Snap shots Opinions on keeping or the discard heap

[tbob]

I was scouting a new area on the weekend. Drove around a corner to find this cabin just across a small stream. As I wanted to get the raven on the roof, I had to just grab the camera, quickly set the aperture so I could hand hold the 70-200 mm with a 2X extender and shoot. No time, I thought, to get the tripod set up. Which I now regret. Quite a cloudy early morning to try this sort of thing.

For image two I really should have gone back for the tripod. I had time, just not the inclination

Just wondering about opinions on whether the two are keepers.

[Geoff F]

I think I would forget about the first shot. There is a lot of out of focus foreground so I was originally thinking about suggesting a crop and going to a panoramic size; but the roof isn't totally sharp, particularly the left side.

The second image looks better to me so I think that one is a keeper.

[royent]

I would say it depends on whether you can go back and repeat them. in which case I would hang on until the opportunity exists
if you can't go back, then keep them
Roy

[tbob]

Thanks for the opinions, much as I thought. The site is about an hour away, I fully intend on going back as there are a number of sites I want to revisit. Autumn will be a good option

Not using the tripod was a real bone head move. There really is not any way to shoot in low light with the long lens and a decent depth of field without good support. Why I even try is beyond me; I have enough failures to prove the point.

[Shadowman]

Thanks for the opinions, much as I thought. The site is about an hour away, I fully intend on going back as there are a number of sites I want to revisit. Autumn will be a good option

Not using the tripod was a real bone head move. There really is not any way to shoot in low light with the long lens and a decent depth of field without good support. Why I even try is beyond me; I have enough failures to prove the point.

Under the lighting conditions handholding shouldn't have been the issue, also just modifying your handholding technique could've gotten you decent enough capture without too much camera shake.

[JBW]

You've gotta be able to do something with the sky in #2

[tbob]

Under the lighting conditions handholding shouldn't have been the issue, also just modifying your handholding technique could've gotten you decent enough capture without too much camera shake.

I wish I had as much confidence in my skills as you do. Unfortunately; bitter experience has taught me not to trust the little voice that says "Leave the tripod in the vehicle, you can do this". 90% of the time I can pull it off; I have done a tonne of hand holding shots over the years. However there is nothing worse than coming back to find a good shot wrecked by a bit of camera shake. And given the low light and an effective 400 mm lens, highly unlikely that my skills are good.

[tbob]

You've gotta be able to do something with the sky in #2

I suspect you are referring to the noise and coarse granularity? I did try to reduce it, ended up being too flat. Basically a problem with being over processed (a problem with the entire image really). I am glad you caught it because it concerned me. Having it verified as an issue reinforces my gut feeling to dump the image.

[AlwaysOnAuto]

Could you have used the car as an impromptu tripod?
Maybe carry a small bean bag to toss on the fender or hood to rest the camera on while shooting.

[lovelife65]

#1 too much softness/out of focus.
#2 I do like... even with the "flaws" pointed out. Maybe get rid of a tad bit of the sky?

[Manfred M]

Trevor - when I look at the metadata associated with your shots; the first one is take at a 400mm focal length. Good luck with that one with anything other than a solid tripod. The second one is shot at 70mm, so not as much of a challenge. I've found that a crumpled up jacket sitting on the hood of a car makes for a reasonably steady way of stabilizing a camera at those wider focal lengths.

That being said, I find the crop a bit tight on the first shot, so you can get away with a bit shorter focal length, but you will definitely still be in the tripod required range.

[tbob]

This one of the same scene is still hand held, a more reasonable speed and focal length for the situation once I got over the initial frenzy to get a shot before the raven left, in fact it's mate showed up so patience rewarded

[xpatUSA]

I wish I had as much confidence in my skills as you do. Unfortunately; bitter experience has taught me not to trust the little voice that says "Leave the tripod in the vehicle, you can do this". 90% of the time I can pull it off; I have done a tonne of hand holding shots over the years. However there is nothing worse than coming back to find a good shot wrecked by a bit of camera shake. And given the low light and an effective 400 mm lens, highly unlikely that my skills are good.

In that first shot, the whole image seems quite soft but I don't see classic shake 'artifacts' (double edges and such). Worth saving.

There is an app that is quite good at saving soft shots and even shaky shots. It's called Piccure+, not expensive but there is some doubt as to it's current availability.

Ran your post through one time (cloned out the back lit gap inside):



Another way is to open a non-parametric app where you can do something twice or more, such as FastStone Viewer, and apply a wide-ish radius but low amount USM (say 3.3 and 7); then apply a small radius and larger amount USM (say 0.3 and 23). The effect is a good increase in micro-contrast without classic over-sharpening halos.

HTH.

[JBW]

I suspect you are referring to the noise and coarse granularity? I did try to reduce it, ended up being too flat. Basically a problem with being over processed (a problem with the entire image really). I am glad you caught it because it concerned me. Having it verified as an issue reinforces my gut feeling to dump the image.

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I meant that you had captured some beautiful tones, textures and shapes in the sky. If it was mine I'd try to find a way to enhance the sky and diminish the foreground.