Image quality help (1 Viewer)

FrankD · Jul 6, 2006

Adrian,

Excellent pic!..and with a pair of binoculars to boot! I hope to get something like that with my scope setup.

I do believe I am getting more of a handle on my digiscoping setup. I have learned how to read a histogram and how to correct it if it is unbalanced. My pictures are looking a bit better in that regard. I am still waiting for the tripod head to arrive (called and changed to the more conventional 3130 as they had it in stock) and I am going to look at one of the other graphic manipulation programs that is popular for digiscoping. I am at work at the moment but when I get a chance this evening I am going to upload my latest pics and post them here for suggestions.

Thank you all again. This has been a great experience so far.

digitalbirdy · Jul 6, 2006

FrankD said:
... I am at work at the moment but when I get a chance this evening I am going to upload my latest pics and post them here for suggestions.....

Hi Frank, I am really looking forward to seeing your next posts.

You will find that they'll keep improving in leaps and bounds - well hopefully ;o)

Its strange how things go really. I am 'almost' happy with many of mine newer photos. But when I look back at what I was achieving a few months back, I think ouch they were terrible. Yet I was 'almost' happy with them at the time!!

I think what I am saying is, its too easy to end up in a catch 22 situation. Where although the photos get better, - ones expectations also require far better photos, and the standards keep going up - but in ones own mind - may never achieve nervana!

Anyway enough of that talk, the bottom line is as you practice and experiment, your photos will improve enormously. - I was going to say 'beyond recognition', but then thought it was not an apropriate comment regarding photos ;o)

FrankD · Jul 7, 2006

Adrian,

Here are some shots from July 4th. I think I have the lighting/exposure at a better level than in previous posts but I believe the images are somewhat out of focus. First the "original" and then a cropped closeup. I do believe I know one of the reasons I am not getting the best of picture quality. Almost all of the shots I have posted have been taken from my backyard feeders. The feeders are 20 yards from the back of my house and under a treeline. The sun does not get directly onto the subject matter except for early in the morning. I am going to try to get out a bit and take some pics of birds in better lighting.

Shots were taken at 19.5x and no zoom on the digital camera.

Camera settings for the house finch picture were as follows:

No EV compensation
ISO 200
F2.8
1/30
Histogram shows a relatively wide spike in the middle of the graph with little on either end.

Camera settings for the dove picture were as follows:

+ .3 EV compensation
ISO 200
F2.8
1/13
Histogram again shows a relatively wide spike in the middle of the graph with some area under the overexposed right hand side. Nothing under the underexposed section of the graph.

Both were shot with Auto White Balance which the camera seems to have chosen the "sun" setting.

Any comments on the pics would be appreciated. Oh, and I finally have my setup all together.

Neil · Jul 7, 2006

Frank, I've come into to this discussion a bit late but here are my thoughts. My first impression seeing your gear was that the eyepiece would be the weak link (I don't know this eyepiece ). Your camera looks good and the scope is a good one. You may have too many megapixels for your setup though so I would try a lower resolution setting. If you get a high quality eyepiece you would get more value out of the 10 megs. Also back off the camera zoom as much as you can (2/3 zoom is usually good), dial in -0.7 exposure comp and only use iso 100 . Keep practicing as it takes a while to get consistently good results as you've seen posted by others here but you'll probably have to upgrade the eyepiece. Neil.

Paul Hackett · Jul 7, 2006

Hi Frank

If i could add my couple of cents worth on this -

The last of pics you have taken qouting the speed is rather low, did you use the timer or did you hand hold the camera?

