Kingfisher Critique Please .....

PMG · #1 (**permalink**) 04-10-2010, 09:59 AM

A comment on this on Bird Guides started me thinking so I'm asking for others thoughts now as I found the comment intrigueing: the poster said this:

Nice you finally caught up with a bogey bird but can't help thinking the would have looked better with a different Canon Camera. The 7d is one of the worst mid range camera's Canon have ever produced. You should have gone for a 5D or 5D mk2 which would have produced better detail and cleaner BG's
and my reply was this:

Agree the 5D does give an 'airier' light look and clean backgrounds but its full frame sensor is a non-starter for wildlife photography - for me - plus cost! I've always managed eventually to extract the best out of every camera I've owned and I'm sure I will eventually tame the 7D!! Its all a compromise and trade off between distance and speed and so much can be altered during post processing..... Perhaps I should have run it thro neat image?

And then I started thinking in the knowledge that my pics have steadily darkened over the past two years or so and I have been making an effort not to be so dark or saturated so I did run it thro Neat Image and deliberately lightened the whole in curves - but am I on the right track? - bear in mind that stuff on wab (by my monitor) always comes out darker than it left here - I try to lighten extra for wab display - its something to do with how I like my monitor set. So can anyone see a difference? Is it the right kind of difference? And does it matter or are both shots and attitudes right and viable? Answers on a postcard - I mean on here

and as a PS what does anyone make of the 7D versus 5D just for interest?

slimrbp · #2 (**permalink**) 04-10-2010, 10:45 AM

[quote=PMG;685306]
Nice you finally caught up with a bogey bird but can't help thinking the would have looked better with a different Canon Camera. The 7d is one of the worst mid range camera's Canon have ever produced. You should have gone for a 5D or 5D mk2 which would have produced better detail and cleaner BG's
[quote]

An interesting comment, horses for courses really. As you rightly mention the crop factor on the 7D is a real boon for wildlife photography.
A friend of mine has the 5d MK II and the high ISO performance and the detail captured is amazing. However it doesn't have the frame rate or autofocus system of the 7D so like all things it's a trade off.

Anyhoo back to the image

It's a great series of images in the Gallery.

What ISO were you shooting at? I think the comment refers to the amount of noise. You can see it in the background and also the finer detail in the plumage has been obscured a bit.
I am I right in thinking the top image has had some noise reduction applied? The background looks smoother but the detail in the plumage looks to have sufferred.
I think it would be worth trying different levels of noise reduction on the background and Kingfisher. the background can take more as there is no detail, you just need to try and find a balance for the kingfisher.

All that said I would be chuffed as the only Kingfishers I have seen have either been blue blurs or too far away and hiding behind a branch!

Tobyh · #3 (**permalink**) 04-10-2010, 11:22 AM

Pauline,

Firstly well done on getting shots of a very difficult bird. I know you put the time and effort in to make these shots happen.

I can't comment on the camera comparison as I'm a Nikon user.

The images..

To me the first image (named common kingfisher) is sharper, lighter and less noisy. I assume you have used a mask of sorts to apply some of your processes as at full size I can see a slight edge on the bird.

Does it matter? I'm not sure I can answer that for you as it's very personal. I am extremely critical of my own work and often see the tiniest nitty thing that I want to improve on and that, for me, is what drives me to improve. I still really appreciate any decent image I take and maybe I take it too far as, lets face it, I'm not submitting my images to a magazine am I ??

Your processing, in my eyes, is an improvement over the unprocessed image and I personally will always favour an image that's been processed (not over processed!) but still looks natural. Getting that balance right is the hardest part in my opinion.

TobyH

Red Squirrel · #4 (**permalink**) 04-10-2010, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tobyh

Pauline,

To me the first image (named common kingfisher) is sharper, lighter and less noisy. I assume you have used a mask of sorts to apply some of your processes as at full size I can see a slight edge on the bird.

TobyH

Yes I can see a difference and agree with Toby. I too prefer the first photo.

Is the second one straight from the camera Pauline?

Going back to the monitor, my monitor seems fine but printed images come out lighter. I've obviously got something wrong somewhere.

I have a 5D which I use for landscapes. I had a 7D for about a week and didn't like it so sent it back but to be fair I suspect that there was something wrong with the camera and perhaps someone had tried it before I did.
Also the manual was missing. When I rang to tell the firm they sent me a photocopy.

Some on the forum like the 7D, others don't.

glsammy · #5 (**permalink**) 04-10-2010, 05:26 PM

To my tired eyes the first one looks the more processed, but the first one also looks as though some work has been done on it, as Tobyh said there's an edge outline on it.
Some of the others you got are really excellent, with more detail in the feathers than this one. Please don't think I mean this one's no good, I'd love a shot as bad as this!

