If Only I Could Focus ...

[CatherineA]

...then this could have been a nice photo. This Red-tailed Hawk let me take after photo after photo so I tried different settings. I came across him/her again a bit later in the walk when I turned a corner. The bird was closer then and I did get better photos than this - although lacking the interest of being bothered by the crow - but still, all of the photos turned out soft.

It was interesting to watch this bird and it wasn't until I looked at the photos at home on the computer that I saw that I had a series of images showing the hunting and capture of a hapless vole. From where I was standing it didn't like any drama had occurred.

[Shadowman]

Let's see more.

[Stagecoach]

Hi Catherine,

Focus is not the problem with this shot. Look at the hawks claw on the post and the crows beak, both sharp.

The 'blur' of the crows wing is caused by movement, shutter speed not fast enough, or possibly it is just outside the DOF.

The biggest problem is that it was underexposed, although this can be partially recovered in PP.



Edit : Considering you were on the lenses max focal length 357mm (2000mm, 35mm equiv) you did pretty good if handheld

[rpcrowe]

One of the advantages of many bridge cameras is the exceptional long focal lengths available. Conversely, one of the disadvantages of a bridge camera is the exceptionally long focal lengths available
Having such long focal lengths available, it is very tempting to use them even when we are shooting hand-held.
A good practice is to have a camera support with you and use that support.
A tripod is great but, even a monopod (correctly used) will help you get reasonably sharp imagery.
This shot is at 1/20 second using f/5.6 at ISO 400 with a focal length of 669mm equivalent. I used a monopod to support my Canon SX50 HS bridge camera.

[Manfred M]

Catherine - the exif data shows that your shutter speed was 1/640th sec. That is too slow to freeze a flapping wing. You should be at least double that, if possible.

The other issue is what Grahame has pointed out; shooting into the sky fools the light meter and it underexposes the shot. Try dialing in +1 eV in exposure compensation; that should brighten the sky up considerably. I believe your P900 has that functionality.

[CatherineA]

Thank you John, Grahame, Richard and Manfred.

John-The hunt scenes are very blurry and unexciting. At the end of the sequence there are two shots of the vole in the hawk's beak and seemingly looking directly at the camera - although I am sure it didn't see the camera. I know it's nature but they were sad shots and all my protein has been vegetable based since then.

Grahame, Richard and Manfred-Thank you very much for the pointers. I went back today armed with my tripod and new settings. The hawk wasn't at yesterday's spot when I got there but I decided to set myself up anyway and after a minute it flew down and perched itself and looked at me. Now that's obliging. Today I checked my histogram as I took the photos. I've wondered sometimes whether it matters that the histogram shows that, say, dark details are lost. Yesterday it wasn't the crows details I was after and in fact a silhouette would have looked good. Similarly, if the sky is boring I didn't think it mattered that details were lost - there weren't any to start with. But Grahame did make the photo look better so today I tried overexposing and minding the histogram. It made for a better photo, thank you for your help.

I have attached two photos. The first is from yesterday when I was closer to the bird than today. Comparing them brings the point home to me that getting closer to the subject sure helps. When I look at the histogram for yesterday's photo I am not sure exactly which parts of the photo correspond to which part of the graph (again, I'm wondering how much that lost data matters). My camera has flashing highlights to illustrate that but I don't have anything equivalent when viewing the histogram from my computer.

It was very difficult to focus on the bird's face with my tripod. I bought the cheapest one because I wasn't sure if I was going to enjoy photography. It's kind of obstreperous to set positions and when I press the button to take the shot it boings up and down such that I'm not sure that it has settled even after 10sec.

I certainly can't take a photo like the one Richard has even though I'm not as zoomed out. I couldn't remember your shutter speed when I was out and I thought that I was already using a slow speed given that it was a bird but turns out it was much faster than yours. Perhaps a lower ISO would have improved the shot. I don't have much choice wrt f/stops when I am zoomed out.

I really appreciate the help and time you have given. Thanks again.

