Some Waterfowl photo's

[Todd Caswell]

First one I could use some help on, not a very sharp photo any ideas on what was wrong?

Shooting

AP

F4

iso 100

200mm

1/1600

[MN Shutterbug]

My guess is that your AF missed the ducks. I've had a lot of near misses, and even at a good distance, they just don't turn out that sharp. Shooting at a smaller aperture such as f8 may have helped a litle, depending on the distance.

[Dbl]

I'm with X, I think maybe a missed focus issue and I will point out why below. Let me pass on some information so hang on just a bit for the ride folks. I see a lot of posts about changing aperture to gain depth of field. Sometimes that is very valuable information and I am not saying that is not good advice in this case either. But the one thing that is usually over looked is the distance to the subject (X did bring it up here!). Now we can certainly argue that any lens is normally at its sharpest about 2 stops or so from wide open. But I am going to show you some examples of how the distance you are to the subject has a big impact on what is in focus with your shot, aperture matters but distance to subject in my mind matters more.

Let’s look at the first shot. I don't know how far the ducks were from the camera, but I am going to give you a couple of distances to consider. These by the way are found from a depth of field calculator. They can be found in apps for IPOD’s, found on line, in books, pocket guides, etc. You get my point, easily found most any where.

Keep in mind the things that affect DOF are focal length, aperture, distance to subject and the crop of the sensor. Lenses with shorter focal lengths produce images with larger DOF. For instance, a 28mm lens at f/5.6 produces images with a greater depth of field than a 70mm lens at the same aperture. Just a few basics so let’s get back to the photo.

If we use the numbers provided from the first shot 200 mm and f4 we can find what should have been in focus. I am assuming you are shooting a crop camera as well, there is no EXIF in your photos to check for sure. We will use three distances just pulling them out of the air to show examples.

Subject distance (the ducks) 50 ft

Depth of field

Near limit 48.6 ft

Far limit 51.5 ft

Total 2.86 ft

In front of subject 1.39 ft (49%)

Behind subject 1.47 ft (51%)

Subject distance 100 ft

Depth of field

Near limit 94.6 ft

Far limit 106.1 ft

Total 11.5 ft

In front of subject 5.4 ft (47%)

Behind subject 6.1 ft (53%)

Lets move that out to 200 ft.

Subject distance 200 ft

Depth of field

Near limit 179.3 ft

Far limit 226.1 ft

Total 46.8 ft

In front of subject 20.7 ft (44%)

Behind subject 26.1 ft (56%)

Almost 50’ of focus to work with at the likely the closest distance these were shot at. Anything in that 50’ should be acceptably sharp. Let’s go ahead and change the aperture to f8 and see what happens using the same distances.

Subject distance 50 ft

Depth of field

Near limit 47.3 ft

Far limit 53 ft

Total 5.73 ft

In front of subject 2.7 ft (47%)

Behind subject 3.03 ft (53%)

Subject distance 100 ft

Depth of field

Near limit 89.7 ft

Far limit 113 ft

Total 23.3 ft

In front of subject 10.3 ft (44%)

Behind subject 13 ft (56%)

Subject distance 200 ft

Depth of field

Near limit 162.5 ft

Far limit 260 ft

Total 97.6 ft

In front of subject 37.5 ft (38%)

Behind subject 60 ft (62%)

You can see the distances have about doubled. Keep in mind what you were working with even at f4, pretty big zone where your subject should be sharp. 200’ is what I would consider close for wildlife like these ducks. Start looking at how big your numbers for DOF become if you start getting out in distance. HUGE!

Where this all really matters is when you are close to the subject, now your DOF becomes an issue. The same thing applies to landscape, night shots, etc. If I am shooting a photo of the moon, do you think shooting at f2.8 or f8 is going to make much difference considering how far the moon is from us? If I shoot a photo of the Grand Canyon standing on the south rim do you think it will matter if I shoot at f4 or f8 for DOF? Now if I am shooting a flower up close it will make a big difference if I change my aperture from f4 to f5.6. There are other factors as we all know that make us decide what aperture to shoot at, what shutter speed we want, what ISO we want, things of that nature. But I am strictly talking DOF considerations here.

