Posted by Brian Phipps on January 23, 2009 at 10:04 AM
1D mkII
300+1.4
Iso800
1/640
F5.6
Handheld
Lightroom
Full frame
Thought it was about time someone put in a Jay image that wasn’t on the ground! The jays would wait in trees just above our heads awaiting food to be thrown out and we hoped it didn’t attract too many pigeons, which it always did and then we had temporarily distract them!
Posted by Jeroen Stel on January 23, 2009 at 11:04 AM
Lovely pose of this Jay and the perch with that moss works well too.
Might want to clone out the distracting OOF branches and get rid of the noise in the BG.
Well done getting this wary species.
Greetings,
Jeroen Stel
Posted by Danny Green on January 23, 2009 at 11:34 AM
Hello Brian
Nice pose on the Jay but I don't understand the techs why 800 ISO the MK 11 is crap at this high ISO and there is nothing you can do to bring it back, when you blow it up to hundred percent the quality is shocking, why not use a tripod and shoot at slower speeds and lower iso settings, for me it just doesn't make any sense. OK your success rate will be lower but at least the final image would be top quality. I have noticed a lot of people using this practice and for me it is a bad signal to put to people just starting out.
Danny
Posted by Ben Simmonds on January 23, 2009 at 12:23 PM
Harsh words but true Danny, if its worth going out you shouldnt be without your tripod, a hide with the right foods especially acorns near a wood will attract Jays in short time. If you get into the right practices initially they will stick and success will be high i have found this having used a 100-400mm handheld for a while alot of my images looked fine at this size but at 100% they were not sharp, as soon as i used the 500mm with a tripod things are so much better.
A jay in a tree!!!! Looks good to me,it was a dull day so 800 was needed!!and as for those pigeons!!!!!!!
Cheers
Craig
www.craigchurchill.co.uk
Posted by Brian Phipps on January 23, 2009 at 1:49 PM
Ben/Danny,
This not a woodland, the site in question you wouldn’t be allowed to put hides up, a tripod is not ideal in this particular area of the site you are on a narrow asphalt path with people walking by you, when you are lying down flat eye level on a bean bag and producing the green mush images I’ve read comments about, you constantly have to get up and get out the way, my iso was on 800 as the jays would be in front of you on the floor, seconds later up in a low tree so you have to get up quick, then back down again, if I could have used a tripod it would have been a hindrance big time, it was very dull the day and almost snowing if I remember rightly hence the iso, which if the light was that bad again I would use the same.
You don’t need to attract them with acorns, wear camo or anything, they look out for you! A 500mm would be good there - but when you have 4 Jays all under minimum focusing distance as they are that tame you got a bit of a problem, (as Craig found out) this area there are trees and bushes in the background so not really an option of moving food back further.
Saying that there are other areas we have fed the Jays that a tripod can and has been used, and shutter speeds/Iso lowered, just so happened that I posted a different image from alternative area.
Well I can only judge on what I am looking at, and the image looks very good to my eyes,800iso or not! So I don't really see that the techs are an issue here, if the image looks clean and sharp then fine, and it certainly ticks those box'es.So well done Brian,nice to see you posting an image young'un!!!
Stewart........... :wavy:
Posted by David Kjaer on January 23, 2009 at 3:00 PM
Hi Brian
Nice image - like Steward at this size the file looks quite clean to me. Having used the 1D MkII in the past for 3 years plus I shot many images at 800iso and although at 100% there is quite visible noise in the file it will still print quite well as I have had many images published with these techs and no noise reduction applied so it certainly ain't 'crap'. With my MkII I always aimed to shoot at 400iso or less but at the risk of losing the 'shot' I would crank it up to 800iso without hesitation!
David
Posted by Lee Newman on January 23, 2009 at 3:43 PM
I like the way the Jay & its perch are in line with each other, nice background too.
A good looking image.
Lee
Posted by Brian Phipps on January 23, 2009 at 3:50 PM
I mis-read Dannys last line, so I`ll address it as I think, other peoples views may differ.
From Danny’s first post......Quote..."I have noticed a lot of people using this practice and for me it is a bad signal to put to people just starting out"
Bad practice? I don’t think bad practice is addressing a changing light and stability situation by raising the iso to enable sufficient shutter speed, then running through a noise reduction software to reduce as much of the noise as possible, if needed.
I would have no problems either doing it again and again and advising people to do the same if need be, Its not bad practice for new comers to be told that, its part and parcel of making good of a poor situation.
I too have had many images published and continue to do so shot with the 1D mkII on 800 iso, including last weeks Shooting Times cover (iso800 Just checked), I would soon be told by publishers if my images were too noisy, haven`t yet.
Canon spent millions developing this camera, which is arguably the best camera they have ever produced, part of this was to enable people to shoot at high iso.......and I’m one of them and always will be….
Posted by Bob Hastie on January 23, 2009 at 4:52 PM
Danny
Although 800 iso from a Mk11 may look poor at 100% (I wouldn't know, I've never used one) in my opinion the point here is that this shot was presented at 720 pixels on the internet and to my eye looks perfectly fine.
As to the use of using high iso settings sending a bad signal to people just starting out, I think to a beginner returning home with a card full of sharp shots rather than a few sharp shots amoungst a load of soft ones is far more encouraging.
By the way Brian... nice shot, hope we get a few more like this tomorrow
Bob
Posted by John Robinson on January 23, 2009 at 5:20 PM
Hi Brian The shot looks fine to me. Maybe a little space (more canvas)on the right would help but thats minor.
I have my camera set on 640 all the time and often use 800. Without any sharpening or extra contrast set on the camera the results are fine. And thats with a rubbishy old Nikon D200 !!!
I'd sooner have the highr shutter speed than a bit of noise to be honest and its the picture content thats important to me.
Just my ha'peth .
JohnR
Posted by Danny Green on January 23, 2009 at 6:35 PM
Hello Brian
Ok you make a fair comment but even at this small size the image looks grainy, so I can't understand why you bother because you can get sharpe shots at 1/125 no problem even with fast moving subjects like Jays. I can understand using high ISO settings for say badgers when you are really shooting in low light because you don't have much choice. Just making what I consider a valid point or can't you do that nowdays, where has all the freedom gone
Danny
Posted by John Robinson on January 23, 2009 at 7:17 PM
Danny
I have just saved this image( hope Brian doesn't mind ) and blown it up on the pc, and to be really honest I have posted pictures with a hell of a lot more noise than this one has and not a word has been said I think its fine to make valid points as you put it, but maybe there is a gentler way of doing it . If I had just bought a camera and then someone said it was crap on a forum I would start to worry a bit. On a pension you know !! I think I,m going back to film. 400 asa ecktachrome ! Now that was noise !!!
Cheers
JohnR
I think it is bit sad that some one of Danny's ability, is questioning a perfectly valid technique,and as I said before this picture is clean and sharp,and I only feel able to judge an image,by looking at what I have before me,if the techs had said that it was shot at 200ISO would you still be questioning it Danny?Under the circumstances that this image was shot at the result IMHO is excellent.Constructive critique is what we want......
Stewart............
Nice to see a Jay other than on the ground on “manicured” grass.
The detail, composition etc. are all excellent, but to be honest I do think that this shot lacks sparkly/life. By that I mean, that the quality of light which is implied here, isn’t reflected with the shadows/highlights I would expect to see. In other words the poor light that you say it was take in, is reflected in the final image after Photoshop processing.
Danny, a word to the wise, don’t alwayswrite what you honestly think. It’s a bit like sticking your head above the parapet, as invariably it will get shot off. For what its worth, you are 100% right, drop the ISO and you would have still had a more than even chance of getting this image. There is an old saying “No light, no point”, always worth bearing in mind.
Danny, keep writing what you think, just be circumspect as to where you write, as some want such comments, but others don’t. There have been over 200 viewings of this post, and I would suggest that not all of these are from “experienced” photographers, but from those who are starting out and wish to learn. Any comment that constructively questions an image, is to be valued, everyone can become blinkered in their approach, so its good to have a wake up call.
Posted by David Kjaer on January 24, 2009 at 6:51 AM
Danny/Ray
I don't think anyone is 100% right - you make an informed decision and act on it and if you are pleased with the outcome then all is well.
If many of the past and present entrants of 'Wildlife Photographer of the Year' had taken your advice we wouldn't have seen many of the breath taking images that this competition has produced and the various winners would not have enjoyed their success.
I agree that the lower the iso the better the file but to discourage the use of higher iso in such a strong way is I feel also wrong as the most important part of an image for me is it's content and not the file quality. That is not to say the file quality isn't important of course it is but if there is a risk of not capturing your image then I would always go for content over improved quality. It depends what you want from your photography and if you get both it's a bonus!
David
Posted by Ben Simmonds on January 24, 2009 at 7:18 AM
Theres nothing wrong with a heated debate everybody's got an opinion and i think its great we have this forum so people can be honest, i went to a local camera club for 2 years and was always frustrated that i never got constructive critisism i believe it is the best way to improve your photography, if somebody says something then i always takie it into consideration when im next out.
Danny is a professional and is speaking from that viewpoint and he is right that a large image blown up to 100% with alot of noise and possibly not pin sharp will not make the grade when it comes to top class image library's however if you just shoot for yourself or local competitions etc then this wont be such a problem.
