Image Depth and Sharpness (1 Viewer)

tracker · Feb 19, 2004

Hi,

A couple of weeks into digi-scoping has brought me a few pleasant surprises.

Overall, about 98% of the pictures ive taken are probably recycle bin material.

What ive noticed though, is that, especially when shooting a subject that is requiring a larger than normally used magnification to reach, the bird doesnt really stand out from the background, has no real depth, is without that '3D' affect. In fact, although in focus, the bird can look rather 'washed out', not striking and separate from the background. Im struggling to word this correctly.

Is this because of the distance of the bird, or can the image be made 'sharper' via a camera setting?

I have set my cp4500 to the suggested settings, and photograph using Aperture priority, changing to Shutter priority when necessary.

Can someone make any suggestions to help me improve in this area?

Maybe im running too far ahead of myself as to what im expecting.

Thanks,

tracker

Andy Bright · Feb 19, 2004

I think much of this effect is due to atmospheric pollutants with so much air between you and the subject, resulting in lack of clarity/contrast. I know others have noticed the same effect with digiscoping at great distances. To some extent you can bring the image back to life in photoshop by boosting contrast but don't expect miracles.
Regards,
Andy

tracker · Feb 19, 2004

Interesting thought, Andy. Thanks.
I do think i may be better off concentrating on subjects that little bit closer in future.

Regarding the use of Photoshop, i do have so much to learn about that useful little package.

tracker

Jay Turberville · Feb 19, 2004

tracker said:
Hi,

What ive noticed though, is that, especially when shooting a subject that is requiring a larger than normally used magnification to reach, the bird doesnt really stand out from the background, has no real depth, is without that '3D' affect.
tracker

As you get nearer the theoretical magnifiication limits of the scope and camera lens, the image will become softer and have lower contrast in the details. From a practical standpoint, this is why you generally want to keep scope magnification 30X or preferrably less and the camera zoom around the yellow flower range. Another way to think about it is to stay away from equivalent focal lengths much over 3000mm.

As Andy said, the issue could easily be atmospheric disturbance from the distance as well. I've seen such disturbances in shots from as close as 50 feet. I've heard speculation that this can be from internal scope currents as well. If so, then having the scope at or near the ambient temperature might be a contributing factor.

One Photoshop "trick" that I don't hear mentioned much is an unconventional use of the "Unsharp Mask". Rather than sharpen with a radius of 1 or 2 pixels use a radius of between 25 and 50 pixels - but use a very low "amount" of 10-30%.

tracker · Feb 19, 2004

Jay Turberville said:
I've heard speculation that this can be from internal scope currents as well. If so, then having the scope at or near the ambient temperature might be a contributing factor.

One Photoshop "trick" that I don't hear mentioned much is an unconventional use of the "Unsharp Mask". Rather than sharpen with a radius of 1 or 2 pixels use a radius of between 25 and 50 pixels - but use a very low "amount" of 10-30%.

Thanks for the information, Jay. Two points i'd like clarification on, if possible:
1) What are scope currents and ambient temperature?
2) Is this "Unsharp Mask" in Photoshop Elements?

I am pretty keen to delve a little deeper into the graphics editing side of things too.

Thanks again for these pointers,

tracker

Jay Turberville · Feb 19, 2004

tracker said:
Thanks for the information, Jay. Two points i'd like clarification on, if possible:
1) What are scope currents and ambient temperature?
tracker

Ambient temperature is simply the temperature outside the scope. If the scope is a significantly different temperature than outside - perhaps because it was transported in a heated car on a cold day - then air currents may be induced in the scope tube as it aclimates. This is big issue with astronomical scopes. It may not be an issue at all with birding scopes. Or it may be that it is only occasionally an issue and is usually only revealed with digiscoping.

tracker said:
2) Is this "Unsharp Mask" in Photoshop Elements?

tracker

I don't know. Perhaps an "Elements" user can advise us?

tracker · Feb 19, 2004

Thanks again Jay.

I was a little red-faced as i read again what you initially said regarding 'ambient temps'. I read it as something pertaining to a scope in particular, some scientific jargon.....but now i see you were referring to the general temperature of the weather. Sometimes i can run a little too fast ahead of myself......

tracker

Jay Turberville · Feb 20, 2004

tracker said:
Thanks again Jay.

I was a little red-faced as i read again what you initially said regarding 'ambient temps'. I read it as something pertaining to a scope in particular, some scientific jargon.....but now i see you were referring to the general temperature of the weather. Sometimes i can run a little too fast ahead of myself......

tracker

That's OK. It really made me stop and think about whether "ambient" was technical jargon or not. Even though we supposedly both speak English, word usage can differ quite a bit depending on geography.

CJW · Feb 20, 2004

Jay Turberville said:
. Perhaps an "Elements" user can advise us?

Un-sharp mask can be found in Elements by going to the tool bar and opening thus:

Filter\Sharpen\Unsharp Mask

Chris

scampo · Feb 20, 2004

tracker said:
Hi,

A couple of weeks into digi-scoping has brought me a few pleasant surprises.

Overall, about 98% of the pictures ive taken are probably recycle bin material.

What ive noticed though, is that, especially when shooting a subject that is requiring a larger than normally used magnification to reach, the bird doesnt really stand out from the background, has no real depth, is without that '3D' affect. In fact, although in focus, the bird can look rather 'washed out', not striking and separate from the background. Im struggling to word this correctly.

Is this because of the distance of the bird, or can the image be made 'sharper' via a camera setting?

I have set my cp4500 to the suggested settings, and photograph using Aperture priority, changing to Shutter priority when necessary.

