help with quality (1 Viewer)

[Bill Came]

I have a canon 50d with a 100-400mm zoom, and Im struggling to get anywhere near the quality of the shots in the gallery, Ive uploaded a kingfisher shot, which took days to capture and Im so dissapointed.Its very grainy,and not very sharp at all, so if anyone out there could give me some advise, I will be most gratefull.

 

[Keith Reeder]

I can't access the Exif in the files from here Bill, but are they heavy crops?

Also - what ISO are you at there? How did you convert and PP the files? Were the original files under-exposed?

 

[IanF]

Your Kingfisher looks reasonably sharp to me and the detail is all there but it was taken at 1600 ISO at 1/200 sec so not surprisingly it's a little grainy. You can help with that by using noise reduction software such as the freebie download NeatImage which is what I use.

If there's enough light for a decent shutter speed then I prefer to use ISO200 or sometimes ISO400 which was decent on my 40D but when there's insufficent light as in this case really the only option is to use higher ISO. Usually if the bird stays around once I've taken a few shots at high ISO I start reducing it risking the lower shutter speed for a less grainy image.

 

[Nikon Kid]

Your shot of the Kingfisher was taken a f5.6 @ 320mm ISO 1600 and 1/200sec and I would have assumed you have a heavy crop, looks like there was not enough light at the time ? and of cause as Keith says what was your processing ?

I think its a case of get closer, more speed, less ISO, brighter day, hold that camera still, better processing.

 

[Bill Came]

big thanks for all your help, its certainly given me something to work with.

 

[Keith Reeder]

Bill,

we'd still like to know how much of a crop those images are - it matters.

 

[Cashie]

hi Bill

I took this a couple of years ago And was never happy with it, until I run it through Topaz Denoise 5.
this was also taken at 1600 ISO with a 30D & 100-400 wide open at f5.6.

 

[Pigeon_Pete]

I have a canon 50d with a 100-400mm zoom, and Im struggling to get anywhere near the quality of the shots in the gallery, Ive uploaded a kingfisher shot, which took days to capture and Im so dissapointed.Its very grainy,and not very sharp at all, so if anyone out there could give me some advise, I will be most gratefull.

Hi Bill, I have the same camera and lens. Most small birds need a shutter speed of 800 when not flying. Set the camera to TV, shutter speed to 800 and ISO to AUTO. Open the lens to 400mm stabiliser on and distance to 1.8m to infinity. You will need good light, ISO of 400 is about the max I would be happy with unless the bird is very very close and little cropping. A kingfisher would need to be taken within 8 -10 metres at max for a good shot with this lens, and preferably about 3 - 5 metres in good light. Ideally the sun would be from behind you and lighting up the bird !

 

[Bill Came]

crop

Bill,

we'd still like to know how much of a crop those images are - it matters.

Hi Keith, I dropped a bit of a clanger, I didnt save the originals before cropping, so I cant show you the before shot,they wasnt cropped to much.but enough to make a differnce maybe

 

[Bill Came]

pic trouble

Hi Bill, I have the same camera and lens. Most small birds need a shutter speed of 800 when not flying. Set the camera to TV, shutter speed to 800 and ISO to AUTO. Open the lens to 400mm stabiliser on and distance to 1.8m to infinity. You will need good light, ISO of 400 is about the max I would be happy with unless the bird is very very close and little cropping. A kingfisher would need to be taken within 8 -10 metres at max for a good shot with this lens, and preferably about 3 - 5 metres in good light. Ideally the sun would be from behind you and lighting up the bird !

thanks Pete, this is exactly what Im after, the subject was 3-4 metres away,so Ill try these settings soon as.

 

[Bill Came]

hi Bill

I took this a couple of years ago And was never happy with it, until I run it through Topaz Denoise 5.
this was also taken at 1600 ISO with a 30D & 100-400 wide open at f5.6.

thankyou Cashie, a very nice shot

 

[Tony_79]

It takes some practice getting good quality bird photos. ISO1600 is not any problem for EOS 40D or similar, if not under exposured! I also have EOS 40D, EOS 450D and EF 100-400L and happy with image quality.

Check this out, EOS 450D - 400mm f/6.3 ISO1600 1/250s:
http://tonskulus.kuvat.fi/kuvat/Lintuja/mustarastas.jpg/full

 

[Bill Came]

It takes some practice getting good quality bird photos. ISO1600 is not any problem for EOS 40D or similar, if not under exposured! I also have EOS 40D, EOS 450D and EF 100-400L and happy with image quality.