If hand held, you really need a cable release at those low speeds,in some cirumstances i manage to get speeds down to a quarter or eigth of a second, ( dont you just love the british weather! ) by hand would result in blurred pics for most people, there is plenty of advice on this forum to gain one that is suitable for you, either hand made or a manufactured unit

If you used the timer, one tip i give when teaching digiscoping, if people are experiencing focus problems is focus the scope on a static object, take time to do this, then ask family/friend to see if the image is sharp or blurred to them, using just the scope only, sometimes this can highlight problems, its a trial and error thing but the main concern here is to try different things until you start to see the images get sharper on the computer not the back of the camera

There are two ways to focus for people, either focus the scope, then connect the camera then take the pic, OR focus the scope, connect the camera, press the button down 50% to lock the focus, adjust scope focus slightly by looking at the LCD screen on the back of the camera, then take the pic, an eyeshade connected to to the LCD screen does help with this method because you can see more detail and you dont have any light glaring on the LCD screen

just trying to show you ways of dealing with it and you will work out which one is the best for you!

Regards

Paul

FrankD · Jul 7, 2006

My first impression seeing your gear was that the eyepiece would be the weak link (I don't know this eyepiece ).

Neil,

I have been waiting for someone to say that. It is my theory as well. Through the naked eye the image that the eyepiece delivers is more than pleasing but I only paid $34 for it and at that price there must be some trade-offs. My guess is that the digital camera is magnifying any imperfections in the eyepiece design. I am going to have to start saving up for a 20 mm Pentax XW.

I have tried the camera down at 5 megapixels and other than a faster load up time in the graphics program I have not really noticed much of a difference in picture quality. However, that was before I started tinkering with alot of the camera's features. I also feel somewhat handicapped by not having aperature priority or shutter priority mode. The only functions I can directly control, related to digiscoping, are the ISO and EV compensation.

Those pics I posted above are at no zoom on the digital camera though I get much the same results up to about 2x. At 3x I seem to be able to get a bit grainier picture. I will try those settings you mentioned the next time I get out to take some pics.

Paul,

The last group of pictures were all with the Williams Optics adaptor in the picture and with a 2 second delay timer. That is the setting/setup that I have finally settled on for now. I will give those focus suggestions a try. I experimented today with first focusing the scope then mounting the camera and using the half-pressed shutter to get final focus. I am going to try it a few different ways to see which gives the best results though I am starting to believe that Neil's comments about the eyepiece are the real problems behind the lack of perfect focus. We will see.

Thank you both for the help. It is much appreciated.

digitalbirdy · Jul 8, 2006

Hi Frank

Firstly - the photos are getting much better!

Looking at your setup shows daylight between your camera lens and your scope eyepiece. This is not good and will loose contrast and often detail, is there anyway you can put a tube between these?

Next and more of a problem, The finch photo looks as if it was in focus - as the wire cage looks fairly sharp. But the bird doesn't look as good. Now without going into heavy detail, this could be caused by your cameras built in noise reduction smudging out feather detail.

To reduce this you need to use low ISO - say ISO100, but as paul stated your shutter speeds are already very very low. So here's the rub - move your bird feeders so they are in the daylight. The difference will be huge.

The pigeon shot needed less compensation, i see its on +3. minus 3 would have been better. And has Paul said, focusing properly and carefully pays big dividends. Although I think the finch photo maybe in best focus. 20 yards away is quite a distance for a 20x eyepiece to resolve. You can cure this when you move the feeders into the daylight - and closer ;o)

FrankD · Jul 8, 2006

Looking at your setup shows daylight between your camera lens and your scope eyepiece. This is not good and will loose contrast and often detail, is there anyway you can put a tube between these?

Sure. I can put something simple together just to see if it makes a difference. If it does then I can get some PVC or rubber/plastic tubing for a more permanent solution.

Next and more of a problem, The finch photo looks as if it was in focus - as the wire cage looks fairly sharp. But the bird doesn't look as good. Now without going into heavy detail, this could be caused by your cameras built in noise reduction smudging out feather detail.

To reduce this you need to use low ISO - say ISO100, but as paul stated your shutter speeds are already very very low. So here's the rub - move your bird feeders so they are in the daylight. The difference will be huge

That may work (moving closer and into the sunlight) but is probably the only thing I do not necessarily want to do for the feeders. In the summer with the full foliage the light is limited but from late fall through early spring I should be able to get some good shots of the feeders. I have the feeders set up where they are so that any discarded sunflower seed shells, etc... don't kill my lawn.

