Nikon D750 & D780

minnnt said:
Crazy imo. The 300 is an awesome lens.
Click to expand...

Just for the lightness, I would stick a x2 teleconverter on the end over a Sigma Sport. GarryN? had some good bird photos with the PF lens and x2 and 1.7 Teleconverters, shame he doesn't post now. The flexibility of a zoom is something to consider though.
 
Swanseajack said:
I don't seem to have a problem with uploading and increasing sharpness, it's usually the other way round and degrading the photos on here.

You have some very nice captures of the BT, but to me, they do look over processed. Whats your typical PP workflow for birds, as I find oversharpening and upping the clarity, vibrance and saturation sliders makes the birds look un-natuaral and increases artifacts / noise etc........

Click to expand...

Strangely enough I've been discussing this on AVF today as it's been bugging me how unnatural/painting like my blue tit pictures have been, despite processing being no different to my previous ones which look far more natural. I've done a bit of testing this afternoon and also looked at the SOOC RAW files for the pics above and they look more like painting than a photo so it's not my processing. I remember when I first started out and took a picture of the Crooked Spire and posed the same question on AVF as I thought it looked like a painting rather than a photo and I was told that it was because I'd taken it in the midday sun.

However, the photos above weren't taken in strong midday sun, and I took some more today in overcast conditions and they looked the same. Even took at different ISO as low as 400 and they still looked painting like. Tried again this evening in decent evening sun and it was the same. So I can only assume it's some weird combo of light vs subject vs background vs lens/camera combo, although I don't see how it can be the latter as I've taken plenty of other pics (including birds) that don't have this painting look. I just wish I could figure it out :banghead::banghead::banghead:

I also have the issue of Flickr/forums over sharpening so I'm guessing it's something to do with the screen sharpening or resolution I'm uploading at so I need to figure that out too :rolleyes::LOL:
 
minnnt said:
Crazy imo. The 300 is an awesome lens.
Click to expand...

Swanseajack said:
Just for the lightness, I would stick a x2 teleconverter on the end over a Sigma Sport. GarryN? had some good bird photos with the PF lens and x2 and 1.7 Teleconverters, shame he doesn't post now. The flexibility of a zoom is something to consider though.
Click to expand...

I tried one at the photograpgy show when it was first out last year, the size/weight is awesome, I wasn't able to have a proper play. Having a 70-200 f2.8 and 1.4 TC thats capable of 280mm f4 I would love to know how that compares to the 300 PF. That said I had 300 f4 non vr previously and I had a 1.4 TC attached most of the time.
 
Last edited:
Regards the 300mm f4 PF, I do like it a lot, it's pretty much light to carry all day long even with a 1.4TC attached, but for me personally I keep looking for longer reach, I'm guessing a 150-600mm would fit my requirements better though.
 
Last edited:
Gotta love that mowhawk :D
 
anibap said:
I thought of telling you the same as your last few bird pics - cracking shots, but looks bit overprocessed (extra sharpening) on my monitor . To check, I usually do the following

1. Check if output sharpening is checked in the program you use (I use PhotoMechanic and it has a check box that I keep unchecked for full-size flickr upload) to avoid oversharpening and get a sharp enough smooth and natural look.

2, Load full-size image on Flickr. The full-size image on Flickr is untouched by Flickr, so you can always check in 'sizes' if you have doubt that flickr is adding any compression to the lower res images. Your full-size image should have no compression artefacts.

Hope that helps.
Click to expand...
Thanks. TBH I always upload full res, but then share "medium" sizes. It's only been doing it on the recent bird pics, previous ones such as my redpoll were fine. The original images on my computer look OK. I'm thinking it's with specific size/resolution files. It's not all heavily cropped files as the redpoll I mentioned was heavily cropped, so I'm thinking it's with a specific resolution/range of resolutions :confused:
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
minnnt said:
Don't forget... 1/8th is where it's at.
Click to expand...
I'm still trying to get my head around how you got a sharp panning shot at 1/8s without a monopod :runaway: I think I'd struggle with the 50mm f1.8 let alone the 70-200 f2.8 at 200mm :eek: Not a chance in hell with the 150-600mm at 600mm :LOL:
 
rookies said:
Fantastic image as aways pal...

