Well I'm new here and have to say that I'm new to photography. I have been a wildlife artist my entire life and like to think that I have an artistic eye to present eye pleasing work. That being said, I have been struggling with my photography and this is a strange feeling for me. I would love to get some advise from anyone here, however I do realize that just as there are trade secrets that must not be discussed in art. There is more than likely trade secrets that you will feel the need to not discuss in photography. I can appreciate this.
Here is a list of a few issues that I have ran into.
1)Overcast days - After researching this topic a bit and learning that this is a great time to snap shots due to the even flow of light. I have been stuggling. I find my lense surching for Auto focus to often and my shots are not cristal clear. (Example: Waterfowl shots in mid flight against the Grey Sky will have a fuzzy edge around the bird). My thought is that I dont have the right settings or gear. Here is my outfit (Olympus E-510, Olympus 70mm-300mm AF, f4.0-5.6. I shoot at 300mm almost all the time with the camera in the action sequence. ISO 400. WB-Cloudy.
2)I find that when I shoot in Raw format that my shots do not turn out as nice as when I shoot in JPEG. My guess is that in JPEG format the camera is smarter than I and is making the good decisions for me. Am I correct?
I have a lot more questions but htis will start things off.
Marc,,,,,,,,,,welcome to NPN. I think you will find that this community is more than willing to share their “trade secrets”. With a background in wildlife art, you probably already have an idea for the aesthetic look you are working toward and it sounds like you are seeking advice more on the tech side of things.
As for RAW vs JPEG,,,,,,,this is an often discussed topic and for me it boils down to a basic decision. Do I let the camera process the image or do I want to make those decisions later in post processing? All digital cameras capture a RAW image. The only difference is in the output format. If you do not want to spend the time processing, JPEG is the alternative, but it does take away a lot of the potential to optimize an image using the RAW file. Most cameras have the ability to output RAW and JPEG simultaneously for each image and starting out this may be the best alternative for you. Storage is so cheap these days that the cost of a few extra cards is well worth the price for the flexibility
RAW files come out of the camera fairly flat in both color and contrast and usually require some post processing. The beauty of RAW is that it is just that,,,,,,,the raw ingredients of the image, waiting for you to cook them to taste. JPEGS can be set to come out very punchy and crisp, but they’re pre-cooked to generic recipes that the camera imposes onto the capture. Once these are applied, the post processing options are limited. JPEG is also throwing out a lot of original image data that can never be recovered. That’s why the file size is so much smaller than a RAW file.
Shooting flying birds against an overcast sky is a difficult task. To get enough light and detail in the subject, the sky will go to complete white. For my money, early and late light are the best. A light overcast is also excellent as the sun gets higher.
I appreciate the advise. I like your cooking tips. This is a great way for me to understand the tech side of things. I know what my eye likes and can paint or sketch exactly what I have an image of in my mind, however the hand book on a #2 pencil is very short and easy to read if you catch my drift. Two rules of thumb. The harder you push the darker your lines will be and the lighter you push the lighter your lines will be. It's not quite that simple in photography. That sucks. Oh well. If it were that easy then the world would be overpopulated with fantastic photographers. I would love to know what you think of the lense that I have chose to use for wildlife photography. Keep in mind that I have a budget to keep to. After all I am a starving artist.
To clarify (I hope - feel free to ignore it if it's more confusing) what David said, a RAW file is purely a representation of the light captured by the camera - it doesn't even have any real color information. You need your RAW converter to process the file into something you can actually look at, and when you see one that doesn't look as good as a JPG, it's probably because of the default settings of the RAW conversion software. JPG conversion already has a bunch of settings that the camera makers think should be used - but of course most times isn't optimal.
As for the birds in flight, I'm not sure why you'd get a fuzzy edge if the entire shot isn't fuzzy. I wonder if it's because of sharpening of some kind, either in camera or the RAW converter. Maybe you could post an example?
Finally, for a lot of these kinds of topics, searching the forums on here can probably locate a lot of information, and let you ask more specific questions that will help you even more.
Fuzzy edges may also be caused by the relatively slow shutter speed, especially if the edge is a wing. If it is the head or body, that is probably a panning issue which can be corrected by practice.
With birds in flight, shooting against a grey, cloudy background will be the kiss of death for most images. You are fighting with a slow shutter speed, minimal contrast for the autofocus to work with and generally a blah background. For birds in flight, a nice blue sky gives an image with more impact. So how do you deal with contrast in blue skies? You have to wake up before the birds start chirping to get on location once they astart getting active. A low sun keeps the contrast to a minimum, can light from below, boosts the shutter speed over cloudy conditions and gives a nice color temperature in the image.
