Scott,love the channel and you’re taught me so much. I live in a part of the USA that has grey cloudy winters. Light becomes an issue with my 100-500 7.1 lens. I shoot handheld. I’m really struggling to get quality sharp images. I know that I can clean up the ISO, but either me or the camera struggles to produce sharp shots when there is so much noise due to low light. My keeper rate is terrible without good light! Any advice or potential a future video on this issue?
Thank you for a very useful video. I appreciate that there are no drone videos and B roll burning up most of the video. Your work is to the point. Very nice.
Thank you - I definitely try to limit b-roll. Sometimes it's useful to show people where I am or what set up I'm using, but most videos don't have any in. Glad you enjoyed it and thanks for watching.
A simple yet very helpful video. I try to make my pictures different from everyone else's. I strive for out of the ordinary. This makes critiquing your own images that much more important. Thank you for another great video!
Interestingly, I loved the exposure of the bird. Throughout the video I was enjoying the fact that it wasn't a silhouette. I loved it. Perhaps i don't yet have the vision to imagine the backlit silhouette in its finest glory 🤔😁
I think people think they need to find the most exotic wildlife and locations to get a great photo. One of the photos I've gotten the most compliments on was of a Canadian goose splashing water in a retention pond near my house.
Totally agree. I often say I much prefer a beautiful photo of something common than a poor photo of something rare. I think people are more consciously photographing their local wildlife now than travelling to exotic locations - but there are still some who think that this is what's needed. Thanks for watching.
Thank you for this very interesting video. Those are all good points you make but even if we are objective in our self critique, there are still people who will not like our pictures. So ultimately we have to be critical, but also love our work and what we produce.
Totally agree - any art is subjective and people will have different reactions to it. But broadly speaking, there is psychology to how people view photographs (which this video only begins to touch upon). Understanding that can really help improve. Thanks for watching.
Thanks Scott. Another thought provoking offering. I was looking at an image I have as my desktop image. I love it. But your insight have made me truly evaluate why. It’s of a tiny American Goldfinch. He’s no larger than the size of a chicken egg. But there is a total blurring of the background, leaving my subject fully the focal point. I think I am going to see if I can increase my f-stop to get a little less blur to give my image a little more interest other than the subject. Thanks for the ideas for improving my photography. You’ve been a huge inspiration. - Tammy
Hi Tammy. Hope you’re doing well. Yes, if you like that style of background, as I do, then a less wide aperture will help. I usually go for a mid range aperture. Something between f/8 and f/13, and I always try to make sure the distance between the subject and the background is at least double the distance from me to the subject. That will give you some nice smooth detail without it being too distracting. Thanks for watching.
I mainly agree - and that’s the point of self critiquing. But art is made to be shared and so it does help to think about the psychology of how people view images. This video only scratches the surface of that - but it’s a start. Thanks for watching.
Interesting video and all good points. I have indeed looked at other photographers work and compared it with my own and in some cases thought mine is better. But the pro is selling his for 2k? Of course this is the age old problem. To sell your great images you have to be famous/award winning, but to get to that point your images need to be seen. I think the buying public do so as much for the named photographer as they do for the quality of the image. I also think (some hate it) adding an account about the capture lets the viewer share the experience, a wildlife image on the wall not matter how good means very little unless you have some relationship with how/where/by who it was taken. Lastly I would say that when you become a good photographer you know how good it will be before the button is pressed. I am sure we have all had those images you can't wait to get it into light room, if this is not the case then they probably aren't worth editing. Thanks for posting.
Hi Chris. Yes, I think that goes with the territory. It’s the same with any of the arts. Particularly music. A lesser known musician can be brilliant, but the famous musician gets all the sales. What I would say, though, is that the famous photographers who can command a high ticket price usually have a large body of work, which helps. They are also usually very good business people. It might be worth you reading some articles online about Rachael Talibart - she’s one of my favourite photographers and makes photos of epic seascapes and waves. But I’ve read articles about her and heard podcasts where she talks about the effort she made to get her photos into high end galleries for sale. Also a lot of good advice on how to build your brand - which also contributes to the perception of value of your photos. Thanks for watching.
