[sawtooth235]

I can't tell if these are soft due to the PP or the lens itself.

Please comment on how the sharpnes stacks up to other similar images you have taken or seen.

Thanks,

Ray

[little laker]

They all look fine to me

[stevebrot]

Ummm...soft? I don't know what lens is involved or its focal length (fairly long tele?), but there is a lot involved when a picture turns out softer than you expect. Quality of light, lens resolution, lens contrast, accurate focus, camera motion, lighting, and sensor/film qualities all play a part. As for these pictures, here are my thoughts.

The top photo suffers from shallow depth of field as well as poor lighting. The critical parts of the subject (the areas around the eyes) are in deep shadow and are mildly out of focus. The highlight area above and to the left of the eye appears to be the only part of the picture that is actually in focus. That is the price one pays for long glass. The depth of field is often so shallow at usable apertures that attaining accurate focus is difficult.

I am not sure, but I think the second picture has the same problem. There is a portion on the near surface of the branch that appears sharper than the subject itself. Long lens + wide aperture --> shallow depth of field and a critical need to be sure that focus is accurate. The back-lighting (see below) may also be a contributing factor.

The third picture appears sharp to me, though there is not much punch. This is pretty typical for subjects that are both strongly back-lit and are in the shade. Two factors contribute to this: 1) The subject is generally underexposed and 2) the quality of light on the subject generally lends itself to a low contrast rendering. Fill flash is the most common solution, but is difficult to do when the subject is some distance away. Strong back-lighting may also generate lower contrast due to internal lens reflections (flare).

A quick survey of the various bird and wildlife photos submitting to this forum that have great snap and punch will show that most are taken in bright direct light or with flash or at least with indirect light without back-lighting. Tripods or some other camera/lens support are almost always part of the setup.

All said, taking good bird and wildlife photos is a challenge and a life-long learning experience. I have never been very good at it myself, but I do know a few of the rules:

1. Keep the sun at your back
2. Shoot early or late in the day
3. Use a tripod if possible
4. Avoid wide apertures and slow shutter speeds (The longer the lens, the more critical the need to ensure accurate focus, adequate depth of field, and to compensate for even small camera movements)

Have a good time!

Steve

[sawtooth235]

Steve and little laker,

Thanks for taking the time to comment.

Steve, your detailed post is much appreciated. Photo one was taken on a tripod with a 300mm lense looking up into the trees around dusk. Photos two and three were hand held with 200mm lense with teleconverter and without on the third. The Pelican kept moving around alot so some of the softness may be from subject movement.

I have also noticed that all of my exposures are under-exposed when using the in-camera metering system. When I rely on my old faithful Norwood Director incedent meter the exposure is right on.

Thanks for the help.

Ray