However, I thought the point to digiscoping was so that you could get close-up pictures at fairly great distances. Maybe I am mistaken but 20 yards doesn't seem that far to me. What are your thoughts on the average distance for most digiscoping pictures?

The pigeon shot needed less compensation, i see its on +3. minus 3 would have been better.

I believe I had it at the + .3 setting because that then pushed the histogram peak more into the center of the graph. To move it t -.3 would probably have underexposed the shot. Is that something I should occasionally shoot for?

Although I think the finch photo maybe in best focus. 20 yards away is quite a distance for a 20x eyepiece to resolve.

With this thought in mind do you agree/believe with the other gentleman that a more expensive/higher quality eyepiece of the same magnification would yield better results?

Thank you again.

Neil · Jul 9, 2006

FrankD said:
Sure. I can put something simple together just to see if it makes a difference. If it does then I can get some PVC or rubber/plastic tubing for a more permanent solution.

That may work (moving closer and into the sunlight) but is probably the only thing I do not necessarily want to do for the feeders. In the summer with the full foliage the light is limited but from late fall through early spring I should be able to get some good shots of the feeders. I have the feeders set up where they are so that any discarded sunflower seed shells, etc... don't kill my lawn. However, I thought the point to digiscoping was so that you could get close-up pictures at fairly great distances. Maybe I am mistaken but 20 yards doesn't seem that far to me. What are your thoughts on the average distance for most digiscoping pictures?

I believe I had it at the + .3 setting because that then pushed the histogram peak more into the center of the graph. To move it t -.3 would probably have underexposed the shot. Is that something I should occasionally shoot for?

With this thought in mind do you agree/believe with the other gentleman that a more expensive/higher quality eyepiece of the same magnification would yield better results?

Thank you again.

Frank,
If you don't have much manual control over your settings then the Histogram may not be giving you the right info. If you are metering the whole scene and the bird is not filling the frame then the background will be throwing the exposure off and a centered Histogram could be overexposing the bird. I usually like a Histogram a little to the left as I prefer to underexpose the subject a little than to over expose it a little. You should be able to have some control over Aperture and Speed by selectiing Sports Mode or Landscape Mode or other functions that you may have. Sports mode would automatically select higher shutter speeds and higher iso and Landscope should give you lower shutter speeds and higher f stops. Your manual should tell you more.
For distance versus quality - with top quality 80 mm scopes 25 meters would be rule of thumb to capture detail in reasonable light. With a 65 mm scope 20 meters would be at the long end. My ideal range with my 80mm scope is 7 - 30 meters which is comfortable for most birds . In the summer the best time to photograph is within 2 hours of sunrise and sunset ( low angle of light is always best) and have the sun directly behind you. Quality drops off dramatically with high summer sun and longer distance (heat haze) even with the best of kit. If you can find a subject in the sun in the last 15 minutes of the day you'll be amazed at the detail you'll pick up that you wont get at midday.
Keep practising and they will come , Neil.

FrankD · Jul 10, 2006

Neil,

If you don't have much manual control over your settings then the Histogram may not be giving you the right info. If you are metering the whole scene and the bird is not filling the frame then the background will be throwing the exposure off and a centered Histogram could be overexposing the bird.

I can adjust the metering control to either Multi, Center Weighted or spot. I have been shooting mostly spot as I saw it mentioned as the best choice on some other threads in this forum. I can also adjust the Exposure Compensation and the ISO to either 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600 or 3200.

I usually like a Histogram a little to the left as I prefer to underexpose the subject a little than to over expose it a little.

I honestly know very little about photography. Why would you want to underexpose a shot as opposed to obtaining either perfect exposure or overexposure?