I think its great we can all learn so much here i know i am.
Posted by John Robinson on January 24, 2009 at 7:19 AM
Absolutely nothing wrong in the slightest in saying what you think of an image - thats what we're on this forum for isn't it.?
But- there's a sympathetic way of doing it.
John Robinson
Posted by Brian Phipps on January 24, 2009 at 3:03 PM
Hi Ray,
Just a quick note to reply to sentence in a above post you made to Danny, which was to do with the image.
"You say...... For what its worth, you are 100% right, drop the ISO and you would have still had a more than even chance of getting this image. There is an old saying “No light, no point”, always worth bearing in mind"
Well unfortunately not in my case, I shake too much, always have, I couldn’t have dropped the iso, I know what speeds I can hand hold at, and with no way of steadying myself at that time, like I said before I done what I had to do, I use a tripod as much as possible like all people and a monopod (if I every get it back before Bob Hastie moves to Mull you lucky B...........)
No Light no Point....unfortunately this doesn’t apply to me either, my part time Photography Job,( I won’t go into details, for those who don’t know) very often requires me to take pictures in very low light, or dismal conditions, with no chance of cancelling to re-schedule, the magazine I write monthly features for wouldn’t be happy to see my images constantly in perfect light and I live in Great Britain which dosen`t help matters!
One thing you mention "don’t always write what you honestly think" I agree there completely, if many of us did that just think of how many people could end up with egg on there face
Discussion
21 replies300+1.4
Iso800
1/640
F5.6
Handheld
Lightroom
Full frame
Thought it was about time someone put in a Jay image that wasn’t on the ground! The jays would wait in trees just above our heads awaiting food to be thrown out and we hoped it didn’t attract too many pigeons, which it always did and then we had temporarily distract them!
Might want to clone out the distracting OOF branches and get rid of the noise in the BG.
Well done getting this wary species.
Greetings,
Jeroen Stel
Nice pose on the Jay but I don't understand the techs why 800 ISO the MK 11 is crap at this high ISO and there is nothing you can do to bring it back, when you blow it up to hundred percent the quality is shocking, why not use a tripod and shoot at slower speeds and lower iso settings, for me it just doesn't make any sense. OK your success rate will be lower but at least the final image would be top quality. I have noticed a lot of people using this practice and for me it is a bad signal to put to people just starting out.
Danny
A jay in a tree!!!! Looks good to me,it was a dull day so 800 was needed!!and as for those pigeons!!!!!!!
Cheers
Craig
www.craigchurchill.co.uk
This not a woodland, the site in question you wouldn’t be allowed to put hides up, a tripod is not ideal in this particular area of the site you are on a narrow asphalt path with people walking by you, when you are lying down flat eye level on a bean bag and producing the green mush images I’ve read comments about, you constantly have to get up and get out the way, my iso was on 800 as the jays would be in front of you on the floor, seconds later up in a low tree so you have to get up quick, then back down again, if I could have used a tripod it would have been a hindrance big time, it was very dull the day and almost snowing if I remember rightly hence the iso, which if the light was that bad again I would use the same.
You don’t need to attract them with acorns, wear camo or anything, they look out for you! A 500mm would be good there - but when you have 4 Jays all under minimum focusing distance as they are that tame you got a bit of a problem, (as Craig found out) this area there are trees and bushes in the background so not really an option of moving food back further.
Saying that there are other areas we have fed the Jays that a tripod can and has been used, and shutter speeds/Iso lowered, just so happened that I posted a different image from alternative area.
Craig
www.craigchurchill.co.uk
Stewart........... :wavy:
Nice image - like Steward at this size the file looks quite clean to me. Having used the 1D MkII in the past for 3 years plus I shot many images at 800iso and although at 100% there is quite visible noise in the file it will still print quite well as I have had many images published with these techs and no noise reduction applied so it certainly ain't 'crap'. With my MkII I always aimed to shoot at 400iso or less but at the risk of losing the 'shot' I would crank it up to 800iso without hesitation!
David
A good looking image.
Lee
From Danny’s first post......Quote..."I have noticed a lot of people using this practice and for me it is a bad signal to put to people just starting out"
Bad practice? I don’t think bad practice is addressing a changing light and stability situation by raising the iso to enable sufficient shutter speed, then running through a noise reduction software to reduce as much of the noise as possible, if needed.
I would have no problems either doing it again and again and advising people to do the same if need be, Its not bad practice for new comers to be told that, its part and parcel of making good of a poor situation.
I too have had many images published and continue to do so shot with the 1D mkII on 800 iso, including last weeks Shooting Times cover (iso800 Just checked), I would soon be told by publishers if my images were too noisy, haven`t yet.
