Grackle-C&C Please

[DarkShadow]

Grackles for some C&C Please. Straight out of the camera T4i but cropped some.

 

[DarkShadow]

Edit first photo.

 

[Rafterman]

There's something off about all the bird/wildlife images you post for C&C, but I can't put my finger on it. I don't know if you're not close enough to the subject, there's excessive camera shake, some of your settings are off, or what it is. These look grainy and/or unfocused, with the colors washed out a bit. This is probably a poor analogy, but they look like screencaps from a 1980's nature show on PBS. Either that, or like they were taken with a 2-megapixel point-and-shoot camera in 1997.

I'm certainly not trying to be cruel at all, and I'm definitely no pro myself, but these are just poor quality photos. Could you post some info about your camera, lenses, and settings for these pictures? I'd really like to help you find out why you're consistently getting sub-par results.

The pictures in these other two threads of yours exhibit similar shortcomings...

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/nature-wildlife/325276-woodpecker.html
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/nature-wildlife/325280-just-hanging-out-eating-my-nuts.html

However, your picture in this thread is much better...

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/nature-wildlife/324989-what-kid-bird.html

I'd like to know what you did differently in that one.

EDIT: Also, your first post mentions the pics were taken with a Canon T4i, but your signature says "Nikon Fan For Life" and doesn't mention any Canon gear. Which are you shooting with?

 

[DarkShadow]

Thanks for the comments.I am Using my friends canon t4i 18-135 STM lens while my nikon d7000 is off for adjustments.I cant put my finger on it either WTF I am doing wrong. When take a close up of something that close in distance but still fully zoomed in the pictures are sharp even at slow shutter speeds. If I try to reach something of distance I seem to get grainy soft pictures.Is it i am trying to over reach with a lens thats not practical I don't know.

I guess the only way to know for sure is use the tripod and go from there but any other suggestion you can give is appreciated.It really is frustrating because my exposures seems to good its sharpness that suffers.Believe or not most of my 35mm film pictures in the family album are sharp and well exposed.

Looking at the Data the wood pecker was shot a F5.6 1/400 second iso 320 not sure why I was on F5.6 I usually stay around F8 on Up.The CowBird or Finch on the feeder was shot at F8 1/400 and ISO 640.The woodpecker was roughly 75 yards away.The bird on feeder was about 25 yrds.

 

[Rafterman]

I guess the only way to know for sure is use the tripod and go from there

I'd try this. You need to take an almost scientific approach to identify the issue. Just set up the camera on a tripod, point the lens at a colorful, contrasty, but non-moving subject (like some flowery bushes or a car or something) and use the 2-second self-timer to take a shot. This way, you can at least rule out camera shake if the images still come out crummy. Then, move the tripod back further and further, taking a new shot of the same subject each time. If all the tripod shots come out nice and sharp, take the camera in your own hands, and go do the same photos over again. If you can't reproduce the tripod shots using the same environmental conditions and camera settings, then you know it's you and not the camera and/or lens. If this happens, I'd look into reading some articles about camera holding positions and techniques.

 

[DarkShadow]

I guess the only way to know for sure is use the tripod and go from there

I'd try this. You almost need to take a scientific approach with this. Just set up the camera on a tripod, point the lens at a colorful, contrasty, but non-moving subject (like some flowery bushes or a car or something) and use the 2-second self-timer to take a shot. This way, you can at least rule out camera shake if the images still come out crummy. Then, move the tripod back further and further, taking a new shot of the same subject each time. If all the tripod shots come out nice and sharp, take the camera in your own hands, and go do the same photos over again. If you can't reproduce the tripod shots using the same environmental conditions and camera settings, then you know it's you and not the camera and/or lens. If this happens, I'd look into reading some articles about camera holding positions and techniques.

Great Idea I will try this for sure.Thanks.BTW do the Grackles look grainy just wondering becasue they look clear on my macbook.

 

[coastalconn]

I agree with Rafterman, something just seems off. The grackles almost look like too much noise reduction or something. I think the crops might be too much. It's tough to shoot with a 135mm lens for wildlife, I'm not that familiar with Canon gear, is that just a kit lens?

 

[Pallycow]

try f/11 f/13

yeah it's basically a kit lens. decent for up close or far away landscapes at wide angles, not very good at all for wildlife.

