Shot some sheep and BIF - are there any tips?

kayasaman · Dec 9, 2022

Hi guys,

I have just had my first excursion into woodland and found some Red Kites and sheep.

The system I am using is a Nikon D500 with a Nikkor 18-300mm lens. As the lens is a long throw zoom aimed at mainly travel photography I understand that there are many optical compromises made to keep costs down and weight low.

Basically it's not the sharpest lens on the block but it is sharp enough.

I'm sure my inexperience and anxiety mainly caused issues but is there any advice or tips that anyone can offer?

My camera settings for these were:

*EV bias of -2

*shutter at 1/1000s

*f/8

*metering in spot mode

*72 point dynamic area AF

*auto ISO

*VR on

To start with here is one of a sheep. It looks ok but doesn't seem sharp enough to me and perhaps the background exposure is a little over exposed?

One thing I have noticed is that this camera and lens combination don't seem to produce fine details. It could me... or it could be the sensor not having a high enough dynamic range? I am not sure ?? My FF Pentax K1 mkii is far superior in this region - though I elected not to use it for this run.

Now on to the big problem. What have I done wrong here?? At home I have been practicing on gulls and anything else that I could find around the backyard and nothing is coming out well. I'm sure it's more me then the camera system but I honestly have no idea where to look

This one I totally goofed up. It's a Red Kite which belongs to the Raptor family.

I had the camera preset to a +1EV bias from the last time I used it which was probably a few months ago now it seems. My shutter therefor was at 1/500s.

After a few many shots I realized the problem then set the bias down to -2EV which I am comfortable with as it lowers the ISO and the noise. The D500 has quite a noisy sensor compared to my Pentax K1.

The shutter was then set to 1/1000s. I didn't change the AF setting. I found that I would get better results with spot mode but still not perfect. Metering was set to to spot:

I really don't understand why the exposure and focus is so bad and how to fix that. Is it just simply the wrong time of day or are there more deeper issues?

Thanks for any advice with these!! Like I mentioned this was my first time out trying this so outside of a few birds in my backyard experience level is pretty much 0.

kayasaman · Dec 9, 2022

ThrillaMozilla said:
kayasaman said:

and noise! Contrary to what ThrillaMozilla is saying.

Click to expand...

Well, if you magnify enough and use enough contrast you can always see noise. But in my opinion noise is the least of your problems with these images.

ThrillaMozilla said:

I use my Pentax K1 for astro photography mainly - I have been doing this for over a year now and I find that I don't even need bias or dark calibration frames with it. Flat frames yes to combat vignetting but the sensor is *that* good.

With my D500 I can always see granular noise in the shots. Most apparent on blue sky. I guess I'm what you may call a Pixel Peeper as I always expect the 100% zoom to be as good if not better then a medium format.

Click to expand...

A full frame camera such as the Pentax can give less noise, but that's because it would normally be used with a lens that has a larger aperture diameter at the same field of view. The lens collects the light, not the camera. In other words, it requires a larger, normally much more expensive lens to realize any noise advantage.

And as you note, the Pentax is not the best camera for flying birds. There is a reason the D500 is so popular for that use.

I would emphasize, though, that birds in flight are a bottomless money pit.

So is astro photography

You can easily spend $100k on equipment and still need more lol

kayasaman · Dec 9, 2022

ThrillaMozilla said:
kayasaman said:

No processing:

Click to expand...

Oh, that's MUCH better! That appears to be shot at 1/500 sec with a 300 mm lens and a 1.5x extender.

I have hundreds of shots that aren't any better, and some that I count as very good. It's normal to have many more near-misses than successes.

I can't be entirely sure what's wrong with it. It's pretty good, although a bit fuzzy. Sharpening software doesn't deal with it perfectly. I think there's a little motion blurring. A tripod or monopod might help. A faster shutter speed might help. Noise is not a problem, in my opinion.

I think the contrast is set a little too high. Lower contrast would allow a little more visibility of detail in the black underside. It's not bad, though. Birds against the sky are difficult, and sometimes they just don't come out at all.

No 1.5x extender. Just 18-300mm at 300mm. There was no processing done at all on that - it is the absolute RAW file!.... converted to jpg for upload

Since the shutter was 1/500s I am sure it's motion blur more then focus. The D500 has the AF taken straight from the D5 so I am not worried in that aspect at all.