My point in all this is to consider what you are shooting, play with some of the numbers in a DOF calculator and become familar with some of the distances involved. After playing with the numbers you will start to get a really good idea of how distance to subject matters.

[Steve Foss]

I see a lot of posts about changing aperture to gain depth of field. Sometimes that is very valuable information and I am not saying that is not good advice in this case either. But the one thing that is usually over looked is the distance to the subject . . . the distance you are to the subject has a big impact on what is in focus with your shot, aperture matters but distance to subject in my mind matters more.

This comes up now and then, and I have brought out this point fairly often over time. But it bears repeating, as it is one of the key aspects of photography.

And never before have I seen posted here actual data on the subject like what Dan provided.

As for why Todd's first image is soft? I don't know whether it's missed focus or not. It could be. Or it might not be. If it is, that's self explanatory.

Here's another option. It's possible to get soft images even at 1/1600 if the panning technique is a little jerky. Not as easy as if it was 1/200, but I've still seen it happen at faster shutter speeds.

I don't know the camera body being used so don't know its burst rate, but a technique I use a lot for panning shots of any subject is to make sure the highest burst rate possible is selected (If you don't have a native max burst rate of at least 5 fps this technique won't really help much). Then, when you are taking a photograph of a subject you are panning (and making sure your technique is steady), hold down the shutter for a full second or two. That'll get you from half a dozen to nearly 20 images, depending on your camera.

Here's the thing about burst rate being your friend: When you push down the shutter with your finger, you always pull/push the camera to do it, no matter how light your touch. This is even more prevalent with sports/BIF, where there's a certain amount of adrenaline and tension in the situation. So you look through that burst of images either on the LCD or later on your computer and you'll see that the first couple and last couple will be softer, with the middle of the burst being sharper. That's because as the burst progresses, the extra jerky motion produced by tripping the shutter settles down. The last one or two images tend to soften up again as you let your finger off the shutter.

Now, this is a technique that really serves well when shutter speeds are marginal for the subject motion, but if other things are going wrong even at 1/1600, it can help produce sharper images.

Downside is, of course, that you have a lot more images to look through, and that you are wearing out your camera faster.

Edit: I see from a different thread that you are shooting the Canon 50D and 70-200 f4L. Plenty of shutter speed available for the burst rate technique to work well with the 50D.

[MN Shutterbug]

Here is a link to an online depth of field calculator. http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

[Steve Foss]

It also occurs to me to ask Todd if these images are cropped a lot. When a bunch of pixels are chopped off through cropping, what's left can appear softer without some massaging (sharpening) in post processing.

Native lens sharpness plays a role here. As an example, my images with the 100-400 shot wide open at 400mm wouldn't allow me to crop as much away and still get a sharp print of the remainder than what I could do with the 400 f5.6L. The zoom simply didn't resolve sharply enough at longer distances to make that possible. I have an 11x14 of a pair of eagles shot with an 8 Mp body and the 400 f5.6 that is only 30 percent of the original image, and it is very nice and sharp. I tried often to do that with the zoom on similar subjects but was never satisfied with the results.

In other words, the more that gets cropped away, the more any defects in sharpness from lens or technique hinder what remains.

Not sure if that's what's happening here or not. Simply another option worth exploring.

And that leads to another question for Todd. Was any sharpening done on these images? Nearly all digital images need some sharpening to look their best.

And my apologies if this is all old hat to you, Todd. It's hard to know the experience level of newer folks. Not good to make assumptions, either, because the guy with 5 posts might be brand new to this forum but widely experienced in photography.