Any chance of uploading one with nothing at all done to it Pauline, apart from resizing of course

PMG · #6 (**permalink**) 05-10-2010, 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glsammy

To my tired eyes the first one looks the more processed, but the first one also looks as though some work has been done on it, as Tobyh said there's an edge outline on it.
Some of the others you got are really excellent, with more detail in the feathers than this one. Please don't think I mean this one's no good, I'd love a shot as bad as this!

Any chance of uploading one with nothing at all done to it Pauline, apart from resizing of course

Thanks guys for thoughts and input. Below is the straight out of the camera image Graham:

The second shot (not counting above for a min) was the work I would usually do on my images: various amounts of Edge Pres Smoooth, Fade Correct, Col balence, levels and curves and finally unsharp mask, with a final last sharpen after size reduction for wab - all done 'by eye' as I feel the image needs. The mistake I keep making for wab is to lighten enough but thats just something particular to wab and the way I like my monitor.

The first shot has all the above tried on it in differing amounts, then lightened substantially. I then took it off to neat image and blurred the background but of course it takes some of the bird too (I only have neat image as a sep prog not a plug in so I don't see a way to select the background and leave the bird alone) When I got back in PSP I used the select tool (and as you sharp eyed chaps have noticed I didn't go back after and tidy the edge under its beak!) and applied Gussian Blur to the background, then gave the whole a final sharpen after size reduction - so a lot of work ........ I actually like it and think its worth it for some things but I'm still undecided about the 7D and what it produces and still can't make my mind up whether its me that needs to improve or it? Or just treat my images differently and find a new system of processing suited to the 7D ..........

Thanks for looking and thinking fellas ........

Pauline

Oh and PS Slimrbp the ISO was prob 400 but may have been higher as I was switching backk and too in speed to try and catch it in flight diving in and out of the water - I got some whilke it was hovering but they are all too dark and underexposed! It was a game of frantic shooting as the bird rarely sat for more than a few seconds before it was doing something else and the lighting was different in each place it went to - fun tho!!!!

squishy · #7 (**permalink**) 05-10-2010, 08:52 AM

Well I love it!

The un edited version still has a slightly noise reduced look to me though

Do you have noise reduction turned on in camera?

P.S every review I've read says the 7D is the best APS-C camera canon have made to date. And high in the running for best APS-C camera available at all! But I have read that some users got soft pictures out of it, and had to send it away for 'calibration', after which it performs as good as it should. Perhaps the guy on bird guides got a bad copy like Red Squirrel might have done?

slimrbp · #8 (**permalink**) 05-10-2010, 10:11 AM

I was wondering the same as Squishy about the in camera Noise reduction.
If you are shooting jpg it might be worth using the RAW & Jpg button to get a RAW file to see what the in camera processing is doing to the image.

I have the 7D as well and love it.
As Squishy has said it could be the commenter had a bad copy or as I have seen quite a few times just seem to dislike it without even trying it.

Ollie · #9 (**permalink**) 05-10-2010, 12:27 PM

Well Pauline, for starters I think the person who made the comments on the 7D on bird guides was being rather unfair on the 7D. Admitted it's not as forgiving as the 40D but in my humble opinion it's the best camera for the bucks that you can buy.

It does take a bit of work to get the best out of the 7D but coupled with great lenses that you have it's one of the best combinations going. I have had my 7D since just before Christmas last year and have only in the last couple of months really thought that I have become boss of it. There are so many settings that you can play with Pauline and until you get them all set to your style of shooting and to the lens/lenses you are using then it can disappoint a little at times.

I was told by several people that I would have to shoot raw with the 7D to get the best from it and the first couple of months I began to believe them but perseverance paid off and I still shoot jpeg only.

Regarding your photos. The first image (named common kingfisher) is in my eyes the best. Please don't mind me saying this Pauline, and believe me I am a great admirer of your photographic skills but do you think that you may be inclined to over editing a little. I don't mean that the final photo looks over edited, it doesn't. It's just that you said in one of your replies to this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PMG

The second shot (not counting above for a min) was the work I would usually do on my images: various amounts of Edge Pres Smoooth, Fade Correct, Col balence, levels and curves and finally unsharp mask, with a final last sharpen after size reduction for wab

All I do with my images is adjust shadows and highlights (often not needed) unsharp mask and Neat Image just the background if needed again not always needed.

I think my simple editing suits my jpeg images from the 7D to my eyes at any rate.

glsammy · #10 (**permalink**) 05-10-2010, 07:33 PM

As you know Roger, I do just about the same as you so far as editing is concerned.
Pauline, I was just wondering if you have any of the camera sharpening option set. The first thing I did was to switch everything back to zero. I don't like the effect the in camera sharpening has on an image, and working on your image I found it difficult to apply much more sharpening. Just guessing, I could be hopelessly wrong!