Noon flight shots against a clear blue sky will make white birds practically black , due to being lit from above, the really bright sky and out of control contrast.
Having said that, someone will probably point out counterexamples to this advice.
If you are doing landscapes, overcast skies will allow you to shoot all day. Be careful, though, with the skies since they can be pretty overpoweringly grey. The landscapes you see with clear blue skies are almost invariably shot in the morning or evening, sidelit with the rising/setting sun. Look at the images carefully and you'll see what I mean.
Jpeg vs RAW. Out of the camera, a properly shot JPEG will usually look better than the same shot as a RAW. That is because the JPEG has already been given some post-processing. But I can gaurantee that once you are comfortable with Photoshop (CS* or any version of Elements), your post-processed RAW images will look a lot better than the same images as a JPEG. Like anything else, there is a learning curve.
Just keep shooting and playing and things will improve quickly. Have fun!
I'm guessing that maybe your soft edges are cause by movement, either yours or the bird's, captured by a too slow shutter speed. A shutter speed of 1/1000 of a second will pretty much freeze the movement. You can get sharp pictures with a slower shutter speed, but the slower, the less likely that is. This means opening up your aperture (using a smaller f number) and increasing your sensor's sensitivity (using a higher ISO number) The brighter the light, the easier it is to optimize your settings. The downside to using a larger aperture is that it reduces your depth of field and you may not have all the bird in focus from front to back, giving fuzzy edges. Also, most lenses are at their sharpest when stopped down a notch or two, so shooting with the aperture wide open also means that the image may be a little less sharp. Increasing the ISO also increases the noise, making the image look grainy - this varies from camera to camera. It's all compromises. With practice, you'll learn to make the setting choices as second nature.
My favored settings for birds in flight are 1/1000 to 1/1250 at f5.6 (on an f2.8 lens. f8 may be a better setting for your lens which I'm guessing is f5.6 at 300mm) with the ISO set as needed to give me those settings, but I prefer not to shoot with the ISO higher than 400. On an overcast day, the lower light level might prevent these settings and maybe f2.8 and 1/250th of a second might be the appropriate settings for the proper exposure - the chances of getting a sharp image of a bird in flight are much reduced.
Your 300mm lens may be enough of a telephoto lens, especially if you are going after large birds that let you get fairly close. If you can't get close enough or if you are shooting small birds, you'll need a longer lens and you'll just have to go hungry.
If you post your pictures in the NPN Avian forum and ask for advice, I'm sure you'll get plenty. Photography may seem like magic sometimes, but most photographers don't hide their tricks like magicians.
You guys are great. This is more than I expected. I will post some pics as soon as I can find out how. I have been playing with the settings and have just came to grips with the fact that a overcast day at dawn or dusk is just not going to alow a clear shot on waterfowl in flight against the grey sky. Your right Buck. My lense is at 5.6 at 300mm. My shutter speed has been at roughly 800 to 1000 when I'm in the action mode. Havent found out how to change the shutter speed in that function. Not sure that I can. I think that my best shots are in Manual mode and shooting in 1/1000 or 1/1250 at ISO 400 and full zoom 300mm. F5.6 or slightly more.
Marcus - I'm not sure what you meant by "action" mode, but I'm wondering if you meant "Av" mode, or aperture priority. In that mode, you set the aperture (like f/5.6 or f/8) and the camera calculates and sets the shutter speed based on its meter.
David,
What I meant was the action burst mode (Sports) I thougth that it would be the best mode to shoot in for birds do to the fact that I could get a higher shutter speed and multipul shots quickly for wing movement. This setting does not allow me to change the shutter speed so I have been shooting in M mode or Manual for the quicker shutter speed and then learning how to read the meeter for the other settings. The faster shutter speed is much nicer for a more crisp edge on the subject.
As an artist you should appreciate the advantages of being in control and making your own creative decisions. It's true that the camera can automate a lot of the process but keep in mind it's doing so based on "lowest common denominator" logic.
To make your images stand out your best course of action is to take ownership of composition, exposure, and development (in digital terms: conversion from raw) decisions. There may be a steep learning curve involved but hey, how long did it take you to master painting?
If you plan to practice photography as an art, there are no shortcuts, but the rewards more than make up for the effort. There's a lot to learn and there's always a wonderful sense of discovery when you learn something new and master a new technique.