Your lucky to have a Daughter who would pose for you.. Mine once camera outs she buggers off lol
Click to expand...
Thanks mate. My daughter is not always cooperative, but I think I know a few tricks [emoji38]
 
phil_b said:
And Puffins of course. Sigma 150-600C iso 100, f6, 1/320th 420mm


Saltee-5 by Philip Blair, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Cracking pic. Shame about the clipped foot but great nonetheless. I must make an effort to get to Flanborough to photograph some puffins.
 
So last night just stared longingly at my new (used) Nikon 35mm f1.4g.

It looked lonely as I believe it's missing his buddy the 85 f1.4g... Which I have been offered too.

Some serious pennies if I bought both... well not too bad considering new prices!
 
JJ! said:
So last night just stared longingly at my new (used) Nikon 35mm f1.4g.

It looked lonely as I believe it's missing his buddy the 85 f1.4g... Which I have been offered too.

Some serious pennies if I bought both... well not too bad considering new prices!
Click to expand...
Do it, you know you want to :sneaky:
 
snerkler said:
Do it, you know you want to :sneaky:
Click to expand...

It's front element is quite something! Offered both for less than one of them new....

The temptation is there as I know I wouldn't lose any money, it anything make money.

The main issue..... the wife lol sadly I can't claim it's the same lens as the f1.8g!
 
snerkler said:
Strangely enough I've been discussing this on AVF today as it's been bugging me how unnatural/painting like my blue tit pictures have been, despite processing being no different to my previous ones which look far more natural. I've done a bit of testing this afternoon and also looked at the SOOC RAW files for the pics above and they look more like painting than a photo so it's not my processing. I remember when I first started out and took a picture of the Crooked Spire and posed the same question on AVF as I thought it looked like a painting rather than a photo and I was told that it was because I'd taken it in the midday sun.

However, the photos above weren't taken in strong midday sun, and I took some more today in overcast conditions and they looked the same. Even took at different ISO as low as 400 and they still looked painting like. Tried again this evening in decent evening sun and it was the same. So I can only assume it's some weird combo of light vs subject vs background vs lens/camera combo, although I don't see how it can be the latter as I've taken plenty of other pics (including birds) that don't have this painting look. I just wish I could figure it out :banghead::banghead::banghead:

I also have the issue of Flickr/forums over sharpening so I'm guessing it's something to do with the screen sharpening or resolution I'm uploading at so I need to figure that out too :rolleyes::LOL:
Click to expand...

Un-sure what to say. I did notice something when I first had the D810 which I hadn't realised previously with the D750. In picture control the camera adds sharpening, contrast etc... so I have set my camera up to neutral and zeroed everything, my thinking you are doubling up on processing.?? I can add my own changes in LR.

For the BT photo on twig this was my settings in LR, there was some sun on the BT back . The settings below are typical for my bird photography, although Clarity is a little high on this occasion.

Exposure + 0.48
Contrast + 10
Higlights - 43
Shadows + 50
Whites - 36
Blacks +17


Clarity + 33
Vibrance + 14
Saturation +5

Sharpening 29
Radius 1.2

Noise Reduction

Luminance 23

When exporting from LR to HD and Jpeg Conversion.

Under file settings

Image format = JPEG
Quality 95
Colour Space = sRGB
Limit file size = Unchecked

Image Sizing

Resolution =- 240 pixels per inch

Output Sharpening

Sharpen for screen checked
Amount = High

Post processing

After export = Do nothing.

I have only listed the relevant sections as typing one handed.

Maybe worth comparing to the above to see how you get on.? Some of the experienced members from the bird section who are now banned, give the above starting points for me and I have stuck with it in general. I can't be bothered to go into PS and do selective stuff.

Hope the above helps.(y)
 
Last edited:
JYC said:
Mate you've had about 10 35mms and not got on with them. What makes you think f1.4 will make that any different? :p
Click to expand...

Who knows, but it was a no brainer when either way!

*and might actually try using this for a longer period before rushing in to anything!!
 
Last edited:
Swanseajack said:
Un-sure what to say. I did notice something when I first had the D810 which I hadn't realised previously with the D750. In picture control the camera adds sharpening, contrast etc... so I have set my camera up to neutral and zeroed everything, my thinking you are doubling up on processing.?? I can add my own changes in LR.

For the BT photo on twig this was my settings in LR, there was some sun on the BT back . The settings below are typical for my bird photography, although Clarity is a little high on this occasion.