Thanks for the video. At about the 7 minute mark you hit on something that has been on my mind lately. What is the sharpest point? If you view a photo in camera it has a little green square at the focus point (or at least on my Z50 and a7iv). So I am guessing it is in the Metadata. For a MacBook is there a setting in Lightroom Classic that will show the focus point? There was an app a couple of years ago that did this for Windows computers but I cant find anything for Macs. Apart from what you suggest I would use it in culling photos. I shoots almost birds exclusively and mainly small wrens and finches and the like so lots of short bursts. When culling photos I would find being able to see the focus point quickly a great advantage. In terms of your photograph of the blackbird; I like the bird but I always like to see a little detail in the background. To me it gives context to the image. I know I’m in the minority with that, but that’s what I like. Thanks again, I always enjoy your videos.
Hi Tony. It’s definitely in the exif data. Most software only displays a very small portion of what’s captured in the meta data. But if you google Exif data reader there are various sites that let you upload a raw file and it shows you all the meta data for that file. But I suspect that’s not going to help because you’d then have to go and find the group of pixels in your photo. I’m not aware of anything in Lightroom for Windows that points to it precisely. But the first time you zoom an image in Lightroom it will zoom in to the area where your focus point was. If you set the zoom to 1600% you’ll see it more precisely. After you have zoomed and then moved the picture, the next time you zoom it will zoom back to where you last zoomed, not the focusing point. I hope that helps. The other thing to be aware of though, is that it only tells you where the focussing point was. But if your camera missed focus, it may not be the sharpest point of the picture. Great question and I’m with you on the context. I think plain backgrounds just look a little to clinical. Thanks for watching.
Hi again Scott, I have been trying the initial zoom suggestion and it is quite useful. For what I am after, zooming to 800% does the trick then back to 200% as at times I am so far out I need to see where I am. The biggest thing it showed me is a lazy habit I have of moving during a short burst ( 3-5 shots) when shooting at 1/500 or slower usually when the bird is reasonably stationary. Invariably the first shot is the best, not second or third like most seem to experience. The other thing is I wonder if my af eye tracking is working fully. I need to fix my lazy habit to determine the af tracking accuracy. Thanks again for the suggestion.
Glad it’s helpful, Tony. I’m not sure if the eye AF is better on the A7iv, but on my A9, it’s only really helpful with a large mammal. For most birds, it never recognises eye. But then again the A9 was the first generation of eye auto focus so I’m sure it’s got a lot better since then.
Great points and tips. Much is also dependent on an individual's personal taste. A stellar mage has to have 'mass appeal'. The sample photo is Okay but I much prefer the tight crop at around 7:43. The image is too busy for me and the out-of-focus green across the bird's body is actually irritating. It does seem to fit your style though. I like images that I don't see every day, like closeup details of animals, or unusual poses. I agree that the photo is not bad, but not great. Do you typically aim for online shots or prints. I don't do many prints, but I always seem to be aiming for a larger (16 inch) printable end result for some reason. Many of my photos do look great online, but I'm often disappointed that they can't be printed with the same perceived quality, due to tight cropping on a 24mp image, even at 600mm focal length. How do you think about the 'publishing' aspect of photography? Your videos have some great advice in them. Much appreciated! 👍
Hi Allen. Thanks for your opinion. On your question, you must be cropping quite heavily if you can’t get a 16 inch print from a 24MP file. At 240 ppi you have to crop more than 40% of the picture for it not to fit. Maybe you’re trying to print at 300 ppi, but this is over the top. There are lots of websites that say you should try for 300 ppi but this is only really what galleries and high end publications expect. Most magazines and books are published at 175 LPI (260 ppi) but I’ve been printing for years and 240 is indistinguishable. I do print, but only for myself nowadays - I used to sell them, but honestly it’s more hassle than it’s worth, so I stopped.
@@WalksOnTheWildSide I guess I'm an OCD pixel peeper and so, I tend to look at prints in the same way! I also come from the days of 35mm film, when the only way to see your images was in print. I used to get very frustrated with the printed results as you were dependent upon the local chemist! I saw what basically the same photo could look like if processed in the dark room by a "professional" and that made it even more frustrating! Now that I can do all that, and more, on my computer (especially with new AI tools), I'm much more content. However, I always think the screen image looks better (more vibrant) than the print. I think I need to stand back from my prints and give them some good light! So if you don't sell your prints, you just upload or sell your files? That was really the essence of my original question.
On the vibrancy matter - it’s a bit of an art form. Most computer monitors are back lit. Which makes the colours appear brighter. You should create two different files, one for printing and one for displaying on screen. The general exposure of the print version should be higher. Not only that, some pigments appear darker, when printed, than others. So play around with the HSL panel for your print files, figure out which pigments need a boost and increase the luminosity of this particular colours in the HSL. I make money through various revenue streams but not printing. There are too many people at it these days. You have to spend a lot of time and money on marketing to stand out in the crowd and that then means you need to price your prints higher for all the time you spend on them, which then decreases demand. Hardly anyone makes a significant income from printing. Plus, people don’t buy unique photography/art in the way they used to do. They just get something generic from Amazon or a local homeware store.
Would that our "better photos" were so good as your not worthy of prime time, of placing on your website' real estate - "marginal' photos, Scott! Lol Thank you for the helpful tips one should go through re analysis both after the fact, as well as to keep in mind in the back of our minds when in the act of taking thereof. As we both know, it's the mind behind the scenes, guiding the camera that is the real key to a great image. Sure it's "de lovely" to have fancy, schmancy cameras with lenses made of glass ground to the ultimate levels of crystal clarity perfection but, all of that? That's like fertilizer left in the bag without a mind that matters, a mind possessed of true vision, born of, powered by that still small voice, spark of inspiration and goading, spoken from within! Not, to put too fine a point on it!
Thank you so much for this video which is not only very nice but of highest importance. In fact, such an important video for wildlife and landscape photographers was missing. A video well worth seeing is made by Matt Brandon (ruclips.net/video/3jhcdkQLbFQ/видео.html) but it concentrates on portrait photography. The list of important points may differ depending on whether you photograph wildlife, macro, landscape, portait, street photography, etc., but every photographer should create a list of points which he considers to being important to his own work. It is very helpful to have this list deep in your mind while being at the location because many occasions are unique and will never come back.
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
Scott,love the channel and you’re taught me so much. I live in a part of the USA that has grey cloudy winters. Light becomes an issue with my 100-500 7.1 lens. I shoot handheld. I’m really struggling to get quality sharp images. I know that I can clean up the ISO, but either me or the camera struggles to produce sharp shots when there is so much noise due to low light. My keeper rate is terrible without good light! Any advice or potential a future video on this issue?
Thank you for a very useful video. I appreciate that there are no drone videos and B roll burning up most of the video. Your work is to the point. Very nice.
Thank you - I definitely try to limit b-roll. Sometimes it's useful to show people where I am or what set up I'm using, but most videos don't have any in. Glad you enjoyed it and thanks for watching.
A simple yet very helpful video. I try to make my pictures different from everyone else's. I strive for out of the ordinary. This makes critiquing your own images that much more important.
Thank you for another great video!
Glad you found it useful and thank you for watching.
Interestingly, I loved the exposure of the bird. Throughout the video I was enjoying the fact that it wasn't a silhouette.
