Processing for Nikon

[firebuffgal]

Hey, all!

Someone told me that if shooting with Nikon I will need to use the unsharp mask feature in Photoshop. I didn't press as to why but when I look at my photos compared to others, it is a little soft, regardless of lens.

I'd like to know what processing techniques should I be considering in order to get crisp photos. My lenses include Nikon 18-55, 28-70, 70-200 (with and without 1.7 TC), and the Bigma (I know it will be a bit soft on the 500 end).

Thanks in advance!

[tukaniray]

.... Hmmm .... I don't know what you mean.

I have shot both with a Canon and Nikon ... and haven't seen a difference between quality in terms of sharpness.

Few Questions:
Do you shoot with Auto Focus or Manual Focus? Have you tried either cleaning your sensor or having someone clean it?

I recommend you visit a camera shop (Wolf, HCE, Best Buy) and try out a canon and a nikon that are on the same level (Don't do a Rebel vs a D700 for instance) have your own card and try it out.

Some samples would help also.

-Ray-

[firebuffgal]

Hi, Ray, My focus seems to be okay, pending I've used the right fstop, but my images just arent' crisp and clear. I have seen some photos of birds and you can see individual feathers pop right out at you.

Auto Focus. Sensor was cleaned a few months ago.

Thank you for trying to help.

Some samples of varying lenses:

[TheFantasticG]

I've seen that car somewhere before....

[ldelacruz]

It is not Canon vs Nikon that you are seeing. The issue is they have pro level equipment, get close, expose correctly and know how to process. For detail you have to be close. Try to fill the frame with your subject.

[firebuffgal]

Idealcruz, I am specifically talking about Nikon; I did not claim this as a Canon vs Nikon issue.

Someone told me that if I shoot Nikon I should be using the unsharp mask. I'm wondering if anyone else has heard this and if there is some truth to it. I would also like to hear from others (Canon or Nikon) regarding what they do for post processing to output a crisp clear image.

Also, based on your comments, I conclude two things:
1. My Nikon D300 isn't good enough to take crisp, clear photos.
2. Even though I want a full shot of a van, I shouldn't expect my images to be crisp because I didn't fill the frame.
Is that what you are saying? Thanks in advance for your reply.

[ldelacruz]

Maybe someone else can explain what I was trying to say better?

[dmcantrell]

Hello Alicia,

Originally Posted by firebuffgal

Someone told me that if I shoot Nikon I should be using the unsharp mask.

This is an incorrect statement that someone told you. The unsharp mask in your post-processing flow has nothing to do with the camera brand, period.

I'm wondering if anyone else has heard this and if there is some truth to it. I would also like to hear from others (Canon or Nikon) regarding what they do for post processing to output a crisp clear image.

I have never heard this, ever -- not once. To get crisp, sharp photos of birds the photographer has to get close, and practice good long-lens technique. This means getting close (much closer than you might think), using a tripod (a good tripod like a Manfrotto or Gitzo), using top-notch equipment, possibly using mirror lock-up, remote shutter release, and other intangibles.

Here's a little write-up I made that shows a progression of technique over 3 years, with image examples.

A tale of perseverance, and ducks

Also, based on your comments, I conclude two things:
1. My Nikon D300 isn't good enough to take crisp, clear photos.

This is incorrect, here is one of my examples:

Nikon D300, Nikkor 70-200/f2.8VRII w/ TC1.4 @ 280mm f/4, 1/500sec, ISO 200

2. Even though I want a full shot of a van, I shouldn't expect my images to be crisp because I didn't fill the frame.

The filling of the frame and the resulting sharpness of the image are unrelated. The filling of the frame comment is meant to describe a way to get more detail in the photo (i.e. feather detail on a bird). Sharpness comes from the things I mentioned above.

[dryicerx]

If you're saying your photos are soft by comparing them to before and after unsharp masking... that's not right.... A little unsharp masking or even a bit of local contrast adjusting will make any picture a bit more sharp and pop out no matter what the brand/type of camera/lens used.

[firebuffgal]

David, thank you for your reply. It's not just birds I see the softness on. :) See the van and car? I think these images are soft at 100%. I assumed people were post processing to get the photo more crisp, as Janitha indicates (thank you, J).

If your duck photo has no post processing then it seems I should be getting similar results. Have basically the same set up: D300, 70-200VR with 1.7TC but am not. And this is in regards to most wildlife (not just birds). The examples I shared today were just recent shots, I can find some of others if need be.

Idealacruz, no worries. I just wanted some clarification on what you said is all. I do appreciate you taking time to help.

So does anyone post process for "crisper" photos?

[ldelacruz]

The photos you posted have more issues than just the lack of post processing. In order to get the best result you must post process and it has nothing to do with Nikon. For detail you must get close and focus and expose correctly with good lighting. Using a TC degrades the IQ. Besides the 200-400 I don't like TC's for zooms especially a 1.7 or 2X. Hope this helps?

[dmcantrell]

Originally Posted by firebuffgal

It's not just birds I see the softness on. :) See the van and car?

Sharpness in any photo comes mostly from technique. However, if you suspect your equipment may be malfunctioning then perhaps you could check out some focus tests.

I think these images are soft at 100%.

Perhaps, but it's tough for us to tell because we only see the downsized versions. If I view my images at 100%, I don't always think they're tack-sharp either. A 12MP image (out of a D300) is 4288 x 2848. That means that the image would make a 11 x 17" print @240ppi. If you were to put a 11 x 17" print in front of your face the same distance that your monitor is located, I'd bet that there would be visible flaws in the print too.

If your duck photo has no post processing then it seems I should be getting similar results.

Note that I used a TC14, not a TC17. The TC17 has been known to degrade the image quality more than the TC14. My duck shot has been sharpened in post-processing. I work with the image full-size in Photoshop CS4. At the very end of my processing flow I downsized the image for the web (800px long edge), and applied Filter->Smart Sharpen, lens blur, 40%, 0.4px.

The only images that I don't sharpen are the ones destined for stock agencies because the designer that uses the image will apply sharpening on their own.

[firebuffgal]

Originally Posted by ldelacruz

The photos you posted have more issues than just the lack of post processing. In order to get the best result you must post process and it has nothing to do with Nikon. For detail you must get close and focus and expose correctly with good lighting. Using a TC degrades the IQ. Besides the 200-400 I don't like TC's for zooms especially a 1.7 or 2X. Hope this helps?

Thank you for the info. I admit both bird photos were taken on overcast days, the robin was during a snow fall. I wish I had 6 grand to spend on a longer lens, I just don't. :( Thanks again! :)

[firebuffgal]

David, thank you very much for your reply. Very insightful and helpful.