My first bird photo.

View image in gallery

[luftfluss]

Congrats on your first bird! Gulls are excellent subjects to practice on.

[bladerunner6]

Congrats on your first bird! Gulls are excellent subjects to practice on.

Any comments on the photo? Please feel free to be brutally honest.

Thanks.

[luftfluss]

Any comments on the photo? Please feel free to be brutally honest.

Thanks.

Well, it looks a bit soft. But that could be a) the lens is soft, b) you missed perfect focus ever so slightly, c) there was a slight amount of camera shake d) the process of downsizing and posting on this forum.

I don't know which of the above is the cause. But the gull is not horribly soft, just a little bit.

[bladerunner6]

Well, it looks a bit soft. But that could be a) the lens is soft, b) you missed perfect focus ever so slightly, c) there was a slight amount of camera shake d) the process of downsizing and posting on this forum.

I don't know which of the above is the cause. But the gull is not horribly soft, just a little bit.

I agree about the softness.

My first guess about the cause of that is the lens. I definitely used a budget lens for this.

Cosina (Phoenix, Vivitar, Promaster, Voightlander 100-400mm, f:4.5-6.7, AF Lens Reviews - Cosina Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

Thanks for the guidance, I appreciate it.

[ZombieArmy]

I agree about the softness.

My first guess about the cause of that is the lens. I definitely used a budget lens for this.

Cosina (Phoenix, Vivitar, Promaster, Voightlander 100-400mm, f:4.5-6.7, AF Lens Reviews - Cosina Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

Thanks for the guidance, I appreciate it.

One thing I've learned is that for a longer lens always assume it's your fault first, these things are incredibly prone to camera shake if you're not shooting at very high shutter speeds.

I'd say get some real controlled test shots in to determine if it's your lens or not.

[luftfluss]

I agree with ZombieArmy - even with shake reduction, long teles can be a handful. If I'm not in a position where I can use really good technique, I try to shoot 300mm+ lenses at 1/500s or faster.

Another point of consideration is that images born of "soft" lenses benefit from different processing than images from sharp lenses.

[bladerunner6]

Thanks for the input.

I will try a shorter exposure sometime.

Can someone please explain how I would process the imagine differently with a soft lens?

Thanks.

[luftfluss]

Thanks for the input.

I will try a shorter exposure sometime.

Can someone please explain how I would process the imagine differently with a soft lens?

Thanks.

What software are you using to process your images? Are you shooting RAW?

If this were my photo, I'd mask the seagull and apply a deconvolver like Adobe's Smart Sharpen or a plugin like Focus Magic. Maybe use a large "radius" with a small "amount", and then sharpen again with a small "radius" and a large "amount". I don't have a hard & fast rule or process about this, for me its all on a photo-by-photo basis.

Another issue is the lighting looks flat, and that is a situation which is not conducive to demonstrating detail.

[bladerunner6]

What software are you using to process your images? Are you shooting RAW?

If this were my photo, I'd mask the seagull and apply a deconvolver like Adobe's Smart Sharpen or a plugin like Focus Magic. Maybe use a large "radius" with a small "amount", and then sharpen again with a small "radius" and a large "amount". I don't have a hard & fast rule or process about this, for me its all on a photo-by-photo basis.

Another issue is the lighting looks flat, and that is a situation which is not conducive to demonstrating detail.

I use Elements 10 and I shoot in RAW.

I will revisit that photo at some point and see what I can do.

Thanks.

[luftfluss]

I use Elements 10 and I shoot in RAW.

I will revisit that photo at some point and see what I can do.

Thanks.

Yeah, I'd say its more important to shoot and get a feel for your gear's strengths and weaknesses and how to work with the light.