[Stagecoach]

Hi Catherine,

Firstly, let me say this. For the camera you are using and the focal lengths (that show the distance your subject was) these are good images, and can easily be improved more with the most basic of PP.

Today I checked my histogram as I took the photos. I've wondered sometimes whether it matters that the histogram shows that, say, dark details are lost. Yesterday it wasn't the crows details I was after and in fact a silhouette would have looked good. Similarly, if the sky is boring I didn't think it mattered that details were lost - there weren't any to start with.

If the histogram is showing that dark details are lost and your aim is a silhouette of the bird against a 'good exposed and detailed' sky the priority when assessing the histogram would be that it is not bunched up at the right hand side indicating a 'blown' sky with loss of detail. I think you are understanding histograms ok.

But Grahame did make the photo look better so today I tried overexposing and minding the histogram. It made for a better photo, thank you for your help.

Your use of the word "overexposing" is unclear Catherine. I suspect you mean "increasing the exposure" (moving the histogram towards the right). Generally we think of overexposing as making the image brighter in camera than we want it or 'blowing' the bright detail from it.

I have attached two photos. The first is from yesterday when I was closer to the bird than today. Comparing them brings the point home to me that getting closer to the subject sure helps.

It sure does

When I look at the histogram for yesterday's photo I am not sure exactly which parts of the photo correspond to which part of the graph (again, I'm wondering how much that lost data matters). My camera has flashing highlights to illustrate that..........

The area of the steep peak corresponds to the sky tones and as can be seen the histogram does not reach the right side and the shot could have been taken at around 1 stop more. This would have aided in brightening the image in post to recover the birds detail with less risk of introducing noise. Their is no lost data in this shot and that is shown by the histogram just starting at the far left and not bunched up there.

It was very difficult to focus on the bird's face with my tripod. I bought the cheapest one because I wasn't sure if I was going to enjoy photography. It's kind of obstreperous to set positions and when I press the button to take the shot it boings up and down such that I'm not sure that it has settled even after 10sec.

If you are using fast shutter speeds it can be quite feasible to not lock the camera in position and just use the tripod as a support similar to a monopod.

I certainly can't take a photo like the one Richard has even though I'm not as zoomed out.

Yes you can with your camera. The reason Richard's shot looks good is subject, colour, lighting and correct exposure.

[CatherineA]

Thank you Grahame, you have been so generous with your time and help. No wonder I was reluctant to switch from 0 exposure compensation since I was associating that with overexposing or underexposing even if done for a good reason. Nice to have that basic sorted out.

[Stagecoach]

Thank you Grahame, you have been so generous with your time and help. No wonder I was reluctant to switch from 0 exposure compensation since I was associating that with overexposing or underexposing even if done for a good reason. Nice to have that basic sorted out.

You are welcome Catherine.

Nikons metering is excellent, especially matrix, and it handles many situations superbly but for situations such as your small bird in a scene with a large brighter background it biases itself towards the 'background' not knowing the bird is the important subject.

Edit : and I see you used Shutter Priority and Auto ISO for both, good choice

[Wavelength]

So far so good; i too have NikP900; i use telephoto end mostly for still objects; your crisis is my crisis too

[CatherineA]

Hi Grahame, Yes, some of the automated settings are giving good results and they are great for what I can learn. I can compare photos with exposure bracketing and look at the choices the camera makes when I set exposure compensation. With something like the hawk, which doesn’t fidget when it’s perched, I will try Aperture Priority to see what different results I can get.

I also plan to try manual focusing again but it’s fiddly on this camera - it’s done by rotating a dial. I dont think that I can get more detail with that hawk for example, but it offers 2x and 4x magnification so I will check it out if that hawk poses again.

I haven’t ventured out of matrix metering yet but I will try spot metering tonight when shooting the super moon.

[CatherineA]

Thanks for viewing and commenting Nandakumar! I’ve got hopes for the P900 giving some nice moon shots tonight.