You should be able to have some control over Aperture and Speed by selectiing Sports Mode or Landscape Mode or other functions that you may have. Sports mode would automatically select higher shutter speeds and higher iso and Landscope should give you lower shutter speeds and higher f stops.

I will try those suggestions. I know the camera has multiple "Best Shot" settings ranging from "Ebay" to "Landscape", etc....

For distance versus quality - with top quality 80 mm scopes 25 meters would be rule of thumb to capture detail in reasonable light. With a 65 mm scope 20 meters would be at the long end. My ideal range with my 80mm scope is 7 - 30 meters which is comfortable for most birds . In the summer the best time to photograph is within 2 hours of sunrise and sunset ( low angle of light is always best) and have the sun directly behind you. Quality drops off dramatically with high summer sun and longer distance (heat haze) even with the best of kit. If you can find a subject in the sun in the last 15 minutes of the day you'll be amazed at the detail you'll pick up that you wont get at midday.

Thank you kindly for the information and suggestions. They should prove invaluable.

Keep practising and they will come , Neil.

I have been and will continue to. I seem to be able to get about 2/3rds the quality that I am looking for. It is that final 1/3rd that seems to elude me. After reading all of the suggestions on here I feel I am being limited by three things. One, the distance I am taking these pictures at (approximately 20 yards). Two, the quality of the eyepiece that I am currently using though I am about to remedy that. Three, the lack of complete control over the aperture and shutter speed but I should be able to work around that after your suggestions.

I took a few shots this morning. Here is the best I was able to come up with.
ISO 100
F 2.8
1/300
EV -0.7

digitalbirdy · Jul 11, 2006

Re: "Why would you want to underexpose a shot as opposed to obtaining either perfect exposure or overexposure?"

Good question, the answer is - we are not actually underexposing it, we are trying to get it right. The camera makers often don't seem to with their automatic settings, for reason better known to them!

At the end of the day, if the photo looks right, its right. Its doesn't matter what the settings say.

Looking at your last photo post, its very much looks as if its could well be that only your optics (maybe the eyepiece) are letting you down now. As the photo looks reminicent of my early shots with a low quality scope.

Neil · Jul 11, 2006

FrankD said:
Neil,

I honestly know very little about photography. Why would you want to underexpose a shot as opposed to obtaining either perfect exposure or overexposure?

I find that there are always a part of the bird's plumage (white/yellow) which will blow out if you meter for average grey. This dove photo shows a big improvement over you first images. I took the kiberty of just treaking it a little. Ihope you don't mind.Neil

FrankD · Jul 11, 2006

DB,

That may very well be the case. I hope to attempt to remedy that in the next day or two. I took some more pictures today while picnicing with my family. Nothing special in terms of bird species just some swallows and a catbird. My problem now seems to be that the images look fantastic on the display of my camera but then they look dull and dim when they are uploaded to the computer. Any ideas?

All pictures below were brightened, contrasted and sharpened as well as downsized to 800x600 to fit into this forum. I think I may be losing something in the resizing though as the pictures really start to look "blocky" now that I have uploaded them to this post. The second swallow and the goldfinch probably look the most realistic when compared to the original image on the display of my camera though both still show less detail and are much more dim (even after editing) than what I originally viewed.

Neil,

I most certainly do not mind. The only problem is that my computer does not want to recognize the file extension for that pic. What modifications did you make and what program did you use? Thank you for the help.

digitalbirdy · Jul 11, 2006

Hi Frank

Interesting photo looking up at the raven? It has certainly told a story about your optic system. The purple fringing in fron of the bird and green fringing behind, means that your scope is not focusing the complete colour spectrum of light properly.

Its bending some colours too much and others not enough. So all you get in focus is a few 'others'. (thats non tech speak).

An early scope of mine did that - not as bad though, it had a great eyepiece but a poor objective lens (the big front lens). With a 20x eyepiece it was acceptable - just. But when I bought a better quality scope body, the 20x and 32x eyepieces made photos look awesome.