Canon spent millions developing this camera, which is arguably the best camera they have ever produced, part of this was to enable people to shoot at high iso.......and I’m one of them and always will be….
Although 800 iso from a Mk11 may look poor at 100% (I wouldn't know, I've never used one) in my opinion the point here is that this shot was presented at 720 pixels on the internet and to my eye looks perfectly fine.
As to the use of using high iso settings sending a bad signal to people just starting out, I think to a beginner returning home with a card full of sharp shots rather than a few sharp shots amoungst a load of soft ones is far more encouraging.
By the way Brian... nice shot, hope we get a few more like this tomorrow
Bob
I have my camera set on 640 all the time and often use 800. Without any sharpening or extra contrast set on the camera the results are fine. And thats with a rubbishy old Nikon D200 !!!
I'd sooner have the highr shutter speed than a bit of noise to be honest and its the picture content thats important to me.
Just my ha'peth .
JohnR
Ok you make a fair comment but even at this small size the image looks grainy, so I can't understand why you bother because you can get sharpe shots at 1/125 no problem even with fast moving subjects like Jays. I can understand using high ISO settings for say badgers when you are really shooting in low light because you don't have much choice. Just making what I consider a valid point or can't you do that nowdays, where has all the freedom gone
Danny
I have just saved this image( hope Brian doesn't mind ) and blown it up on the pc, and to be really honest I have posted pictures with a hell of a lot more noise than this one has and not a word has been said I think its fine to make valid points as you put it, but maybe there is a gentler way of doing it . If I had just bought a camera and then someone said it was crap on a forum I would start to worry a bit. On a pension you know !!
Cheers
JohnR
Stewart............
The detail, composition etc. are all excellent, but to be honest I do think that this shot lacks sparkly/life. By that I mean, that the quality of light which is implied here, isn’t reflected with the shadows/highlights I would expect to see. In other words the poor light that you say it was take in, is reflected in the final image after Photoshop processing.
Danny, a word to the wise, don’t alwayswrite what you honestly think. It’s a bit like sticking your head above the parapet, as invariably it will get shot off. For what its worth, you are 100% right, drop the ISO and you would have still had a more than even chance of getting this image. There is an old saying “No light, no point”, always worth bearing in mind.
Danny, keep writing what you think, just be circumspect as to where you write, as some want such comments, but others don’t. There have been over 200 viewings of this post, and I would suggest that not all of these are from “experienced” photographers, but from those who are starting out and wish to learn. Any comment that constructively questions an image, is to be valued, everyone can become blinkered in their approach, so its good to have a wake up call.
I don't think anyone is 100% right - you make an informed decision and act on it and if you are pleased with the outcome then all is well.
If many of the past and present entrants of 'Wildlife Photographer of the Year' had taken your advice we wouldn't have seen many of the breath taking images that this competition has produced and the various winners would not have enjoyed their success.
I agree that the lower the iso the better the file but to discourage the use of higher iso in such a strong way is I feel also wrong as the most important part of an image for me is it's content and not the file quality. That is not to say the file quality isn't important of course it is but if there is a risk of not capturing your image then I would always go for content over improved quality. It depends what you want from your photography and if you get both it's a bonus!
David
Danny is a professional and is speaking from that viewpoint and he is right that a large image blown up to 100% with alot of noise and possibly not pin sharp will not make the grade when it comes to top class image library's however if you just shoot for yourself or local competitions etc then this wont be such a problem.
I think its great we can all learn so much here i know i am.
But- there's a sympathetic way of doing it.
John Robinson
Hi Ray,
Just a quick note to reply to sentence in a above post you made to Danny, which was to do with the image.
"You say...... For what its worth, you are 100% right, drop the ISO and you would have still had a more than even chance of getting this image. There is an old saying “No light, no point”, always worth bearing in mind"
Well unfortunately not in my case, I shake too much, always have, I couldn’t have dropped the iso, I know what speeds I can hand hold at, and with no way of steadying myself at that time, like I said before I done what I had to do, I use a tripod as much as possible like all people and a monopod (if I every get it back before Bob Hastie moves to Mull you lucky B...........)
No Light no Point....unfortunately this doesn’t apply to me either, my part time Photography Job,( I won’t go into details, for those who don’t know) very often requires me to take pictures in very low light, or dismal conditions, with no chance of cancelling to re-schedule, the magazine I write monthly features for wouldn’t be happy to see my images constantly in perfect light and I live in Great Britain which dosen`t help matters!
One thing you mention "don’t always write what you honestly think" I agree there completely, if many of us did that just think of how many people could end up with egg on there face
T