What did I do wrong/how do I improve?

[coreno]

This photo I took this weekend:

Nikon D5500 w/ 55-300mm VR @ f/8 1/400 300mm ISO400

This was taken about 8:30am, sun off to my left, with hood on the lens. I also had a clear ND/UV filter on. Handheld.

As you can see in this picture, especially if you zoom in, the ducks which are supposed to be the subject are blurry, or very soft, and the reeds have a "glow".

What did I do wrong taking this picture? I plan to take a lot of photos at this location, and want to improve my photo quality. Was it the ND filter? Is it the water reflecting? Doesn't look like motion blur, and I've been able to get sharp images with similar settings (but different picture composition).

Could this be fixed in Lightroom (I'm still a newbie with LR)?

 

[table1349]

Composition for starters. Was the subject of this photo the two itty-bitty ducks in the center or just the grass?

 

[Ysarex]

Nothing in the photo is sharp. Certainly looks like motion blur. You're hand-holding a 300mm lens at 1/400 sec. I would expect a blurry photo in that situation. You need a much faster shutter speed and/or more appropriately a tripod or monopod.

Joe

 

[coreno]

Composition for starters. Was the subject of this photo the two itty-bitty ducks in the center or just the grass?

Haha yes unfortunately. They were way out there. I was hoping that despite being that far out I might be able to get something out of it. Would you have skipped the shot altogether because it was too far out (or what would've you changed)?

Nothing in the photo is sharp. Certainly looks like motion blur. You're hand-holding a 300mm lens at 1/400 sec. I would expect a blurry photo in that situation. You need a much faster shutter speed and/or more appropriately a tripod or monopod.

Joe

Perhaps; I've been successful at handholding at 300mm before with slower shutter speeds, but I guess no matter the shutter speed, I'll never be as steady as a tripod!

 

[table1349]

Composition for starters. Was the subject of this photo the two itty-bitty ducks in the center or just the grass?

Haha yes unfortunately. They were way out there. I was hoping that despite being that far out I might be able to get something out of it. Would you have skipped the shot altogether because it was too far out (or what would've you changed)?

Lenses, perhaps location. You can only crop so much.

 

[robbins.photo]

Composition for starters. Was the subject of this photo the two itty-bitty ducks in the center or just the grass?

Haha yes unfortunately. They were way out there. I was hoping that despite being that far out I might be able to get something out of it. Would you have skipped the shot altogether because it was too far out (or what would've you changed)?

Nothing in the photo is sharp. Certainly looks like motion blur. You're hand-holding a 300mm lens at 1/400 sec. I would expect a blurry photo in that situation. You need a much faster shutter speed and/or more appropriately a tripod or monopod.

Joe

Perhaps; I've been successful at handholding at 300mm before with slower shutter speeds, but I guess no matter the shutter speed, I'll never be as steady as a tripod!

Ok, so in general - when your shooting wildlife you want a higher shutter speed when at all possible. In this case your ISO was 400, so you had some room to play here with the shutter speed. Since your camera only has the one control dial, I think your best bet would be to try shooting in shutter priority mode. This makes it so the control dial controls your shutter speed. For good sharp photographs handheld, 2x the focal length of the lens is a great starting point, so maybe 1/640 to start with, and of course you can always decrease that or increase it based on situation.

In this case the biggest issue here is one of distance, you're just too far away with a 300 mm lens to really get much out of this shot. The other issue of course being clutter - there are a lot of grass/weeds here and it's likely your cameras AF system didn't lock onto the ducks, but most likely something else entirely.

I've found the best bet for a shot like this, where you have a lot of elements in the scene, is to reduce the number of AF points your camera uses to just one - and when possible put that on the subjects eye. If your target is moving quickly or erratically, such as a bird in flight for example, then you'd want to increase the number of focal points - but in general I've found my best results come from having the camera set on just the one focal point and having control of what the camera focuses on.

But really you'd have to move closer to the ducks to make much more out of this particular shot.

 

[table1349]

I have on occasion hand held my 400 mm f2.8, but I don't make a habit of it.
One word: Monopod

 

[DarkShadow]

First thing as mentioned nothing is in focus and trying to shoot that far away usually ends with bad results especially when detail of wildlife is concerned,been there done that.The closer you are the better the detail and much easer to be spot on with your focus point. With VR and 1/400 at 300mm should be fine but not for everyone so you may have to pick up the shutter speed a bit. If birds are what your going to be shooting, practice on seagulls if you have them around or similar birds that are not as flighty or skittish that allow you to walk In on them close.Use continues focus because birds generally move around a lot and you may want experiment with single point and multi points. Oh yea,lose the filters for wildlife shooting.No UV and especially No ND.