Now with your scope, I do not know if its the eyepiece or the objective lens that is the culprit. So I bow to others knowledge.

FrankD · Jul 11, 2006

DB,

Thank you for the advice. I believe it would be the eyepiece. The scope's objective features Low Dispersion Glass but the eyepiece was an inexpensive, though current, design offered from a local business. I have a Siebert 19 mm on order and expect to see it tomorrow at some point. It reportedly has better control of chromatic abberation, especially in the center of the field and a flatter overall image. It will be interesting to see if that corrects some of my "issues". I believe the image you were referring to is that of the Gray Catbird and I can see the color fringing you mentioned. Even on the Barn Swallow I see a bit of it over the tail feathers and back.

Guess we will just have to wait and see.

Thanks again.

FrankD · Jul 12, 2006

I received the new eyepiece and was taking some pics with it today. In the backyard I could not tell much of a difference between it and the 20 mm EWA. In fact, the design of the EWA with its wider ocular lens gives a more relaxed view in my opinion. However, I did take the setup up to the local lake where I took the picture of the swallow on Monday. The difference at greater distances was obvious. The Seibert 19 mm gives better contrast and resolution as well as a brighter image. I was fortunate to snap one half decent shot of an Orchard Oriole but the resolution on the camera was set down to 5 megapixels (no optical zoom) and the Oriole was a good 35 yards away. Cropping it leaves a very blocky and grainy image. I will upload it as soon as I downsize it for the forum. I am going to give this new eyepiece a good workout and see what type of quality pics I can come up with.

digitalbirdy · Jul 13, 2006

Hi Frank - I look forward to seeing them.

PS. I always find photos come out best at highest resolution and best quality setting. (and no zoom.)

By the way as for maximum distance for digiscoping, I tried photographing some tall ships at around a 2 mile distance last week. Sadly it was also really foggy, so none came out well - not on a professional level anyway.

Okay, I admit tall ships are a bit bigger than a bird ;o)

FrankD · Jul 13, 2006

DB,

Thanks for the reply. I have decided not to post the Oriole photo as it looks absolutely horrible when I downsize it to 800x600 to fit in this forum. Very blotchy and totally unrepresentative of what it looks like as wallpaper on my computer. I am going to try and take some more pics as time permits. Hopefully tomorrow.

I have a general question though and thought I would post a new thread as some folks might not want to read all the way through this entire thread to get to it. How does eyepiece size (15 mm, 20 mm, etc..) play into the digiscoping equation?

Neil · Jul 14, 2006

FrankD said:
DB,

I have a general question though and thought I would post a new thread as some folks might not want to read all the way through this entire thread to get to it. How does eyepiece size (15 mm, 20 mm, etc..) play into the digiscoping equation?

Frank,
The power of the eyepiece is calculated by dividing it into the Focal Length of the scope ( 460 / 20 = 23x power, or in 35 mm terms 1150 mm ). As I've mentioned somewhere else for an 80 mm scope you really don't want to excede a combined 60x magnification (eyepiece x camera lens ) or 3000 mm . For a 65 mm scope that would be a combined 50 x or 2500 mm . So if you have a high powered eyepiece , say 15 mm ( which is 30x on my Swarovski ) you don't want any more than 2x ( 100mm in 35 mm terms ) in the camera. Which is why the cameras with lenses of 3 or 4 x zoom are the ones to use for digiscoping (Eye Relief of eyepieces and camera lens behaviour have a big part to play here to ). Also you want an eyepiece with as close to 20 mm of Eye Relief as possible and the Eye Relief of higher magnification eyepieces is usually too short to eliminate vignetting.
I hope this answers you question, Neil

FrankD · Jul 14, 2006

Neil,

Thank you for the reply. The maximum effective magnification is something I had wondered about.

My question with eyepiece size was a bit more extensive. I posted a new thread to that effect on the forum.

Image quality help (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread