Would you consider this to be a sharp photo

[CrankinSteve]

I took this of a woodpecker that was at the top of a dead tree at an estimated distance of 300 feet. Would you consider this to be a sharp photo? Taken with a new FE 400-800 at 800mm. I am working on my skills while hand holding the lens working on aiming and steadiness. It was a cloudy day here in Western MA.

• ILCE-7CM2
• FE 400-800mm F6.3-8 G OSS
• 800.0 mm
• ƒ/9
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 1250

 

[iamdlewis]

Question back at you, do you think the image looks nice?

I would say don't get caught up in pixel peeping. You also have to decided what medium you will be sharing the image on, the amount of sharpness needed for an image to look good will vary depending on the use.
This image looks good on a phone and is used as my lock screen image from time to time but, on my monitor not so great.

• ILCE-7RM4
• Sony FE 200–600mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS (SEL200600G)
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/1000 sec
• ISO 320

To answer your question I think it looks good.

The bird is a Red-Bellied Woodpecker

 

[CrankinSteve]

Question back at you, do you think the image looks nice?

I would say don't get caught up in pixel peeping. You also have to decided what medium you will be sharing the image on, the amount of sharpness needed for an image to look good will vary depending on the use.
This image looks good on a phone and is used as my lock screen image from time to time but, on my monitor not so great.
View attachment 83829

To answer your question I think it looks good.

The bird is a Red-Bellied Woodpecker

Thanks. I do think it is a good pic. And yes it is a red-bellied woodpecker, I came upon it when I went out nearby to a small patch of trees. It was a good day. And, I agree with you in regard to the intended use for the photo. Apparently, the photo is good enough to identify the bird. That's a win.

 

[Slug]

Not at all bad but could be improved with a bit of processing. The subject is a little 'flat' because of the lighting and this is easily lifted with highlights and shadows. It's certainly sharp enough to identify the species and appreciate its coloring.

 

[Richard A]

Looks pretty sharp to me but as mentioned above, the lighting hasn't helped you out.

 

[Unframed Dave]

I would say not.

The distance is realistically too great for a tack sharp image unless conditions are perfect.

I would guess you were also shooting through some leaves judging by the light brown patches lower down the tree trunk.

There are too unarguable truths where wildlife is concerned, you need minimal distance and optimum light. Whichever lens you use, you cannot get away from that.

If the image pleases you, enjoy it for what it is. If it pleases others, that's a bonus. I can't remember who said that. I wasn't the first.

 

[CrankinSteve]

Thanks for the assessments. No doubt, it was not optimal conditions and the distance was quite long. But, mission accomplished with knowing the species. This is helpful as I work on my abilities. In a couple of weeks, I am going on an early morning walk with some expert birders. That should be interesting.

 

[THXGEEK]

There are too unarguable truths where wildlife is concerned, you need minimal distance and optimum light. Whichever lens you use, you cannot get away from that.

If the image pleases you, enjoy it for what it is. If it pleases others, that's a bonus. I can't remember who said that. I wasn't the first.

+1

Taking great pictures of small (moving?) objects against a very bright background is brutal. I always try to remember to have my exposure set to spot or center-weighted. Also, remember you can crank up the exposure a notch or three to make sure the bird is properly exposed - or fix it in post as has been suggested.

Love those woodpeckers!

 

[iamdlewis]

Taking great pictures of small (moving?) objects against a very bright background is brutal. I always try to remember to have my exposure set to spot or center-weighted.

If you are using a tracking AF it is better to set the Spot Metering Point to "Focus Point Link" than keeping it at center. This way the metering follows the subject not just whatever is centered.

 

[iamdlewis]

Menu path = Exposure/Color -> 3 Metering -> Spot Metering Point
This works best of you make you bird in flight settings one of you memorized settings

 

[CrankinSteve]

Yes, I have number 2 and 3 for birding!

 

[THXGEEK]

If you are using a tracking AF it is better to set the Spot Metering Point to "Focus Point Link" than keeping it at center. This way the metering follows the subject not just whatever is centered.

Thank you. I was not aware of that option!

(Yea, 1st new thing I've learned today!)

 

[iamdlewis]

(Yea, 1st new thing I've learned today!)

Your done for the day

 

[Chris 3754]

To answer if it’s sharp or not, you have to ask yourself some questions. Is this the best photo I could get in this particular situation? If no, then it’s not sharp. If this photo is the best the situation would allow, then it’s sharp enough for identification or capturing the moment even if it’s not tack sharp, and therefore it’s a good photo.

 

[Unframed Dave]

I'm not looking for an Internet argument, I'm way too old for that, so I'll offer this up and pour myself a pint of old Rosie cider (6.8%) and move on.

The question is, is it sharp? There can only be two answers yes or no. There were no qualifiers in the question.

In this instance, the answer is no, with the rider that the site compression often makes a sharp image look poorer than it really is.

 

[CrankinSteve]

To answer if it’s sharp or not, you have to ask yourself some questions. Is this the best photo I could get in this particular situation? If no, then it’s not sharp. If this photo is the best the situation would allow, then it’s sharp enough for identification or capturing the moment even if it’s not tack sharp, and therefore it’s a good photo.

So, I do think it was the best I could do. So, I am satisfied with it. I could certainly identify the bird using it. Without binoculars all I could see was a tiny red head. I just order a nice pair of 8x42 binoculars. More on that soon.

To answer if it’s sharp or not, you have to ask yourself some questions. Is this the best photo I could get in this particular situation? If no, then it’s not sharp. If this photo is the best the situation would allow, then it’s sharp enough for identification or capturing the moment even if it’s not tack sharp, and therefore it’s a good photo.

 

[CrankinSteve]

I'm not looking for an Internet argument, I'm way too old for that, so I'll offer this up and pour myself a pint of old Rosie cider (6.8%) and move on.

The question is, is it sharp? There can only be two answers yes or no. There were no qualifiers in the question.

In this instance, the answer is no, with the rider that the site compression often makes a sharp image look poorer than it really is.

Thanks for the honest opinion. Maybe I should have said, SHARP ENOUGH. But, that is a bit squishy. I do think it could have been better possibly by using a monopod and some new methods I have just learned on over-exposing when against a bright gray sky. Still, I do think it is okay. Always room for improvement, well maybe always...