 

[KmH]

This was taken about 8:30am, sun off to my left, with hood on the lens. I also had a clear ND/UV filter on. Handheld.

While a UV filter looks 'clear', a ND (Neutral Density) filter doesn't. An ND filter will have a gray color and how dark an ND filter is determines how much light the ND filter blocks from entering the camera.
Any filter on the front of the lens has the potential to cause image quality problems. Cheap filters usually cause more problems than high quality filters.
Soft focus is one of the more common image quality issues filters added to the front of a lens can cause.
Lens flare is another common problem and even quality filters have been known to cause Newton's Rings.

There is a filter array in front of the image sensor in digital cameras. One of the filters blocks UV light, so a UV filter is not needed on the lens.

Many new to photographer think keeping a clear or UV filter on a lens offers 'protection' to the front lens element.
Usually the added and constantly on the lens 'protection' filter causes many more problems than it solves. I highly recommend you not use a filter on the front of the lens for 'protection'. Put a filter on the lens if the shooting situation warrants, then take the filter off when the filter is no longer needed.

The coatings on the front lens element are a lot tougher than neophyte photographers realize and the thin filter glass is very much easier to break than the thick front lens element.
The lens hood reduces the possibility of lens flare and offers a surprising amount of 'protection' to the front lens element.
So, it is recommended that you always use a lens hood.

 

[table1349]

This was taken about 8:30am, sun off to my left, with hood on the lens. I also had a clear ND/UV filter on. Handheld.

While a UV filter looks 'clear', a ND (Neutral Density) filter doesn't. An ND filter will have a gray color and how dark an ND filter is determines how much light the ND filter blocks from entering the camera.
Any filter on the front of the lens has the potential to cause image quality problems. Cheap filters usually cause more problems than high quality filters.
Soft focus is one of the more common image quality issues filters added to the front of a lens can cause.
Lens flare is another common problem and even quality filters have been known to cause Newton's Rings.

There is a filter array in front of the image sensor in digital cameras. One of the filters blocks UV light, so a UV filter is not needed on the lens.

Many new to photographer think keeping a clear or UV filter on a lens offers 'protection' to the front lens element.
Usually the added and constantly on the lens 'protection' filter causes many more problems than it solves. I highly recommend you not use a filter on the front of the lens for 'protection'. Put a filter on the lens if the shooting situation warrants, then take the filter off when the filter is no longer needed.

The coatings on the front lens element are a lot tougher than neophyte photographers realize and the thin filter glass is very much easier to break than the thick front lens element.
The lens hood reduces the possibility of lens flare and offers a surprising amount of 'protection' to the front lens element.
So, it is recommended that you always use a lens hood.

Not another uv filter protection fight.

 

[BananaRepublic]

Composition for starters. Was the subject of this photo the two itty-bitty ducks in the center or just the grass?

Haha yes unfortunately. They were way out there. I was hoping that despite being that far out I might be able to get something out of it. Would you have skipped the shot altogether because it was too far out (or what would've you changed)?

Nothing in the photo is sharp. Certainly looks like motion blur. You're hand-holding a 300mm lens at 1/400 sec. I would expect a blurry photo in that situation. You need a much faster shutter speed and/or more appropriately a tripod or monopod.

Joe

Perhaps; I've been successful at handholding at 300mm before with slower shutter speeds, but I guess no matter the shutter speed, I'll never be as steady as a tripod!

Ok, so in general - when your shooting wildlife you want a higher shutter speed when at all possible. In this case your ISO was 400, so you had some room to play here with the shutter speed. Since your camera only has the one control dial, I think your best bet would be to try shooting in shutter priority mode. This makes it so the control dial controls your shutter speed. For good sharp photographs handheld, 2x the focal length of the lens is a great starting point, so maybe 1/640 to start with, and of course you can always decrease that or increase it based on situation.

In this case the biggest issue here is one of distance, you're just too far away with a 300 mm lens to really get much out of this shot. The other issue of course being clutter - there are a lot of grass/weeds here and it's likely your cameras AF system didn't lock onto the ducks, but most likely something else entirely.

I've found the best bet for a shot like this, where you have a lot of elements in the scene, is to reduce the number of AF points your camera uses to just one - and when possible put that on the subjects eye. If your target is moving quickly or erratically, such as a bird in flight for example, then you'd want to increase the number of focal points - but in general I've found my best results come from having the camera set on just the one focal point and having control of what the camera focuses on.

But really you'd have to move closer to the ducks to make much more out of this particular shot.

What Robbins said in his post:

Me: Main issue your two far way from the ducks.