Can someone make any suggestions to help me improve in this area?

Maybe im running too far ahead of myself as to what im expecting.

Thanks,

tracker

This is owing to a lack of contrast caused as others have said either by atmospherics or some optical reason. There are several ways to improve this "after the event", but none can repair the "damage" fully. But... have you tried downloading a demo version of AutoFX "Autoeye" - this nifty (but not cheap) program really can do a sometimes quite amazing job of bringing out the best in a less-than-sparkling photo?

tracker · Feb 20, 2004

Thanks for the confirmation, CJW.
Scampo, that recommendation i will try out very soon. Really appreciate that idea, thanks...... :t:

tracker

IanF · Feb 20, 2004

A bit late in the day, but one thing I do find a problem in the warmer months is heat haze. no amount of sharpening will get rid of it, so on Summer days try to stick to closer distances and opt for days with a light breeze to disperse it.

max davis · Feb 20, 2004

'the bird doesnt really stand out from the background, has no real depth'

Are you familiar with the apperture settings on your camera? The apperture setting can make a real difference to the problem you describe given the right conditions. One problem will be that your shutter speed will be sacrificed to obtain a perception of depth within the image. The lower the 'F' number the greater chance of perception of depth within the image.

Another trick worth considering to assist with depth perception when editing the image within photoshop is selecting the subject and foreground , inverting the selection and applying gaussian blur (under filters). It very much depends on the individual image but a combination of unsharp mask on the subject and blur to the background can have dramatic results.

tracker · Feb 20, 2004

I think i understand the aperture principle, max. The lower the 'F' number the wider the aperture, keeping the main subject in focus, whilst blurring background. The higher the 'F' number the smaller the aperture, gaining an increase of focus from front to back. Obviously the distance of the subject must come into play too. Correct me if this is wrong.

The trick you mentioned is something i really want to familiarise myself with. I see such potential in the Photoshop software, its just practicing, i guess.

Thanks for your comment......... :t:

tracker

Jay Turberville · Feb 21, 2004

tracker said:
I think i understand the aperture principle, max. The lower the 'F' number the wider the aperture, keeping the main subject in focus, whilst blurring background. The higher the 'F' number the smaller the aperture, gaining an increase of focus from front to back. Obviously the distance of the subject must come into play too. Correct me if this is wrong.
tracker

Yes, you do have this correct. But I'll add a couple caveats.

1) The difference in depth of field is usually small.

2) Sometimes there is no difference. At higher magnifications, the combination of longer camera lens focal length and/or smaller scope exit pupil will often result in a situation where the exit pupil diameter is smaller than the camera aperture diameter. So changing the camera aperture has little or even no effect unless you are shooting at relatively low magnifications.

tracker · Feb 21, 2004

Wow, so even the size of the scopes exit pupil comes in to play!
Theres a lot of learning to be had with this hobby.
Anyone for tiddly winks?..................

Thanks for the reassurance, too, Jay..... :t:

Regarding the using of Photoshop to enhance pictures, i spent a good couple of hours last night trying to apply some of the suggestions. I would get so far, then got lost before being able to apply the edit. I think its getting to grips with the layer idea.
If anyone has any simple steps to follow, that will enable me to fully utilise the gaussian blur tool, then i'll be so glad.

Thanks for all your help,

tracker

scampo · Feb 21, 2004

Lovely quotation from Emerson, Tom - "Many eyes..."; it reminded me of these wonderful lyrics from the Strawb's album, "Grave New World". It heps if you know the tune:

The scarecrow stood with its head held high
Admiring the view from the hill
The waterfall scattered its glistening jewels
As the heron stood gracefully still
It seemed I looked without seeing
I failed to grasp what I saw
For all of Nature's beautiful gifts
I blissfully chose to ignore.

As sandy beaches and soft swelling tides
Invite the inquisitive young
And caviar, oysters and pate de fois
Invite the discerning tongue
So comes the desire to be lost awhile
In the depths of the forest glade
Midst the cool deep greens where ancient oaks
Cast wondrous spells in their shade.

And if sometimes I feel in retrospect
A regret for the waste of my youth
Then I pause to reflect that I still have time
Before growing long in the tooth
To achieve all the things that I should have achieved
When idleness led me astray
And being aware of what I have missed
I'm extending my use of the day.

tracker · Feb 21, 2004

Great sentiments, scampo.....so much in that final verse.

Thanks,

tracker

scampo · Feb 21, 2004

At fifty, those lyrics mean more to me than they did when I was a youngster, that's for sure. Simple words but they stir deep longings.

Off thread but your profile suggests you worked for a bank - my wife still does, Barclays. Banks are not the places they once was, sadly, for those who work in them (or even bank with them!).

christineredgate · Feb 21, 2004

Yet another poem to copy,Steve,thankyou.Tracker,I have found that the best digi scoped pics I have produced have been from images which are closer as opposed to far away.This rather defeats the object of being able to take a pic of something in the far distance by digi scoping as to a photo from an ordinary camera .But there it is.But it is still rather marvellous when one can see every detail of plumage when when does take a decent pic.In my case 1/100.But perseverance pays off,Tracker,you will surprise yourself,I promise.

Image Depth and Sharpness (1 Viewer)

Tom

Administrator

Tom

Well-known member

Tom

Well-known member

Tom

Well-known member

Hit-and-run WUM

Steve Campsall

Tom

Moderator

Member

Tom

Well-known member

Tom

Steve Campsall

Tom

Steve Campsall

Winner of the Copeland Wildlife Photographer of th

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread