Experienced Feedback Please?

[Nicks Pics]

I was really not sure where to post this, (mods can move it if you wish) because I am posting a few photos for critique, in a way, but I am not looking for "number 2 is the best!" and so forth, but I really wanted to know what might be the matter with my shooting - if something.

Shooting has been going fairly well lately since the weather started warming up and the critters have gotten busy, but I'm just not quite happy with my photos. I'm using a point and shoot, or "bridge" camera, but I don't mention that just to excuse poor photographs in itself. Below are posted some 100 % crops of much larger photos, because crops show image quality better than a very downsized version of the whole picture. All were taken in RAW, and I have intended that they look just as they were taken. I had to convert them to jpeg for upload, but they still look virtually the same. Expand to view 100 %.

If you would be so kind as to take a few moments to review, I would appreciate hearing the following: whether you think the photos are suffering from wrong F. stop, ISO or shutter speed (causing motion blur or some other issue that could result), whether you think there was some other problem, such as an AF issue etc., whether these photos are just the results of equipment limitations (and if so how), or whether there is really nothing wrong with the photos, and I might have overly high expectations for how they should look based on sharpened, downsized images from other photographers on the web, which don't represent the quality of the original images well, if that makes sense.

What do I not like about these images? They are fuzzy, just not clear, are flat, and noisy, as well as other things. If you are an experienced photographer, I trust that you have seen better photos and could discern what is wrong with these.

F/6.5, ISO 400, 1/500


F 6.5, ISO 400, 1/250


F 6.5, ISO 250, 1/200


Thanks in advance for reviewing my photos!

[Stagecoach]

Nick, I'm not going to comment on any of these photos, there are too many unknowns, the most significant being 'what can you camera produce'?

If I view many of my images at 100% they look far worse than they do after basic PP and reducing to good screen viewing size at 1200/1400 px width.

Can I suggest that you find yourself some kind of model/subject (I used to use a painted ornamental china dolls head with fine natural hair) and take some images under controlled conditions, e.g, tripod, timed/remote release, no wind, decent lighting, various apertures.

When you have done that examine the images, they will show you WHAT your camera can achieve.

Edit : Not sure why the metadata shows 215.2mm for each image but if the SL1000 is in its 'telephoto' range I gather the widest aperture is f/6.5 of which these are all shot at. It is a 50x optical zoom and I'm wondering if max aperture is going to give you best performance IQ wise. I understand you are going to be wanting to keep the speed up for these critters.

[Shadowman]

Would have also helped if you had listed the specific camera model (FinPix SL1000), whether or not you were shooting on a tripod, were you shooting with one hand, are there any issues that keep you from holding a camera steady, etc., what focal length (215mm for the third image), were you shooting any of these with digital zoom, etc.? So much that could be going on with your photography.

[KingsHockeyFan]

All were taken in RAW, and I have intended that they look just as they were taken. I had to convert them to jpeg for upload, but they still look virtually the same.

Are you processing your RAW files? Without "developing" your RAW data using a RAW processor, they will always be flat, dull, have unwanted noise...etc....

When you shoot in jpeg, your camera makes decisions for you. The camera chooses proper WB, proper contrast, proper saturation, etc.. When you shoot in RAW those decisions are left to the photog to make during PP. If you don't PP your pictures, they wont look the way they should or at least how you envisioned.

[dem]

You are shooting at 1200 mm ff eq on a 1/2.3" sensor (handheld? from how far away?). I am surprised the results are so good. The depth of field is about 2 mm, so anything thicker than that will have some blur. That's the fuzziness seen in images #1 and #2. In #3 it looks like the camera focused on the tree rather than on the squirrel. Are you using the "Area" focus mode? It is much better than "Multi" for this type of shots.

If you zoom out to about 400 mm ff eq and get closer, the images will be noticeably sharper.

Also, if you shoot RAW+jpeg, try setting colour to +1, sharpness to +1 and noise to -1 for in-camera jpeg settings to get good SOOC jpegs to compare your processed RAWs to.

Cheers, Dem.

[Marie Hass]

Dear Nick,

By asking for "experienced" feedback, you effectively discount commentary by some here on CiC who may have provided you with valuable input.

Just sayin.

Marie

[Nicks Pics]

Dear Nick,

By asking for "experienced" feedback, you effectively discount commentary by some here on CiC who may have provided you with valuable input.

Just sayin.

Marie

Marie, anyone may feel free to comment, I don't think I'm still an absolute beginner, so I simply wanted to hear some thoughts that I might not already know. My apologies if it sounds like I was trying to keep anyone from commenting who doesn't consider themselves an avid photographer. Anyone might think of something I didn't think of.

[Nicks Pics]

You are shooting at 1200 mm ff eq on a 1/2.3" sensor (handheld? from how far away?). I am surprised the results are so good. The depth of field is about 2 mm, so anything thicker than that will have some blur. That's the fuzziness seen in images #1 and #2. In #3 it looks like the camera focused on the tree rather than on the squirrel. Are you using the "Area" focus mode? It is much better than "Multi" for this type of shots.

If you zoom out to about 400 mm ff eq and get closer, the images will be noticeably sharper.

Also, if you shoot RAW+jpeg, try setting colour to +1, sharpness to +1 and noise to -1 for in-camera jpeg settings to get good SOOC jpegs to compare your processed RAWs to.

Cheers, Dem.

Yes most or all of these are shot at 50 x (1200 mm equiv.) it's hard to get closer sometimes, but I know that would be beneficial probably. You may be right that there is a narrow DOF in these shots. I didn't notice that, but that may account for some of the blur, such as where the cardinal's head is softer than it's breast. Do you know for a technical reason that there would be a small DOF with this set-up?

Yes I usually use the area focus for situations like this.

[Nicks Pics]

Are you processing your RAW files? Without "developing" your RAW data using a RAW processor, they will always be flat, dull, have unwanted noise...etc....

When you shoot in jpeg, your camera makes decisions for you. The camera chooses proper WB, proper contrast, proper saturation, etc.. When you shoot in RAW those decisions are left to the photog to make during PP. If you don't PP your pictures, they wont look the way they should or at least how you envisioned.

Yes I usually do post process, but I wanted to share how the originals looked without being changed, otherwise it would be hard to judge the original IQ. Thanks, it might be in part that one should expect dull images before processing.

[KingsHockeyFan]

Digital zoom will only magnify optical flaws. I would turn off digital zoom.

[Nicks Pics]

Would have also helped if you had listed the specific camera model (FinPix SL1000), whether or not you were shooting on a tripod, were you shooting with one hand, are there any issues that keep you from holding a camera steady, etc., what focal length (215mm for the third image), were you shooting any of these with digital zoom, etc.? So much that could be going on with your photography.

No tripod, two hands, 1200 equiv. (50x) focal length. If you think these may be showing motion blur, or other such issues, please let me know!

[Nicks Pics]

Nick, I'm not going to comment on any of these photos, there are too many unknowns, the most significant being 'what can you camera produce'?

If I view many of my images at 100% they look far worse than they do after basic PP and reducing to good screen viewing size at 1200/1400 px width.

Can I suggest that you find yourself some kind of model/subject (I used to use a painted ornamental china dolls head with fine natural hair) and take some images under controlled conditions, e.g, tripod, timed/remote release, no wind, decent lighting, various apertures.

When you have done that examine the images, they will show you WHAT your camera can achieve.

Edit : Not sure why the metadata shows 215.2mm for each image but if the SL1000 is in its 'telephoto' range I gather the widest aperture is f/6.5 of which these are all shot at. It is a 50x optical zoom and I'm wondering if max aperture is going to give you best performance IQ wise. I understand you are going to be wanting to keep the speed up for these critters.

Thanks for the suggestions,
It could be something like the lens is blurry at extreme telephoto. Trying a smaller aperture is a good idea. Not sure what flexibility this camera will allow in that regard, may I plan to check. Perhaps I will do a camera test, that's a good idea too.

[Nicks Pics]

Digital zoom will only magnify optical flaws. I would turn off digital zoom.

I once heard that there was two things you should always remember about digital zoom, 1: turn it off, 2: never turn it on again. I don't use it, and my camera can't when shooting RAW.

[Texas Dave]

When I've had my sigma 150-500mm lens on my d7100, I've never got a crisp shot. At a distance and shooting to the extreme focal length of 400+ my shots look just like yours. I just printed out my lens focal calibration chart and will see if I need adjustment but not sure if that's the culprit or not. ...not sure if that helps and maybe I'm just wondering along side you?

[Manfred M]

Nick - let me give you some of my thoughts.

First of all, you are shooting a Fujifilm FinePix SL1000; a superzoom and all three shots were taken at 215mm, which is as far as the zoom action will go (1200mm FF equivalent). I don't know if the images you are showing are cropped or full frame.

1. Motion blur - There will be motion blur for sure; based on the shutter speeds you are using. Even with image stabilization (I assume it has been turned on?) this is only going to help so much. I don't know how effective your stabilization system is, but the longer the focal length, the less effective it is likely to be. You are hand holding. I would not consider using anything less than around 1/750th sec; and higher if I could.

2. Your too far away from your subject - to quote the late Robert Capa; "if your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough". While the camera does support long focal lengths there are too many issues, from camera shake introducing motion blur, lens issues (softness at the long end is quite common), atmospheric issues (density changes in the air due to thermal gradients are far more of an issue with long focal lengths). Try to get closer and shoot more reasonable focal lengths. I'd say you'd be doing well to stay under 600mm FF equivalent to see if that does anything for you.

At 1200mm FF equivalent, your depth of field will be razor thin. If your autofocus has made the "wrong" selection or is off a bit, your image will be soft.

3. Equipment limitations - While a lot of people will tell you it's the photographer, not the camera that creates great images, there is some truth to that, BUT not if you are getting into the extreme type of shooting you are. A superzoom lens with a 50x zoom factors will have a lot of design tradeoffs made to get you that much magnification. This usually means you have to live with a degree of distortion, some aberrations and some level of softness. I expect that some of the softness you are seeing is due to the lens itself.

4. Technique - I don't know how you are holding your camera; but frankly at the focal length you are shooting at, this becomes critical. I shoot using a tripod whenever it is practical to do so. In my view that is one reason my shots are sharp. I also tend to use fairly good lenses that are sharp.

I rarely use complex focusing techniques, but tend to use a focus and recompose strategy for any subjects that are not moving too much. I try to focus on the eye closest to the camera on my people and animal shots. I don't know if your camera lets you do some of these techniques, but they work well for me.

Just as a bit of an aside. My first digital camera was a point & shoot (3x zoom), when that became a liability (i.e. I was being often being hampered in my ability to get the shot I wanted to get by equipment, rather than my photographic skills), I moved up to a superzoom, a crop-frame consumer DSLR and finally to a full-frame pro level DSLR.

[Nicks Pics]

Nick - let me give you some of my thoughts.

First of all, you are shooting a Fujifilm FinePix SL1000; a superzoom and all three shots were taken at 215mm, which is as far as the zoom action will go (1200mm FF equivalent). I don't know if the images you are showing are cropped or full frame.

1. Motion blur - There will be motion blur for sure; based on the shutter speeds you are using. Even with image stabilization (I assume it has been turned on?) this is only going to help so much. I don't know how effective your stabilization system is, but the longer the focal length, the less effective it is likely to be. You are hand holding. I would not consider using anything less than around 1/750th sec; and higher if I could.

2. Your too far away from your subject - to quote the late Robert Capa; "if your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough". While the camera does support long focal lengths there are too many issues, from camera shake introducing motion blur, lens issues (softness at the long end is quite common), atmospheric issues (density changes in the air due to thermal gradients are far more of an issue with long focal lengths). Try to get closer and shoot more reasonable focal lengths. I'd say you'd be doing well to stay under 600mm FF equivalent to see if that does anything for you.

At 1200mm FF equivalent, your depth of field will be razor thin. If your autofocus has made the "wrong" selection or is off a bit, your image will be soft.

3. Equipment limitations - While a lot of people will tell you it's the photographer, not the camera that creates great images, there is some truth to that, BUT not if you are getting into the extreme type of shooting you are. A superzoom lens with a 50x zoom factors will have a lot of design tradeoffs made to get you that much magnification. This usually means you have to live with a degree of distortion, some aberrations and some level of softness. I expect that some of the softness you are seeing is due to the lens itself.

4. Technique - I don't know how you are holding your camera; but frankly at the focal length you are shooting at, this becomes critical. I shoot using a tripod whenever it is practical to do so. In my view that is one reason my shots are sharp. I also tend to use fairly good lenses that are sharp.

I rarely use complex focusing techniques, but tend to use a focus and recompose strategy for any subjects that are not moving too much. I try to focus on the eye closest to the camera on my people and animal shots. I don't know if your camera lets you do some of these techniques, but they work well for me.