[bemidjibasser]

It looks to me like you should have been using a shot gun instead of a camera! Great pictures though!

[ShawnZ]

The wooduck image is pretty killer, that tight group of drakes in the middle have some strong features.

[dukhnt]

Love the wood duck shot!

[Gordie]

Todd all I can saw is WOW THOSE ARE AWSOME PICS

I just cant get into it maybe someday

[Todd Caswell]

WOW thats alot to absorb, I'll get back to you in a day or two..

after reading and rereading it a few times...

Thank you for the insite, most of these pics were taken with a Rebel XTI an the 70-200 f/4 lens, befor recently upgrading to the D50.

To be honest i have no formal photography schooling, every thing I know ( very little) has been self taught, lots of clicks and time on the computer trying to better myself. I honestly baught the XTI to have at retriever FT's to kill the time betweeen series after I was sent some really nice photo's of myself and my dog.

The rest is history, I love taking pictures that light someone's face up after the Field trial, most people don't get those type's of photo's of there dogs in action.

So thanks for the insite, I'm a work in progress trying to learn as I go.

[Steve Foss]

WOW thats alot to absorb, I'll get back to you in a day or two..

after reading and rereading it a few times...

Thank you for the insite, most of these pics were taken with a Rebel XTI an the 70-200 f/4 lens, befor recently upgrading to the D50.

To be honest i have no formal photography schooling, every thing I know ( very little) has been self taught, lots of clicks and time on the computer trying to better myself. I honestly baught the XTI to have at retriever FT's to kill the time betweeen series after I was sent some really nice photo's of myself and my dog.

The rest is history, I love taking pictures that light someone's face up after the Field trial, most people don't get those type's of photo's of there dogs in action.

So thanks for the insite, I'm a work in progress trying to learn as I go.

Thanks for the added info, Todd. The 50D is a mile or so ahead of the XTi in autofocus performance, and I'd suggest you have a blast out there on waterfowl with that body and the 70-200. You'll like the reach of the 100-400 when you add that to your arsenal, as well.

Lots to learn. Lots of fun to have while learning it. So much of the reward is in the journey, not the destination. We'll help you all you want. And maybe MORE than you want.

Keep having fun, and keep sharing the fun with us. That's why we come here.

[Todd Caswell]

Thank you very much...................

[Steve Foss]

Todd, we'll be having an HSO/FM photographer get-together sometime this winter at the Sax-Zim Bog north of Duluth. Lots of fun photogs will show up, and it's just a very cool day in very cool company. There's teaching and there's learning, but the emphasis is on companionship.

You aren't that far away (if I recall, people have come to these GTGs from farther away than the Twin Cities).

Stay tuned for details on the dates. We haven't gotten that far yet.

[Jim Almquist]

Todd, we'll be having an HSO/FM photographer get-together sometime this winter at the Sax-Zim Bog north of Duluth. Lots of fun photogs will show up, and it's just a very cool day in very cool company. There's teaching and there's learning, but the emphasis is on companionship.

You aren't that far away (if I recall, people have come to these GTGs from farther away than the Twin Cities).

Stay tuned for details on the dates. We haven't gotten that far yet.

It is a lot of fun and YOU will learn a lot while getting a chance to shoot all sorts of wildlife.

[CFRay]

Todd I'm glad you put the photos up with the question. I'm going to be reading the responses over and over several times too. I hope the info. sinks in and can be recalled from between my ears when I next have a chance for similar shots.

Thanks again and good going.

[JayinMN]

Jim, I don't remember you posting that GGO owl shot before. I really like the composition, his pose and the bright yellow eyes. Plus its in a red pine and not a mossy covered dead tree for a chnage, very nice!

[Jim Almquist]

That was the McDavitt road owl down by the 2 hunting shacks. I think it was the second owl last year that I came across.

[Big Country]

I put the weasel shot on my screen as wallpaper Jim. The kid's will get a kick out of that. Neat picture! BC