[rcn82]

Sigma 100-300 f/4

Two shots from my back yard. Both are handheld. Same subject but different crops/compositions. Both used Center weighted metering. Any tips from experienced telephoto users on how to get more "keepers"? It seems the auto focus "misses" every once in a while...AF.C vs One Shot ...etc.. Thanks for looking

ISO 400, 1/800 sec, f/5.6, 300mm


ISO 400, 1/250 sec, f/5.6, 300mm

[Ash]

Not an experienced telephotoer, but I can offer my comment that these are beautifully rendered, sharp telephoto bird shots. One problem only IMO: the composition of #2 - the off-centre arrangement of the sparrow isn't complemented well by the cluttering branches that don't offer much value to the image.

Otherwise lovely textures and perfect focusing. If you keep doing what you did for these, you should have plenty of keepers.

[rcn82]

Not an experienced telephotoer, but I can offer my comment that these are beautifully rendered, sharp telephoto bird shots. One problem only IMO: the composition of #2 - the off-centre arrangement of the sparrow isn't complemented well by the cluttering branches that don't offer much value to the image.

Otherwise lovely textures and perfect focusing. If you keep doing what you did for these, you should have plenty of keepers.

Thank you! Yes #2 I was not sure about the crop...I tried to incorporate the other bird into the background but I don't think I have the DOF to accomplish it.

[wallyb]

They are oversharpened. Considering the high resolution of the Sigma 100-300/4, I don't think it's necessary. You did a pretty good job of maintaining a non-distracting background, which can be hard especially in clumps of branches. However, there still are some distracting elements.

I would suggest for the future, maybe to try shooting "behind" the bird, through the branches, with the lens pointed toward, say, another building or a hill or something. Instead of being pointed towards the tree, with more branches behind the subject. Then just wait for the bird to strike a pose facing you (since he will usually be facing outwards towards the street/park/whatever).

I would also work on lowering the ISO and shooting wide open at f/4. Again, from what I've seen, this lens can handle it easily. A wider aperture will also give you a smoother background. Overall, a very good start in the world of birding!

[juu]

Both are nice sharp shots, I like them. The composition on #1 seems a bit too central to me. The composition on #2 seems disbalanced as the bird is on one side and looking completely out of the picture.

they are oversharpened

How can you tell this? I don't disagree, by any means, I'm just curious. I thought it was when you see could black or white lines contouring every subject, but I don't see that here.

I would suggest for the future, maybe to try shooting "behind" the bird, through the branches, with the lens pointed toward, say, another building or a hill or something. Instead of being pointed towards the tree, with more branches behind the subject. Then just wait for the bird to strike a pose facing you (since he will usually be facing outwards towards the street/park/whatever).!

Sorry, I'm not sure I'm following but it sounds interesting.

Are you saying one should be mindful what's behind the bird and try to have something else but the tree branches there?

I think it's that but sometimes I think you meant to walk around the tree and shoot the bird from behind it or maybe to focus slightly behind the bird to have more branches behind it and not before it sharp...

[wallyb]

How can you tell this? I don't disagree, by any means, I'm just curious. I thought it was when you see could black or white lines contouring every subject, but I don't see that here.

You are thinking of oversharpening in the context of the usage of an unsharp mask. I mean simple oversharpening. The noise of the photo becomes very pronounced and the edge brightness and definition of objects becomes unattractive.

Here is a random photo first with no sharpening applied, followed by an overly-USM'd version, then by a plain oversharpened version. These are oversimplified examples and don't convey the message as well as other photos might:

Are you saying one should be mindful what's behind the bird and try to have something else but the tree branches there?

Yes, that is what I mean. The other branches behind the subject are too close to it, and the closer an object is, the more in focus it is, even if not in the plane of precise focus. Changing your position and shooting with far-away background elements is preferable for less-busy pictures.

[juu]

You are thinking of oversharpening in the context of the usage of an unsharp mask. I mean simple oversharpening.

I only have Lightroom with the "sharpening" feature, which I always thought was the equivalent of the "unsharp mask". What do you mean by "simple oversharpening" - how do you do it in PP?

[rcn82]

They are oversharpened. Considering the high resolution of the Sigma 100-300/4, I don't think it's necessary. You did a pretty good job of maintaining a non-distracting background, which can be hard especially in clumps of branches. However, there still are some distracting elements.

I would suggest for the future, maybe to try shooting "behind" the bird, through the branches, with the lens pointed toward, say, another building or a hill or something. Instead of being pointed towards the tree, with more branches behind the subject. Then just wait for the bird to strike a pose facing you (since he will usually be facing outwards towards the street/park/whatever).

I would also work on lowering the ISO and shooting wide open at f/4. Again, from what I've seen, this lens can handle it easily. A wider aperture will also give you a smoother background. Overall, a very good start in the world of birding!

Thank you for your time! I agree they are oversharpened....I have done some research on the program I use (ACDSEE Pro) and there is unsharp mask in it...I was just using regular sharpening thinking it was the same. Unsharp mask produces much better results. I try to use the lowest ISO possible, the 1st shot could have been iso 200 or 100 but it was a brief moment of sunshine on an otherwise dark day, I will know for next time!

Also very good point on the background and where to stand. I was so focused on getting a sharp subject I was forgetting about the background.

[wallyb]

I only have Lightroom with the "sharpening" feature, which I always thought was the equivalent of the "unsharp mask". What do you mean by "simple oversharpening" - how do you do it in PP?

I don't use Lightroom so I don't know. In GIMP (free program), there is "Sharpen" and "Unsharp Mask".

Thank you for your time! I agree they are oversharpened....I have done some research on the program I use (ACDSEE Pro) and there is unsharp mask in it...I was just using regular sharpening thinking it was the same. Unsharp mask produces much better results. I try to use the lowest ISO possible, the 1st shot could have been iso 200 or 100 but it was a brief moment of sunshine on an otherwise dark day, I will know for next time!

"Better" is a relative term. Both regular sharpening and USM have their place in different kinds of images, and it is difficult to know which is which off the top of your head. Experimentation is key. Again, in the case of the Sigma 100-300, I don't think *any* kind of sharpening would be needed, due to the quality of the lens in the first place. And oversharpening will always make the noise much more apparent, even at the lowest ISO available on your camera.

[Ash]

Have a look at the effect your sharpening tool has on your image at 100% - the before/after difference will give you a good indication what levels are unacceptable and visually displeasing.
It's harder to judge this at the resolution you've posted here, but as it's coming through on close inspection here, it will be more than obvious at 100% on your screen.