EOS-1D X Mark III
- Jan 29, 2011
Clearly not the place to ask the question....
Always good to ask questions and remind there are many aspects on birdphotography . I seem forgot that thing easy too.
More the wrong way to ask a question. If you had asked a simple unloaded non-judgemental question like: Hey guys, how sharp do you want your bird images to be? then you stand a chance of starting a good-natured discussion here. If you decide to provoke people by taking an initial stance of rubbishing sharpness, then you put people on the defensive and they ignore it because they don’t want to be forced into yet another on-line argument.
Beautiful blueish-silver color in the chaffinch. Well done!The next day after seeing my first Chaffinch for ages, a second one in a different location, plus a Longtailed Tit. They were close enough to show the detail. I have been trying to photo a Cetti's warbler for years but they are an inconspicuous tiny bird with a marvellous brief song but are usually invisible. Got one this morning far away and backlit, required a lot of processsing but the image means more to me than the other two. (R5/100-500).
View attachment 197032 View attachment 197033 View attachment 197034 View attachment 197035
Not provoke, that is too confrontational, start a discussion? Yes. What concerns me slightly is the ever increasing seeming requirement for ‘sharpness’ beyond natural levels.
I did not name a photographer and will not, that absolutely was not my point and you know it, my point was much broader.
But it does seem to me this focus on sharpness creates two potential issues, the first is that the subjects cease to look realistic, lets remember the concept of post processing sharpness is all to do with micro contrast levels and the levels seen in a lot of images, not just birding but landscapes, real estate, portraits etc, are no longer ‘natural’. And secondly, people automatically reject otherwise very worthy images because they don’t fit into this current style.
As for the fashion photographer, they must represent the clothes/fashion in a lifelike and realistic way and detail and texture is normally of huge importance.
To me both types of photographer, in ‘representative’ types of images (not artistic interpretations), are looking to achieve the same thing, that is detailed and accurate representations of real world subjects.
I am not picking on bird photographers, I am not questioning the ethics of feeding, cloning out twigs, the general aesthetic of positions or the like, I am making a much broader comment on a current photographic style that is used in some bird photography as well as many other genres. I asked the question here because this is a very well supported area of the site with intelligent and thoughtful contributors.
Yes it is! But Corn crake?!!!!!Pied Wagtail? Nice pose.
Well, here I will post photos from today (I was busy and these were taken in the UH Campus when I finished today). In PL4 the contrast was at 1 (microcontrast - auto - depends on the ISO!). The "total sharpness" was at 0.66 - these are my very standard settings*. And because in some cases the bird's eyes were in very dark: in the "local adjustments" I pushed the "shades" (for the eyes!) a little bit. And since I have no RF5 and I'm in the "local adjustments" already, I add some little sharpens in the eyes!
I too try to be minimalist. For the best shots where the lighting has been right, which what we aim for, all I do is have PL4 set at its standard settings for sharpening, Prime noise reduction, lens correction and chromatic aberration and all others off. Then I just crop and adjust exposure as I shoot in full manual and guess exposure. That was done for the last post of the Chaffinch, but the Cetti's Warbler needed real work to get it worthy for the "record".Well, here I will post photos from today (I was busy and these were taken in the UH Campus when I finished today). In PL4 the contrast was at 1 (microcontrast - auto - depends on the ISO!). The "total sharpness" was at 0.66 - these are my very standard settings*. And because in some cases the bird's eyes were in very dark: in the "local adjustments" I pushed the "shades" (for the eyes!) a little bit. And since I have no RF5 and I'm in the "local adjustments" already, I add some little sharpens in the eyes!
*- means that sometimes I'm going to 0.50 (like very stable tripod - I mean it stays on very stable ground! The tripod itself is very stable). In this particular case the tripod was not at all balanced neither on stable ground. And pretty good winds - the non-flying birds were somewhat flying!
The idea that the feathers are so soft (because we use(d) them for pillows) is kind of anecdotical at least: what kind of feathers exactly? Are all the bird's feathers so soft, and what kind of bird do you mean?
In the photos below the sharpness of the feathers looks pretty much as I saw it TTL.
View attachment 197050 View attachment 197051 View attachment 197052 View attachment 197053 View attachment 197054 View attachment 197055
Some times, some guys are using to much sharpening, sometimes they use to much contrast and in the worst case - microcontrast. Some (hmm... AI for example) "sharpening" programs are using to much microcontrast (creates a sense for "sharpness" but not a real sharpness) and I definitely don't like them!
And finally - it's a legitimate question and you are very welcome to ask such a questions! Even here! What is reasonable is reasonable!!! On other hand - see what was Alan's answer - it makes a lot of sense too!