Check this out, EOS 450D - 400mm f/6.3 ISO1600 1/250s:
http://tonskulus.kuvat.fi/kuvat/Lintuja/mustarastas.jpg/full

Thankyou Tony, thats a lovely detailed shot, guess I just need practice.

 

[Pigeon_Pete]

Thankyou Tony, thats a lovely detailed shot, guess I just need practice.

Bill, here's one at 250 ISO from 10 metres, exposure 1/1000 sec. About the same size as a Kingfisher It would similar at ISO 1600 from about 3 metres. Trouble with small birds is you need about 1/800 sec to counter small head movements when perched unless they are sleeping
other wise you will get a blurred headshot most of the time especially if hand held.


http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/327309/ppuser/81837

heres one from 2.5 metres ISO 320 1/640 sec.........

http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/327919/ppuser/81837

 

[Bill Came]

Bill, here's one at 250 ISO from 10 metres, exposure 1/1000 sec. About the same size as a Kingfisher It would similar at ISO 1600 from about 3 metres. Trouble with small birds is you need about 1/800 sec to counter small head movements when perched unless they are sleeping
other wise you will get a blurred headshot most of the time especially if hand held.


http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/327309/ppuser/81837

heres one from 2.5 metres ISO 320 1/640 sec.........

http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/327919/ppuser/81837

thanks again,all you guys have been most helpfull,and thankyou for the fantastic pictures.

 

[Keith Reeder]

Another question, Bill.

One of the Kingfisher images was taken with -1 Exposure Compensation (EC), and the other at 0 EC. Because of the low light you've had to use a high ISO.

Did the images come off the camera very dark? (I imagine the -1 EC shot must have been nearly black!)

If they did, and you needed to "add light" at the PP stage, then you pretty much guarantee a ton of noise in the end result.

You'd almost certainly have been better off dialing in a generous dollop of positive EC - even though doing so will reduce your shutter speed - and increasing the ISO right up to 3200 if that was needed to maintain shutter speed.

You'll get much better results from a well exposed (or even slightly over exposed) 3200 ISO image than you will from an underexposed 1600 ISO image that you have to add loads of EC to in post processing.

This leads to making mention of the principle of ETTR, which has relevance to the point I'm making here, and which really works.

 

[Strandman]

This leads to making mention of the principle of ETTR, which has relevance to the point I'm making here, and which really works.

what a great tip Keith- I've been wondering why I am getting such grainy results on various indoor photos and see that it is because I have (misguidedly) been dialling down the EC to try and help the camera: I've just done some side by side comparison with EC dialled up, everything else the same and have been amazed by the improvement

 

[Bill Came]

Another question, Bill.

One of the Kingfisher images was taken with -1 Exposure Compensation (EC), and the other at 0 EC. Because of the low light you've had to use a high ISO.

Did the images come off the camera very dark? (I imagine the -1 EC shot must have been nearly black!)

If they did, and you needed to "add light" at the PP stage, then you pretty much guarantee a ton of noise in the end result.

You'd almost certainly have been better off dialing in a generous dollop of positive EC - even though doing so will reduce your shutter speed - and increasing the ISO right up to 3200 if that was needed to maintain shutter speed.

You'll get much better results from a well exposed (or even slightly over exposed) 3200 ISO image than you will from an underexposed 1600 ISO image that you have to add loads of EC to in post processing.

This leads to making mention of the principle of ETTR, which has relevance to the point I'm making here, and which really works.

Hi Keith, thanks for the info, Ive not had this camera long, so Im still learning to master different situations.I built a screen and fixed a couple of perches coming out from the opposite bank on my local river,and had been waiting for weeks to capture this bird, so when it did arrive I did panic a bit,as I was only a few yards away,and thought it might spot me,as it went, it stayed for some time fishing,also when the suns out its a good spot, but when its cloudy,it can be very dull,so I do try to go on only sunny days .rgds Bill

 

[mrmarklin]

With the advent of IS and the ability to boost ISO many photographers think that a lot of the old "rules" of photography have been repealed! The second tool in your kit apart form the camera itself should be a tripod.

Shutter speed rules re: focal length are still very valid.

I compliment Pidgeon pete--excellent photos.

 

[Keith Reeder]

The second tool in your kit apart from the camera itself should be a tripod.

Don't agree at all: a 100-400mm, used well, effectively negates the need for a tripod except for (say) very low shutter speed work like water blur.