2019 P52 - 2nd Qtr - Sandy(Skitterbug)

[skitterbug]

Three months of 2019 are past already. So onward into 2nd quarter of my 52 week project. I'm still working on post processing and formulating a decent work flow. I also decided to invest in an extender for the 100-400 lens. I'll be "focusing" (chuckle) on its use and results. I think we may finally have a break in our weather pattern! I'm ready for warmer temperature and green grass.

[skitterbug]

Week 14 - I used a Canon 100-400 lens with extender 1.4 to see what sort of results I could achieve. I find it odd that even though the metadata shown in Digital Professional 4, Lightroom or Affinity say that I am using Canon, the metadata that Smugmug posts is saying the lens is a Tamron lens. It isn't.

Settings used: ISO1250 - f/8 - 1/1000 at 560mm (883mm in 35mm)
Even though the focus was spot on his eyes/beak, I think the image is a bit soft.
Opinions are welcome!

Before Edit



After Edit

Mr. Cardinal

[Shadowman]

I have a few lenses that Lightroom doesn't seem to recognize, what I look for is the change that occurs when I apply the profile, usually it works out well. Nice efforts on these, did LR at least recognize the focal length?

[skitterbug]

I have a few lenses that Lightroom doesn't seem to recognize, what I look for is the change that occurs when I apply the profile, usually it works out well. Nice efforts on these, did LR at least recognize the focal length?

LR indicated an EF100-400mm lens and that the extender was included but it didn't give the brand. It did list the focal length correctly.
Checking about your question did open up another part of LR that I didn't realized was available. The little arrows to the right let me sort for those images that use this lens, etc. I'd never noticed this option before now! So I learned something today......

[Geoff F]

Was this auto focus or manual, Sandy? It looks to me as though the camera has focused on the closest leaves which have left the bird slightly behind that point. When possible, I prefer manual focus for this type of scene.

I have tried putting a 1.4x converter on my 150-600 lens but found it made the AF unreliable.

[skitterbug]

Hi Geoff - It was auto-focus since I was giving it a try to see what it could do. Digital Photo Pro shows the AF right on the beak and eyes. This cardinal will never sit still long enough for me to manually focus. I'll be using this combination for a bit to see if I can obtain sharper results. Wish me success!

[Shadowman]

LR indicated an EF100-400mm lens and that the extender was included but it didn't give the brand. It did list the focal length correctly.
Checking about your question did open up another part of LR that I didn't realized was available. The little arrows to the right let me sort for those images that use this lens, etc. I'd never noticed this option before now! So I learned something today......

One thing I like about Canon is that exif also shows distance to the subject.

[skitterbug]

One thing I like about Canon is that exif also shows distance to the subject.

Hi John - I also appreciate the information I can gleam from the exif data.

Other than the little budget Sony cameras from long ago, Canon is the brand of camera equipment that I've invested in. It would be interesting to explore other brands, but the expense curtails my enthusiasm for testing. Renting is an option but that is not convenient or handy for me to try.

The suggestions about the images I post also help! Thank you!

[skitterbug]

Week 15 - And maybe finally starting to get back into the mood of outside camera work! Spring seems to be making a return. The bullfrogs have come out of hibernation. It is good to be back outside enjoying the wildlife and foliage.

I used the 100-400 lens/extender 1.4 for this capture. Well, I took several but this one was the best of the lot.
Settings used: ISO400 - 1/800ss - f/8. If I remember correctly, I set the ISO to "auto" because the light seemed to be shifting continually.

Before Edit




After Edit
The Return of Mr. Bullfrog

[Urbanflyer]

Nice shots--also liked your bird reflected in the window that was in the mini-competition!

[skitterbug]

Nice shots--also liked your bird reflected in the window that was in the mini-competition!

Hi Judith - Thank you for your kind comments about my posted images!

[Shadowman]

Nicely captured, I like the first one best.

[skitterbug]

Nicely captured, I like the first one best.

Hi John - the first image before any edits? Maybe because of the way I cropped it? I wondered if I got "too close" or if I should have chosen a different type of crop. (square or 5x7)
Thanks!

[Geoff F]

The problem for me is all those out of focus stems in the foreground which are causing a distraction. But it was a difficult scene to start with. In the first image they aren't quite so noticeable. If they had been sharply in focus this would have been a stunning image.

I was looking at whether they could be cloned out, or at least reduced? Maybe possible if starting from the full size image but probably a lot of work.

[skitterbug]

The problem for me is all those out of focus stems in the foreground which are causing a distraction. But it was a difficult scene to start with. In the first image they aren't quite so noticeable. If they had been sharply in focus this would have been a stunning image.

I was looking at whether they could be cloned out, or at least reduced? Maybe possible if starting from the full size image but probably a lot of work.

Hi Geoff - Thanks for the feedback. I was focused on the bullfrog eye since he was the subject of interest. I'm still feeling my way around the new combination of lens plus extender.

In the edited image, I did do a bit of work to the broken off reeds that were close to his mouth but to fiddle with the rest would be too much, in my estimation. And I don't think the image would end up looking very natural. I have four bullfrogs that made it through the winter weather so I'll probably be after more photos of them.

[skitterbug]

So I felt a bit adventuresome and made a radical change to the bullfrog image. I'll be curious to see whether this is acceptable?

[Manfred M]

So I felt a bit adventuresome and made a radical change to the bullfrog image. I'll be curious to see whether this is acceptable?

The eyes definitely look sharp, but everything drops off quite quickly in front of and behind them. The shot would be more effective if the frog's features in front of the eyes (i.e. the mouth) were a bit sharper too. I see you were shooting at f/8. I suggest you try stopping down a bit more and focusing in front of the eyes just to see what that buys you in terms of image quality.

[skitterbug]

The eyes definitely look sharp, but everything drops off quite quickly in front of and behind them. The shot would be more effective if the frog's features in front of the eyes (i.e. the mouth) were a bit sharper too. I see you were shooting at f/8. I suggest you try stopping down a bit more and focusing in front of the eyes just to see what that buys you in terms of image quality.

Hi Manfred - I have a feeling that if I'd used only the 100-400 lens without the extension, it would have been sharp. BUT I am determined to make the combination lens/extension produce!

I'll work with your suggestion of stopping down and see if I can improve on the captures of this creature using the combo lens/extension.

Thank you!

[Geoff F]

I think you could have gone to F11 without getting too slow a shutter speed for that scene which would have helped; but larger zooms are as bad as macro lenses for giving a limited focus depth.

Your latest edit works OK and some people particularly like that soft all round blur to a background while the subject is sharply focused.

Alternatively, I suspect you can remove the out of focus stems while retaining the well focused ones by some careful cloning. Remember you can place a selection area close to vulnerable edges to prevent any 'cloning bleed' over the parts which have to be retained.

[skitterbug]

I think you could have gone to F11 without getting too slow a shutter speed for that scene which would have helped; but larger zooms are as bad as macro lenses for giving a limited focus depth.

Your latest edit works OK and some people particularly like that soft all round blur to a background while the subject is sharply focused.

Alternatively, I suspect you can remove the out of focus stems while retaining the well focused ones by some careful cloning. Remember you can place a selection area close to vulnerable edges to prevent any 'cloning bleed' over the parts which have to be retained.

Hi Geoff - The bullfrogs are not cooperating since they are still hiding in those faded stems. I haven't been able to find one in a suitable backdrop yet. <sigh> I have hopes for this 100-400 lens/Extender so I'll keep at it until I figure out what settings work best. Thanks for your advice and suggestions!