Thanks for your thoughts and many good points. I shall experiment with higher shutter speeds and F. stops. I guess this camera might just have cheap glass or be showing blur at the long reach. The photos I posted are crops of much larger (16 mp) images at 100% original resolution.

Getting closer to the subjects would no doubt improve my photos, but in all my experience shooting wildlife it seems hard enough to get close enough with 1200 mm. When I took the cardinal picture above it felt like a pretty rare encounter that I was this close to a wild bird and not scaring it away, and that was just a normal, full body bird shot. (the above image is just a crop of it). It makes me wonder at how people are doing this with less than half my "reach".

But what does 1200 mm equiv mean? It sounds like a technically sound measurement, but there is an actual inconsistency.
The super zoom shoots RAW in a 4x3 ratio, whereas DSLRs use 3x2. So what does "equivalent" mean? Below are two examples of how it could be taken, but I'm not sure which is accurate. Do you have any thoughts?

[Nicks Pics]

When I've had my sigma 150-500mm lens on my d7100, I've never got a crisp shot. At a distance and shooting to the extreme focal length of 400+ my shots look just like yours. I just printed out my lens focal calibration chart and will see if I need adjustment but not sure if that's the culprit or not. ...not sure if that helps and maybe I'm just wondering along side you?

You are not making me want to buy that sigma for my D7100

I wonder if a superzoom can be focus calibrated?

[Manfred M]

Getting closer to the subjects would no doubt improve my photos, but in all my experience shooting wildlife it seems hard enough to get close enough with 1200 mm. When I took the cardinal picture above it felt like a pretty rare encounter that I was this close to a wild bird and not scaring it away, and that was just a normal, full body bird shot. (the above image is just a crop of it). It makes me wonder at how people are doing this with less than half my "reach".

I don't do a lot of wildlife shooting, just because I don't get into areas where it is prevalent often enough, but when I do, I thoroughly enjoy myself.

I've found that getting those fantastic wildlife shots takes a combination being in a place where they live, luck (i.e. you have to be there when the animal happens to show up as well), skill (when one shows up, one has to have the presence of mind to get the appropriate camera settings and take the shot) and above all patience. It helps to be in an area where animals are used to human presence; they tend to let one get closer than getting into areas that see few human visitors. Sitting around and waiting certainly works. If you are constantly moving about, you make noise and scare them off.

We spent most of a week in Etosha National Park, in Namiba a few years ago. We had to stay in our car (a 4x4 truck, really). We found pulling up at a waterhole, tuning of the engine and sitting around for 30 or 40 minutes made for wonderful game viewing and photography.

We also had the opportunity to get into the eastern part of the park that had been closed to tourism for over half a century. We saw very few animals at all, in spite of it being a large area. Once we crossed over to the western part, where the animals were used to cars and people the animals got a lot closer to us, and this made for some fine photography.

But what does 1200 mm equiv mean? It sounds like a technically sound measurement, but there is an actual inconsistency.
The super zoom shoots RAW in a 4x3 ratio, whereas DSLRs use 3x2. So what does "equivalent" mean? Below are two examples of how it could be taken, but I'm not sure which is accurate. Do you have any thoughts?

Aspect ratios have nothing to do with the "FF" equivalence. It's really all about the amount of magnification that a lens of a specific focal length would provide on a full-frame camera. So what FujiFilm is saying is that if you put a 1200mm lens on a full frame camera it would produce a final, uncropped image that has been magnified the same amount as an uncropped image taken at the 50x zoom setting on your FinePix SL1000. The aspect ratio would be different; 4:3 versus 3:2.

[dje]

I wonder if a superzoom can be focus calibrated?

I wouldn't think so Nick.

I can only agree with all the other comments. I think the most serious limitation could be the softness of the lens but it could be a combination of all the factors mentioned. You are really pushing the limits of your camera with this sort of photography.

These images can probably be improved with sharpening and noise reduction when processing the raw files.

Dave

[Saorsa]

Getting closer to the subjects would no doubt improve my photos, but in all my experience shooting wildlife it seems hard enough to get close enough with 1200 mm.

Learn to be calm, very calm and sneaky. Don't approach or look directly at the subject. Consider yourself a grazing animal and move around getting a bit closer over time. Observe their behavior. Dragonflies, for example, will return to the same perch. Some birds will as well.