 

[Pallycow]

I have found that 4.5/5.6 lenses really suck wide open for sharpness. my personal results are best at f/8 on some, but usually f/11 f/13 on others. especially when zoomed in all the way or near.

the only lenses I've seen shoot sharp far away wide open are the 70-200 2.8 and the 400mm prime. that 400 I played with one weekend was awesome btw. lol

 

[DarkShadow]

Thanks Guys, I will try what Rafterman said. When I get my nikon back from service I am thinking of the Tamron 70-300 VC and try Hand held vs iPod shots.I will also try to frame better so there is less cropping involved. The camera I am using now belongs to a friend that was kind enough to let me use something while I wait for my nikon to return.However i really wish I could totally blame the camera but It could be my technique or a combination of both technique and lens asking it to perform miracles.I know I suck I admit it guilty at least I am humble.

 

[sm4him]

I agree with Rafterman, something just seems off. The grackles almost look like too much noise reduction or something. I think the crops might be too much. It's tough to shoot with a 135mm lens for wildlife, I'm not that familiar with Canon gear, is that just a kit lens?

^THIS. How much are you cropping your pictures? I'd imagine with your longest reach being 135mm, you'd have to crop quite a bit, and that can severely reduce the IQ. I have that same problem quite often, and that's at 300mm.

I'd try an experiment. Take a picture outside, in the same conditions as you're shooting birds, but use something stationary so it doesn't change. At 135mm, take one picture close enough to it that you don't have to crop at all. Then step back to about where you're shooting the birds from and take another, using the same settings. Crop that one like you crop the bird photos and then look at the difference between it and the uncropped. My guess is that's a LOT of your problem.

 

[Rafterman]

I have found that 4.5/5.6 lenses really suck wide open for sharpness.

Sorry, but I feel the need to disagree. If you said "I have found that MOST 4.5/5.6 lenses suck wide open..." I would agree with you.

When I get my nikon back from service I am thinking of the Tamron 70-300 VC

It's a great lens man. Brand new for $350 after rebate and super sharp. Plus, the VC on it is awesome. :thumbsup:

I know I suck I admit it guilty at least I am humble.

Don't beat yourself up over this. It's good that you're open to suggestions and willing to try new ways to improve your shots. You're on the right path.

 

[DarkShadow]

I agree with Rafterman, something just seems off. The grackles almost look like too much noise reduction or something. I think the crops might be too much. It's tough to shoot with a 135mm lens for wildlife, I'm not that familiar with Canon gear, is that just a kit lens?

^THIS. How much are you cropping your pictures? I'd imagine with your longest reach being 135mm, you'd have to crop quite a bit, and that can severely reduce the IQ. I have that same problem quite often, and that's at 300mm.

I'd try an experiment. Take a picture outside, in the same conditions as you're shooting birds, but use something stationary so it doesn't change. At 135mm, take one picture close enough to it that you don't have to crop at all. Then step back to about where you're shooting the birds from and take another, using the same settings. Crop that one like you crop the bird photos and then look at the difference between it and the uncropped. My guess is that's a LOT of your problem.

I been cropping a lot your correct.Great tips and now that I have something to go on and practice with.Thank you

 

[DarkShadow]

I have found that 4.5/5.6 lenses really suck wide open for sharpness.

Sorry, but I feel the need to disagree. If you said "I have found that MOST 4.5/5.6 lenses suck wide open..." I would agree with you.

When I get my nikon back from service I am thinking of the Tamron 70-300 VC

It's a great lens man. Brand new for $350 after rebate and super sharp. Plus, the VC on it is awesome. :thumbsup:

I know I suck I admit it guilty at least I am humble.

Don't beat yourself up over this. It's good that you're open to suggestions and willing to try new ways to improve your shots. You're on the right path.

Thank you I appreciate that.I have to learn to think,breath and relax because when I get frustrated I just shut down.

 

[SCraig]

I tend to agree with the others in that most likely you are being bitten by the crops. Both of these images definitely look pixelated up close. A 135mm lens is just not enough for birds, especially at ranges of more than a few feet. If you are having to crop more than roughly 25% of the image it's too much to retain the detail that you need for birds. They are usually small targets and the feathers have a lot of detail that needs to be retained.

In some places it also looks like you may be doing a lot of noise reduction, either in-camera or in post-processing. Is that the case? The feathers on his wing look too smooth to me.