This is a slightly processed version, I went very gently on the adjustments:

kayasaman · Dec 9, 2022

It looks like the sheep also suffered the same fate as the birds. Luckily they look a lot better now:

cjf2 · Dec 9, 2022

kayasaman said:
No processing:

It is not noisy but it is shaken I think. Your issues with shaking will probably defeat our normal thoughts on appropriate shutterspeeds.

I hope you don't mind me having a bit of a go at your image but there is plenty of shadow detail their to be recovered and then a less successful application of AI sharpen. Considering the harsh lighting it is pretty good really.

kayasaman · Dec 9, 2022

cjf2 said:
kayasaman said:

No processing:

Click to expand...

It is not noisy but it is shaken I think. Your issues with shaking will probably defeat our normal thoughts on appropriate shutterspeeds.

I hope you don't mind me having a bit of a go at your image but there is plenty of shadow detail their to be recovered and then a less successful application of AI sharpen. Considering the harsh lighting it is pretty good really.

That's pretty cool!!

you may have better tools then me!

Even with sharpening set to max and an increase in Local Contrast it still doesn't get anywhere near your edit

f2b3ed5132fa4d088eeb9f41c902c33b.jpg.png

ThrillaMozilla · Dec 9, 2022

kayasaman said:
No processing:

OK, I had a look at that. You have to look at it under high magnification and be able to see individual pixels to do a diagnosis.

The edges (ALL edges) are extremely broad--several pixels wide. That is not good. Either it is way out of focus, or the lens is poor, or both. I suspect that the lens is not good at all. You need to test it on a static subject with a tripod or other very firm support to completely eliminate subject motion. It is NOT primarily a motion problem.

Did you say that you had to use extreme fine focus adjustment on this or was that someone else? That could be the problem.

I personally would not use an 18-300 mm zoom for birds. There might be exceptions, but generally such lenses are not up to the task, and they could be quite bad. I did find some test images that suggest that if it's the lens I think it is, it's quite bad.

There is also a lot of axial chromatic aberration.

Also, check that you have saved the file at the highest quality, and that the camera is set for the highest resolution and highest quality files throughout. The edges have strong artifacts that appear to be compression artifacts.

kayasaman · Dec 9, 2022

ThrillaMozilla said:
kayasaman said:

No processing:

Click to expand...

OK, I had a look at that. You have to look at it under high magnification and be able to see individual pixels to do a diagnosis.

The edges (ALL edges) are extremely broad--several pixels wide. That is not good. Either it is way out of focus, or the lens is poor, or both. I suspect that the lens is not good at all. You need to test it on a static subject with a tripod or other very firm support to completely eliminate subject motion. It is NOT primarily a motion problem.

Did you say that you had to use extreme fine focus adjustment on this or was that someone else? That could be the problem.

I said this but not for the Nikon camera. It is a problem with the Pentax and 300mm lens.

ThrillaMozilla said:
I personally would not use an 18-300 mm zoom for birds. There might be exceptions, but generally such lenses are not up to the task, and they could be quite bad. I did find some test images that suggest that if it's the lens I think it is, it's quite bad.

There is also a lot of axial chromatic aberration.

Also, check that you have saved the file at the highest quality, and that the camera is set for the highest resolution and highest quality files throughout. The edges have strong artifacts that appear to be compression artifacts.

Relatively speaking it is a cheap lens for travel use.

I think it is this lens: https://www.nikonusa.com/nikon-prod...-s-dx-nikkor-18-300mm-f%2f3.5-6.3g-ed-vr.html

Though they have another one which is slightly wider at the top end. Anyway, it is one of them.

ThrillaMozilla · Dec 9, 2022

kayasaman said:
Relatively speaking it is a cheap lens for travel use.

I think it is this lens: https://www.nikonusa.com/nikon-prod...-s-dx-nikkor-18-300mm-f%2f3.5-6.3g-ed-vr.html

Yes, I think that is probably most of the problem, although I am not sure that focusing is not also a problem.

cjf2 · Dec 9, 2022

kayasaman said:
That's pretty cool!!

you may have better tools then me!

Even with sharpening set to max and an increase in Local Contrast it still doesn't get anywhere near your edit

Glad you like it. Just don’t look too close. It certainly looks better than my haircut these days! Adobe got my by the by the g**lies these days but they do give, er lend rather, a clever product that gives me pleasure all the time whilst Affinity cost very little but sits gathering dust.

kayasaman · Dec 9, 2022

ThrillaMozilla said:
kayasaman said:

Relatively speaking it is a cheap lens for travel use.

