• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Fz8 advice please (1 Viewer)

Thanks Jim. The sharpness setting is something else i'm not sure about. My fz8 has settings for Sharpness, Saturation, Contrast and Noise Reduction. Three settings for each, Standard, Low and High. The only advice i have been been given is to set the Noise Reduction to Low. How much effect the others have on the picture i don't know.
I've never had a camera with these options before so it's something else to learn about.
 
Hi Ghostrider,

I think those last pics you posted show there is no problem with your camera. It just struggles in certain situations, as most do. As you become more familiar with it you will start to understand its limitations and what settings you need to use to get the best out of it in different circumstances. But those latest pics show you're making good progress. And remember, this time of year, with the generally poor light, isn't the easiest time to be learning.

As for in-camera settings for sharpness, noise reduction etc, I guess it's a matter of personal preference. I do all such adjustments afterwards, using Photoshop Elements. Using such software means that you retain control rather relying on the camera. I don't have a set selection of settings; I just play around with each image on screen until it looks right to me. Some require more work than others. But each to his own.

Just experiment with different settings and see what works. That's all part of the fun. This isn't something that you can "crack" just like that. It takes time and practice and experience. So, congratulations on how far you've come. Keep up the good work.

Malcolm
 
ghostrider

i have the same camera and it worked brilliantly when used it on holiday
in australia, it was set on program auto, i think it was due to the better
light. i have recently used it in the uk in dull weather and the photos were
rubbish, have put camera away until sun comes out. have attached photo
taken in australia.


bbrasco
 

Attachments

  • P1040738.JPG
    P1040738.JPG
    121 KB · Views: 221
ghostrider said:
Here's the rest...
Click to expand...

Hi Ghostrider. These shots look good although you might want to adjust the exposure a bit when you are shooting white birds- the shelducks look a tiny bit over exposed to me. Other than that, a little bit of light sharpening in photoshop might help. See what you think. As for the smaller birds, part of the problem with the lack of detail is that they are too small in the frame. Therefore, I think you need to get closer.
 

Attachments

  • P1000245 (Medium).JPG
    P1000245 (Medium).JPG
    293 KB · Views: 92
  • P1000137 (Medium).JPG
    P1000137 (Medium).JPG
    132.2 KB · Views: 106
ghostrider said:
OK I've here's a couple from my first attempts.

The first one p10000178, 1/200 sec at f4 iso400 white balance auto in P mode
Second one p10000177, 1/125sec at f4 iso 400 white balance auto in P mode.

Note in these pics i hadn't learned how to switch the noise reduction to "low" so it was still set on standard.
Click to expand...

I think that it is what I said before: the focus is on another object in the frame (and are a lot of objects there!)
 
kittykat23uk said:
Hi Ghostrider. These shots look good although you might want to adjust the exposure a bit when you are shooting white birds- the shelducks look a tiny bit over exposed to me. Other than that, a little bit of light sharpening in photoshop might help. See what you think. As for the smaller birds, part of the problem with the lack of detail is that they are too small in the frame. Therefore, I think you need to get closer.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the advice Kittykat. The sharpening is subtle but with good effect. Whilst a have Photoshop i find it a bit daunting and tend not to use it. I use Picasa, which has some simple tools but i try not to alter photos. I've always tended to think it's cheating. I'm starting to think that this attitude might be a little naive, especially for a beginner.
 
ghostrider said:
I use Picasa, which has some simple tools but i try not to alter photos. I've always tended to think it's cheating. I'm starting to think that this attitude might be a little naive, especially for a beginner.
Click to expand...

I understand your attitude, but consider:

1. Unless you shoot in "raw" format, (which I do not recommend), your photos are being heavily processed by the camera's internal software. So they are being "altered" whether you do postprocessing or not.

2. I would distinguish between processing to create an image you did not see versus processing to create a better representation of what you saw. An example of the former would be substituting a different background than you actually saw the bird in. If you do that type of processing I think you have left the realm of photography and are doing graphic art, and that type of processing should be disclosed whenever the "photograph" is shown. But I think if you are just making changes to create a better representation of what you saw, e.g. by sharpening, cropping, zooming, and the like, you are still doing photography. These kinds of changes have been done since the heyday of film when photographers spent hours in the dark room. But if it makes you uncomfortable, you could also disclose these types of changes when you display your photographs.

My two cents,
Jim

P.S. You might also think of sharpening as simply after-the-fact focusing--if that makes it more palatable.
 
Last edited:
After the fact focusing... i like the sound of that.

I agree with you Jim about totally altering images. I've seen loads of pictures in magazines and stuff and thought Wow! how did you get that shot? then read about how it was a combination of several exposures joined together and tweeked and poked in photoshop to produce a stunning, totally unnatural image. Like you say this is more Graphic art than photography. You could just take loads of shots at different settings then spend hours on photoshop getting the picture you want. That is not my idea of photography.
However, i can see the benefits of slight alterations to sharpness and cropping to compensate what the camera is doing to the shot. I'm still new to this but i can see that if i got a good shot, then realised i hadn't changed one of the many settings on the camera which caused it to be slightly out of focus or underexposed, tweeking it later would be usefull.

I'm beginning to realise that most digital photographers do alter shots, especially subjects like birds.
No more purist attitudes from me;)
 
Warning! This thread is more than 16 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

MelospizaMelodiaFan
El Cheapo here, what do you think of my plans?
Replies
13
Views
1K
Dyrlege
D
The Robin
Camera advice...R7
Replies
6
Views
1K
paddyluke
paddyluke
Ruud3105
FZ300 settings for a well focussed birdpic?
Replies
6
Views
5K
Ruud3105
Ruud3105
O
Canon EOS 80D always slightly "fuzzy"
Replies
14
Views
2K
nikitasius
N
K
Digiscoping with android phone vs with mirrorless DLSR- advice please?
Replies
6
Views
468
Mike Crawley
Mike Crawley

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top