & clarity?

 

[atomicmak]

well d300 is a really good camera as i am using that since last 8 months..

btw your pictures are good and i suggest you to use Nikon's Capture NX which i found a best tool for conversion of RAW specially for nikon cameras..

one thing that Adobe Photoshop will not do is,,

Adobe's Camera Raw plugin is not reading all the parameter of the NIkon camera such as shrpness, saturation, contrast, and the whole Picture Control features which Capture NX reads and shows perfect result..

so i suggest you try that our and see my recent development of bird photography gallery on my site with 80-400 variable nikkor lens..

you just have to tune your camera and study some bird photography technique thats it and you'll amazed with the results of d300 and the lens you have..

hope this will help you out..

 

[MrBitsy]

Hi Des,

It looks like you are using the camera to produce jpg images and do all the processing. The first images look soft and have little contrast. The swan images are VERY noisy, but the D300 is known for low noise images, so again the image quality is being lost by not doing some post processing on a PC or MAC.

Like many people, I use Adobe Lightroom and Photoshop CS4 for all my image processing. It is expensive to purchase initially, but you do get all the tools required. There is cheaper software available (Adobe Elements is great).

For the best image quality, you should shoot in RAW mode in the camera and YOU do the post processing instead of the camera. Have a look at the JUZA site to see fantastic images taken in raw and processed on the computer. In the articles section, you will read how he post processes for the quality

Ray

 

[Den]

Hi Des
If these are your first attempts then you should be rightly proud of the results. No editing ptrogram will compensate for image quality taken at source.
I would suggest that you first of all look at the following to improve the pics:-
-quality of the light is everything, a dull day will make a dull pic
-the backgrounds must not be cluttered, it will detract from the image
-look up the 'Rule of Thirds' in relation to positioning the bird in the frame
-download a trial 2 month free copy of Nikon Capture NX2 for photo processing and look at Moose Peterson's videos on how to use it.
-use RAW always.
-connection between the bird and the viewer is vital for a good pic, as is a highlight in the eye.
-As your depth of field is small, get the autofocus sensor on the eye.

Don't get too bogged down in technicalities but concentrate on simple well-composed images. You have good kit and it will get you the images. You can't make a great pic from a poor image, even with the wizardry of the modern photo processors.