I loved it. Perhaps i don't yet have the vision to imagine the backlit silhouette in its finest glory 🤔😁
I think people think they need to find the most exotic wildlife and locations to get a great photo. One of the photos I've gotten the most compliments on was of a Canadian goose splashing water in a retention pond near my house.
Totally agree. I often say I much prefer a beautiful photo of something common than a poor photo of something rare. I think people are more consciously photographing their local wildlife now than travelling to exotic locations - but there are still some who think that this is what's needed. Thanks for watching.
Loved how you explained this one Scott, such very helpful informative video to watch, thanks so much 🙏
Hi Raymond. Excellent, always a pleasure to hear from you. And thanks for watching.
Thank you for this very interesting video. Those are all good points you make but even if we are objective in our self critique, there are still people who will not like our pictures. So ultimately we have to be critical, but also love our work and what we produce.
Totally agree - any art is subjective and people will have different reactions to it. But broadly speaking, there is psychology to how people view photographs (which this video only begins to touch upon). Understanding that can really help improve. Thanks for watching.
Thanks Scott. Another thought provoking offering. I was looking at an image I have as my desktop image. I love it. But your insight have made me truly evaluate why. It’s of a tiny American Goldfinch. He’s no larger than the size of a chicken egg. But there is a total blurring of the background, leaving my subject fully the focal point. I think I am going to see if I can increase my f-stop to get a little less blur to give my image a little more interest other than the subject. Thanks for the ideas for improving my photography. You’ve been a huge inspiration. - Tammy
Hi Tammy. Hope you’re doing well. Yes, if you like that style of background, as I do, then a less wide aperture will help. I usually go for a mid range aperture. Something between f/8 and f/13, and I always try to make sure the distance between the subject and the background is at least double the distance from me to the subject. That will give you some nice smooth detail without it being too distracting. Thanks for watching.
Thanks so much for sharing another wonderful video like always 🐦👍🤗
Glad you enjoyed it. Thanks for watching.
Mais um ótimo vídeo! Obrigado pelas valiosas dicas e orientações! 😃👋👋
Fico feliz que você achou o vídeo útil. obrigado por assistir.
Don't let anyone tell you what is good. If you like it, then it's good.
I mainly agree - and that’s the point of self critiquing. But art is made to be shared and so it does help to think about the psychology of how people view images. This video only scratches the surface of that - but it’s a start. Thanks for watching.
Interesting video and all good points. I have indeed looked at other photographers work and compared it with my own and in some cases thought mine is better. But the pro is selling his for 2k? Of course this is the age old problem. To sell your great images you have to be famous/award winning, but to get to that point your images need to be seen. I think the buying public do so as much for the named photographer as they do for the quality of the image. I also think (some hate it) adding an account about the capture lets the viewer share the experience, a wildlife image on the wall not matter how good means very little unless you have some relationship with how/where/by who it was taken. Lastly I would say that when you become a good photographer you know how good it will be before the button is pressed. I am sure we have all had those images you can't wait to get it into light room, if this is not the case then they probably aren't worth editing. Thanks for posting.
Hi Chris. Yes, I think that goes with the territory. It’s the same with any of the arts. Particularly music. A lesser known musician can be brilliant, but the famous musician gets all the sales. What I would say, though, is that the famous photographers who can command a high ticket price usually have a large body of work, which helps. They are also usually very good business people. It might be worth you reading some articles online about Rachael Talibart - she’s one of my favourite photographers and makes photos of epic seascapes and waves. But I’ve read articles about her and heard podcasts where she talks about the effort she made to get her photos into high end galleries for sale. Also a lot of good advice on how to build your brand - which also contributes to the perception of value of your photos. Thanks for watching.
Thanks
Thanks so much for the tip Tony - I’m very grateful.