 

[coreno]

Ok, so in general - when your shooting wildlife you want a higher shutter speed when at all possible. In this case your ISO was 400, so you had some room to play here with the shutter speed. Since your camera only has the one control dial, I think your best bet would be to try shooting in shutter priority mode. This makes it so the control dial controls your shutter speed. For good sharp photographs handheld, 2x the focal length of the lens is a great starting point, so maybe 1/640 to start with, and of course you can always decrease that or increase it based on situation.

In this case the biggest issue here is one of distance, you're just too far away with a 300 mm lens to really get much out of this shot. The other issue of course being clutter - there are a lot of grass/weeds here and it's likely your cameras AF system didn't lock onto the ducks, but most likely something else entirely.

I've found the best bet for a shot like this, where you have a lot of elements in the scene, is to reduce the number of AF points your camera uses to just one - and when possible put that on the subjects eye. If your target is moving quickly or erratically, such as a bird in flight for example, then you'd want to increase the number of focal points - but in general I've found my best results come from having the camera set on just the one focal point and having control of what the camera focuses on.

But really you'd have to move closer to the ducks to make much more out of this particular shot.

Thanks a lot! I really appreciate the tips and advice! I will keep this in mind next time I go handheld shooting here.

 

[coreno]

This was taken about 8:30am, sun off to my left, with hood on the lens. I also had a clear ND/UV filter on. Handheld.

While a UV filter looks 'clear', a ND (Neutral Density) filter doesn't. An ND filter will have a gray color and how dark an ND filter is determines how much light the ND filter blocks from entering the camera.
Any filter on the front of the lens has the potential to cause image quality problems. Cheap filters usually cause more problems than high quality filters.
Soft focus is one of the more common image quality issues filters added to the front of a lens can cause.
Lens flare is another common problem and even quality filters have been known to cause Newton's Rings.

There is a filter array in front of the image sensor in digital cameras. One of the filters blocks UV light, so a UV filter is not needed on the lens.

Many new to photographer think keeping a clear or UV filter on a lens offers 'protection' to the front lens element.
Usually the added and constantly on the lens 'protection' filter causes many more problems than it solves. I highly recommend you not use a filter on the front of the lens for 'protection'. Put a filter on the lens if the shooting situation warrants, then take the filter off when the filter is no longer needed.

The coatings on the front lens element are a lot tougher than neophyte photographers realize and the thin filter glass is very much easier to break than the thick front lens element.
The lens hood reduces the possibility of lens flare and offers a surprising amount of 'protection' to the front lens element.
So, it is recommended that you always use a lens hood.

Thanks for keeping me honest, I kind of assumed ND and UV filters were essentially the same, and now I see they are not. It is a UV filter I have on, and I put it on for protection.

I'll be a little more discriminatory when I put it on on the future. I'll probably still use it in dirty or harsh environments (beach, dog park, etc...), but try to remember to take it off when just walking in the woods.

 

[robbins.photo]

Ok, so in general - when your shooting wildlife you want a higher shutter speed when at all possible. In this case your ISO was 400, so you had some room to play here with the shutter speed. Since your camera only has the one control dial, I think your best bet would be to try shooting in shutter priority mode. This makes it so the control dial controls your shutter speed. For good sharp photographs handheld, 2x the focal length of the lens is a great starting point, so maybe 1/640 to start with, and of course you can always decrease that or increase it based on situation.

In this case the biggest issue here is one of distance, you're just too far away with a 300 mm lens to really get much out of this shot. The other issue of course being clutter - there are a lot of grass/weeds here and it's likely your cameras AF system didn't lock onto the ducks, but most likely something else entirely.

I've found the best bet for a shot like this, where you have a lot of elements in the scene, is to reduce the number of AF points your camera uses to just one - and when possible put that on the subjects eye. If your target is moving quickly or erratically, such as a bird in flight for example, then you'd want to increase the number of focal points - but in general I've found my best results come from having the camera set on just the one focal point and having control of what the camera focuses on.

But really you'd have to move closer to the ducks to make much more out of this particular shot.

Thanks a lot! I really appreciate the tips and advice! I will keep this in mind next time I go handheld shooting here.

No worries, happy to help. You can find some samples of my shots by clicking on the link to Flickr in my signature, the more recent stuff is shot with a d7100 but if you go back further you can see samples of stuff shot with my old d5200. Taking control of the camera's af system really can make a big difference when you can get close enough to your subject of course

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk

 

[table1349]

Get a longer lens and a tripod and remote release. I like 400-800 or the longer 650 -2600 for this type of shooting. Your main subject should be the prominent feature in the image.

Gee, what 650 to 2600 are you talking about?