I think it is this lens: https://www.nikonusa.com/nikon-prod...-s-dx-nikkor-18-300mm-f%2f3.5-6.3g-ed-vr.html

Click to expand...

Yes, I think that is probably most of the problem, although I am not sure that focusing is not also a problem.

If you want to play with the RAW file itself I have uploaded it:

Loading…

drive.google.com

RT has added a lens and camera profile automatically which might do weird things so I thought it would be best to view the RAW directly rather then conversion etc...

kayasaman · Dec 9, 2022

By the way as we are mainly focusing on flying subjects, this is a subject that is around 3.5 million light years away!

I don't want to pollute the thread by going off topic but I thought that it would be fun for everyone to see:

Loading…

photos.app.goo.gl

It's a stack of around 1600 shots taken from the center of a city (meaning all the fine detail is lost

)

ThrillaMozilla · Dec 9, 2022

kayasaman said:
ThrillaMozilla said:

kayasaman said:

Relatively speaking it is a cheap lens for travel use.

I think it is this lens: https://www.nikonusa.com/nikon-prod...-s-dx-nikkor-18-300mm-f%2f3.5-6.3g-ed-vr.html

Click to expand...

Yes, I think that is probably most of the problem, although I am not sure that focusing is not also a problem.

Click to expand...

If you want to play with the RAW file itself I have uploaded it:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dcd9YRCdJaCYLuY8fP519AWlf_kRIJLh/view?usp=sharing

RT has added a lens and camera profile automatically which might do weird things so I thought it would be best to view the RAW directly rather then conversion etc...

The conclusion stands as before. Axial chromatic aberration, plus either generally lousy lens or poor focus.

Tuonov2 · Dec 9, 2022

Really wanted to see the sheep in flight.

Were you using a trebuchet or one of those big canon they use to fire humans at the circus?

kayasaman · Dec 10, 2022

Ok so today I went back again to try the advice that everyone has been giving me.

Somehow I ended up with this guy?? :-O

As for the birds.... there was a low flying one just as I had my Pentax with 24mm Samyang attached and tripod. I was shooting an old church ruin so I couldn't run to the car to grab the Nikon.

Later from a top a hill I tried my best but the little guys were just too small in frame and I also don't think this lens is very sharp at the top end either

Really minimal processing here. Just denoise, sharpening and local contrast. I also cranked up the exposure by +1EV in software

The camera was also set to +1 EV bias this time and I used both Spot metering and Spot AF with shutter set to 1/1600s

I think overall that the settings were fine but the lens is just not very capable at the top end. Maybe if the bird flew lower and was larger in frame then things might have gotten better. As it stands I just need to keep trying and hopefully get lucky one day; unless I get a better or more suited lens.

It was funny as I met someone out there who had 2x cameras on him. One of them was a Nikon Z9 with 800mm lens and the other I think was another mirrorless with a big zoom lens. I could only wish I had something like that but I think my main limiting factor now is definitely the sharpness of my lens

kayasaman · Dec 10, 2022

Tuonov2 said:
Really wanted to see the sheep in flight.

Were you using a trebuchet or one of those big canon they use to fire humans at the circus?

Lol

kayasaman · Dec 10, 2022

Here's another sheep shot

cjf2 · Dec 11, 2022

kayasaman said:
If you want to play with the RAW file itself I have uploaded it:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dcd9YRCdJaCYLuY8fP519AWlf_kRIJLh/view?usp=sharing

See below a cropped version using Adobe Camera Raw(as part of Photoshop CC) with just the shadows under the wing lifted. The original file was 5568 x 3712 px at 300ppi. I cropped it to 3492 x 1743 still at 300ppi.

To the right of the original bird I've posted a version with Topaz AI sharpen applied which is a bit severe but severe was needed!. Then on the far right is the sharpened image with some softening applied to the most over sharped bit (see edges of wings and primary feathers on the end of the wing) and a bit of dodge and burn to reduce the contrast on the bird.