Thanks for all the advise guys. This place is new find for me and I've got to say that it's a great find. I need to sign upi so I can post pics on here for you all to see. I'm no professional by any means, but would love your oppinions about my shot. Part of the reason I took up photography was to be able to take the photograph and turn it into a painting or sketch.
Welcome Marc! As a "budding" photographer, you have found the best place to bloom. NPN is like Miracle Gro for Nature photogs! Will look forward to seeing your posts once you join up and jump in!
Welcome to the fray! You've been given some very good advice so I'm not going to toss in my $0.02 worth on the subject. I y recommend a couple of books from one of my teachers. John Shaw. His Nature Phoogrpahy book really clears up how a camera reads light and his Photoshop book rlly simplifies the post processing side.
Keep shooting RAW for all the reasos mentioned above and in time you'll find that dumb ol' camera will start doing what you want.
I hope to see your work as you progress and like Cathrine said, use the Miracle gro of NPN and the local groups. You'll be turning out the fruits and veggies you want soon.
Discussion
13 repliesHere is a list of a few issues that I have ran into.
1)Overcast days - After researching this topic a bit and learning that this is a great time to snap shots due to the even flow of light. I have been stuggling. I find my lense surching for Auto focus to often and my shots are not cristal clear. (Example: Waterfowl shots in mid flight against the Grey Sky will have a fuzzy edge around the bird). My thought is that I dont have the right settings or gear. Here is my outfit (Olympus E-510, Olympus 70mm-300mm AF, f4.0-5.6. I shoot at 300mm almost all the time with the camera in the action sequence. ISO 400. WB-Cloudy.
2)I find that when I shoot in Raw format that my shots do not turn out as nice as when I shoot in JPEG. My guess is that in JPEG format the camera is smarter than I and is making the good decisions for me. Am I correct?
I have a lot more questions but htis will start things off.
Regards,
Marc
As for RAW vs JPEG,,,,,,,this is an often discussed topic and for me it boils down to a basic decision. Do I let the camera process the image or do I want to make those decisions later in post processing? All digital cameras capture a RAW image. The only difference is in the output format. If you do not want to spend the time processing, JPEG is the alternative, but it does take away a lot of the potential to optimize an image using the RAW file. Most cameras have the ability to output RAW and JPEG simultaneously for each image and starting out this may be the best alternative for you. Storage is so cheap these days that the cost of a few extra cards is well worth the price for the flexibility
RAW files come out of the camera fairly flat in both color and contrast and usually require some post processing. The beauty of RAW is that it is just that,,,,,,,the raw ingredients of the image, waiting for you to cook them to taste. JPEGS can be set to come out very punchy and crisp, but they’re pre-cooked to generic recipes that the camera imposes onto the capture. Once these are applied, the post processing options are limited. JPEG is also throwing out a lot of original image data that can never be recovered. That’s why the file size is so much smaller than a RAW file.
Shooting flying birds against an overcast sky is a difficult task. To get enough light and detail in the subject, the sky will go to complete white. For my money, early and late light are the best. A light overcast is also excellent as the sun gets higher.
Best Regards,,,,,,,,David
I appreciate the advise. I like your cooking tips. This is a great way for me to understand the tech side of things. I know what my eye likes and can paint or sketch exactly what I have an image of in my mind, however the hand book on a #2 pencil is very short and easy to read if you catch my drift. Two rules of thumb. The harder you push the darker your lines will be and the lighter you push the lighter your lines will be. It's not quite that simple in photography. That sucks. Oh well. If it were that easy then the world would be overpopulated with fantastic photographers. I would love to know what you think of the lense that I have chose to use for wildlife photography. Keep in mind that I have a budget to keep to. After all I am a starving artist.
Regards,
Marc
To clarify (I hope - feel free to ignore it if it's more confusing) what David said, a RAW file is purely a representation of the light captured by the camera - it doesn't even have any real color information. You need your RAW converter to process the file into something you can actually look at, and when you see one that doesn't look as good as a JPG, it's probably because of the default settings of the RAW conversion software. JPG conversion already has a bunch of settings that the camera makers think should be used - but of course most times isn't optimal.
As for the birds in flight, I'm not sure why you'd get a fuzzy edge if the entire shot isn't fuzzy. I wonder if it's because of sharpening of some kind, either in camera or the RAW converter. Maybe you could post an example?
Finally, for a lot of these kinds of topics, searching the forums on here can probably locate a lot of information, and let you ask more specific questions that will help you even more.
With birds in flight, shooting against a grey, cloudy background will be the kiss of death for most images. You are fighting with a slow shutter speed, minimal contrast for the autofocus to work with and generally a blah background. For birds in flight, a nice blue sky gives an image with more impact. So how do you deal with contrast in blue skies? You have to wake up before the birds start chirping to get on location once they astart getting active. A low sun keeps the contrast to a minimum, can light from below, boosts the shutter speed over cloudy conditions and gives a nice color temperature in the image.
Noon flight shots against a clear blue sky will make white birds practically black
Having said that, someone will probably point out counterexamples to this advice.
If you are doing landscapes, overcast skies will allow you to shoot all day. Be careful, though, with the skies since they can be pretty overpoweringly grey. The landscapes you see with clear blue skies are almost invariably shot in the morning or evening, sidelit with the rising/setting sun. Look at the images carefully and you'll see what I mean.
Jpeg vs RAW. Out of the camera, a properly shot JPEG will usually look better than the same shot as a RAW. That is because the JPEG has already been given some post-processing. But I can gaurantee that once you are comfortable with Photoshop (CS* or any version of Elements), your post-processed RAW images will look a lot better than the same images as a JPEG. Like anything else, there is a learning curve.
Just keep shooting and playing and things will improve quickly. Have fun!
I'm guessing that maybe your soft edges are cause by movement, either yours or the bird's, captured by a too slow shutter speed. A shutter speed of 1/1000 of a second will pretty much freeze the movement. You can get sharp pictures with a slower shutter speed, but the slower, the less likely that is. This means opening up your aperture (using a smaller f number) and increasing your sensor's sensitivity (using a higher ISO number) The brighter the light, the easier it is to optimize your settings. The downside to using a larger aperture is that it reduces your depth of field and you may not have all the bird in focus from front to back, giving fuzzy edges. Also, most lenses are at their sharpest when stopped down a notch or two, so shooting with the aperture wide open also means that the image may be a little less sharp. Increasing the ISO also increases the noise, making the image look grainy - this varies from camera to camera. It's all compromises. With practice, you'll learn to make the setting choices as second nature.
My favored settings for birds in flight are 1/1000 to 1/1250 at f5.6 (on an f2.8 lens. f8 may be a better setting for your lens which I'm guessing is f5.6 at 300mm) with the ISO set as needed to give me those settings, but I prefer not to shoot with the ISO higher than 400. On an overcast day, the lower light level might prevent these settings and maybe f2.8 and 1/250th of a second might be the appropriate settings for the proper exposure - the chances of getting a sharp image of a bird in flight are much reduced.
Your 300mm lens may be enough of a telephoto lens, especially if you are going after large birds that let you get fairly close. If you can't get close enough or if you are shooting small birds, you'll need a longer lens and you'll just have to go hungry.
If you post your pictures in the NPN Avian forum and ask for advice, I'm sure you'll get plenty. Photography may seem like magic sometimes, but most photographers don't hide their tricks like magicians.
Thanks again for all your advise guys.
I really appreciate it.
Regards,
Marcus Flesher
What I meant was the action burst mode (Sports) I thougth that it would be the best mode to shoot in for birds do to the fact that I could get a higher shutter speed and multipul shots quickly for wing movement. This setting does not allow me to change the shutter speed so I have been shooting in M mode or Manual for the quicker shutter speed and then learning how to read the meeter for the other settings. The faster shutter speed is much nicer for a more crisp edge on the subject.
As an artist you should appreciate the advantages of being in control and making your own creative decisions. It's true that the camera can automate a lot of the process but keep in mind it's doing so based on "lowest common denominator" logic.
To make your images stand out your best course of action is to take ownership of composition, exposure, and development (in digital terms: conversion from raw) decisions. There may be a steep learning curve involved but hey, how long did it take you to master painting?
If you plan to practice photography as an art, there are no shortcuts, but the rewards more than make up for the effort. There's a lot to learn and there's always a wonderful sense of discovery when you learn something new and master a new technique.
Guy
Welcome to the fray! You've been given some very good advice so I'm not going to toss in my $0.02 worth on the subject. I y recommend a couple of books from one of my teachers. John Shaw. His Nature Phoogrpahy book really clears up how a camera reads light and his Photoshop book rlly simplifies the post processing side.
Keep shooting RAW for all the reasos mentioned above and in time you'll find that dumb ol' camera will start doing what you want.
I hope to see your work as you progress and like Cathrine said, use the Miracle gro of NPN and the local groups. You'll be turning out the fruits and veggies you want soon.