Exposure + 0.48 +0.20
Contrast + 10 +15
Higlights - 43 -38
Shadows + 50 +13
Whites - 36 +6
Blacks +17 -15


Clarity + 33 0
Vibrance + 14 +15
Saturation +5 +10

Sharpening 29 +64
Radius 1.2 1.4
Edge masking 25

Noise Reduction

Luminance 23 0

When exporting from LR to HD and Jpeg Conversion.

Under file settings

Image format = JPEG Jpeg
Quality 95 100
Colour Space = sRGB sRGB
Limit file size = Unchecked unchecked

Image Sizing

Resolution =- 240 pixels per inch 300

Output Sharpening

Sharpen for screen checked
Amount = High Standard

Post processing

After export = Do nothing. Do Nothing

I have only listed the relevant sections as typing one handed.

Maybe worth comparing to the above to see how you get on.? Some of the experienced members from the bird section who are now banned, give the above starting points for me and I have stuck with it in general. I can't be bothered to go into PS and do selective stuff.

Hope the above helps.(y)
Click to expand...

That's probably more than my processing, although I sharpen a lot more so maybe I need to look into that when cropping a lot. Some of it will be negated of course by having less screen sharpening. I've added mine for comparison (in red) for image DSC_7148 posted a couple of pages earlier.

Edit just redone it with +50 sharpening. Doesn't look as bad on flickr (still more sharpening than on my computer) but still quite a bit oversharpened on here :confused:

see here Nikon D750
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
That's probably more than my processing, although I sharpen a lot more so maybe I need to look into that when cropping a lot. Some of it will be negated of course by having less screen sharpening. I've added mine for comparison (in red) for image DSC_7148 posted a couple of pages earlier.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does seem more. I also crop a lot and probably more now as I have more MP to play with. We seem to go the opposite with our whites and blacks though, I usually drop the whites to stop them blowing along with the highlights and I thought yours would have been similar. Do you have the clipping on when PP.

When I first started with PP and LR I was advised on here, never to go above 45 in general and 30 for birds in regards to sharpening, due to the artifacts and noise it produces in LR. Also, with the masking setting, I hold down the ALT button and go to about 65 as to blend it in, although I rarely use it.... Another couple of things to try.?

As we work in RAW and its set to off in my camera, I always add a little noise reduction even as low of 15 for ISO 64 and try not to go above 25/30 as it introduces too much smoothing for my liking.
 
Swanseajack said:
Un-sure what to say. I did notice something when I first had the D810 which I hadn't realised previously with the D750. In picture control the camera adds sharpening, contrast etc... so I have set my camera up to neutral and zeroed everything, my thinking you are doubling up on processing.?? I can add my own changes in LR.

[\QUOTE]

If you are not using Nikon raw converter, the profile in camera does not affect LR as it can't read Nikon in camera profiles. It just uses a basic template with 25 sharpening as default. I use CNX2 and it retains all settings in camera. I have sharpening set to zero in camera and process from there as it is much better. My sharpness range in CNX2 is 40-55 with the 24-85 VR and between 30-45 for the 85 1.8g and Tamron 70-200 2.8 as these lenses are super sharp.

In LR, the max I go is 60, but don't use LR much.
Click to expand...
 
snerkler said:
That's probably more than my processing, although I sharpen a lot more so maybe I need to look into that when cropping a lot. Some of it will be negated of course by having less screen sharpening. I've added mine for comparison (in red) for image DSC_7148 posted a couple of pages earlier.

Edit just redone it with +50 sharpening. Doesn't look as bad on flickr (still more sharpening than on my computer) but still quite a bit oversharpened on here :confused:

see here Nikon D750
Click to expand...

Thats a lot of sharpening.
 
twist said:
Thats a lot of sharpening.
Click to expand...


That's interesting. When I first started using LR I watched god knows how many videos from all sorts of folk such as Lydia, and Anthony Morghanti and they were adding 70+ sharpening on a lot of their images so assumed this was the norm :oops: :$

minnnt said:
I use +50 on my pics normally although i have started brushing in selective sharpening more of late rather than global sharpening.
Click to expand...

I find the brushes tend to be far more subtle than the global adjustments, ie if you brush in 20 saturation it wouldn't look as saturated as +20 on the global saturation (when comparing the bit you've brushed). Do you find this, and also find this with the sharpening?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top