If you could get the bird even just twice the size in the original frame there would be something worth playing with despite the limitations of the lens.

kayasaman · Dec 11, 2022

cjf2 said:
kayasaman said:

If you want to play with the RAW file itself I have uploaded it:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dcd9YRCdJaCYLuY8fP519AWlf_kRIJLh/view?usp=sharing

Click to expand...

See below a cropped version using Adobe Camera Raw(as part of Photoshop CC) with just the shadows under the wing lifted. The original file was 5568 x 3712 px at 300ppi. I cropped it to 3492 x 1743 still at 300ppi.

To the right of the original bird I've posted a version with Topaz AI sharpen applied which is a bit severe but severe was needed!. Then on the far right is the sharpened image with some softening applied to the most over sharped bit (see edges of wings and primary feathers on the end of the wing) and a bit of dodge and burn to reduce the contrast on the bird.

If you could get the bird even just twice the size in the original frame there would be something worth playing with despite the limitations of the lens.

That's pretty amazing!

It is really dependent on the birds and if they fly low enough.

Now that I've discovered this area and am comfortable being there I will definitely be there a lot and try to maximize my chances of having a closer encounter

Saturday's efforts were much better but either the focus didn't quite nail it or the lens just couldn't keep up:

Here's the link to anyone following the thread who might be interested:

Loading…

photos.app.goo.gl

cjf2 · Dec 11, 2022

kayasaman said:
It is really dependent on the birds and if they fly low enough.

Now that I've discovered this area and am comfortable being there I will definitely be there a lot and try to maximize my chances of having a closer encounter

I know there are reasons to go back where you were but the likelihood of a bird finding something to eat on the ground near you is small. That cafe you mentioned sounds like worth a visit - google Red Kite Chris' Cafe Richard Harris - he has a picture taken on 20mm of the birds over the cafe. If you ring them up and explain your position they would probably let you stay in the car park on your own.

Incidentally this picture below was taken where I mentioned in the PM at 200mm on full frame (when I forgot to open up my 200-500 when I first arrived!). It's cropped a fair bit but you'd have had to crop less with a 300mm on your D500 so you can see the advantage of getting closer.

ThrillaMozilla · Dec 11, 2022

I see from your astronomical photo that you generally know what you are doing. However, there are still some problems remaining.

1. First, the 18-300 mm lens appears to be just plain fuzzy.

2. On the sheep picture that you posted later, you appear to have focused behind the sheep. I don't know how this happened, but I think you are not using the best focusing method. For this photo you need to have used a small spot focus and focused on part of the sheep. But aside from that, nothing is really clear. It's either due to the lens or to camera shake, or possibly both.

3. The photos below show a serious exposure or processing problem. Discussion below.

kayasaman said:
Ok so today I went back again to try the advice that everyone has been giving me....

...

Really minimal processing here. Just denoise, sharpening and local contrast. I also cranked up the exposure by +1EV in software

The camera was also set to +1 EV bias this time and I used both Spot metering and Spot AF with shutter set to 1/1600s

I don't think spot metering is not doing well for you. I would never use it for action, and I suggest that you not use it at all.

These are either overexposed or printed too light. That's why there are large, pure white areas with no detail on the bird's head and on the nose of the airplane. It's possible that the detail is still present in the raw photo, but if it's not, the detail is lost forever. The pixel values are digitally clipped in these areas, so there is no information.

Many of your photos from Google Photos show the same problem. For example, IMG6120 shows an area of clouds that is pure white. That should have some detail. The R G B colors are all clipped in that area, and there is no remaining information. But worse, there is an area of turquoise or cyan color in the clouds. Red was clipped in this area. After clipping, the brightness levels were changed by subsequent spatially-sensitive editing, so I can't make a detailed diagnosis.

The camera, however, is perfectly capable of taking any of those pictures without clipping, and almost certainly without any underexposure problem.

kayasaman said:
I think overall that the settings were fine but the lens is just not very capable at the top end. Maybe if the bird flew lower and was larger in frame then things might have gotten better. As it stands I just need to keep trying and hopefully get lucky one day; unless I get a better or more suited lens.

kayasaman said:
It was funny as I met someone out there who had 2x cameras on him. One of them was a Nikon Z9 with 800mm lens and the other I think was another mirrorless with a big zoom lens. I could only wish I had something like that but I think my main limiting factor now is definitely the sharpness of my lens

The lens and exposure. You don't seem to be exposing correctly.

Shot some sheep and BIF - are there any tips?

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Keyboard shortcuts