Thanks for the video. At about the 7 minute mark you hit on something that has been on my mind lately. What is the sharpest point? If you view a photo in camera it has a little green square at the focus point (or at least on my Z50 and a7iv). So I am guessing it is in the Metadata. For a MacBook is there a setting in Lightroom Classic that will show the focus point? There was an app a couple of years ago that did this for Windows computers but I cant find anything for Macs. Apart from what you suggest I would use it in culling photos. I shoots almost birds exclusively and mainly small wrens and finches and the like so lots of short bursts. When culling photos I would find being able to see the focus point quickly a great advantage. In terms of your photograph of the blackbird; I like the bird but I always like to see a little detail in the background. To me it gives context to the image. I know I’m in the minority with that, but that’s what I like. Thanks again, I always enjoy your videos.
Hi Tony. It’s definitely in the exif data. Most software only displays a very small portion of what’s captured in the meta data. But if you google Exif data reader there are various sites that let you upload a raw file and it shows you all the meta data for that file. But I suspect that’s not going to help because you’d then have to go and find the group of pixels in your photo. I’m not aware of anything in Lightroom for Windows that points to it precisely. But the first time you zoom an image in Lightroom it will zoom in to the area where your focus point was. If you set the zoom to 1600% you’ll see it more precisely. After you have zoomed and then moved the picture, the next time you zoom it will zoom back to where you last zoomed, not the focusing point. I hope that helps. The other thing to be aware of though, is that it only tells you where the focussing point was. But if your camera missed focus, it may not be the sharpest point of the picture. Great question and I’m with you on the context. I think plain backgrounds just look a little to clinical. Thanks for watching.
Hi again Scott,
I have been trying the initial zoom suggestion and it is quite useful. For what I am after, zooming to 800% does the trick then back to 200% as at times I am so far out I need to see where I am. The biggest thing it showed me is a lazy habit I have of moving during a short burst ( 3-5 shots) when shooting at 1/500 or slower usually when the bird is reasonably stationary. Invariably the first shot is the best, not second or third like most seem to experience. The other thing is I wonder if my af eye tracking is working fully. I need to fix my lazy habit to determine the af tracking accuracy. Thanks again for the suggestion.
Glad it’s helpful, Tony. I’m not sure if the eye AF is better on the A7iv, but on my A9, it’s only really helpful with a large mammal. For most birds, it never recognises eye. But then again the A9 was the first generation of eye auto focus so I’m sure it’s got a lot better since then.
good analysis
Thanks for watching.
Great points and tips.
Much is also dependent on an individual's personal taste. A stellar mage has to have 'mass appeal'.
The sample photo is Okay but I much prefer the tight crop at around 7:43. The image is too busy for me and the out-of-focus green across the bird's body is actually irritating. It does seem to fit your style though.
I like images that I don't see every day, like closeup details of animals, or unusual poses.
I agree that the photo is not bad, but not great.
Do you typically aim for online shots or prints. I don't do many prints, but I always seem to be aiming for a larger (16 inch) printable end result for some reason. Many of my photos do look great online, but I'm often disappointed that they can't be printed with the same perceived quality, due to tight cropping on a 24mp image, even at 600mm focal length. How do you think about the 'publishing' aspect of photography?
Your videos have some great advice in them. Much appreciated! 👍
Hi Allen. Thanks for your opinion. On your question, you must be cropping quite heavily if you can’t get a 16 inch print from a 24MP file. At 240 ppi you have to crop more than 40% of the picture for it not to fit. Maybe you’re trying to print at 300 ppi, but this is over the top. There are lots of websites that say you should try for 300 ppi but this is only really what galleries and high end publications expect. Most magazines and books are published at 175 LPI (260 ppi) but I’ve been printing for years and 240 is indistinguishable. I do print, but only for myself nowadays - I used to sell them, but honestly it’s more hassle than it’s worth, so I stopped.
@@WalksOnTheWildSide I guess I'm an OCD pixel peeper and so, I tend to look at prints in the same way!
I also come from the days of 35mm film, when the only way to see your images was in print. I used to get very frustrated with the printed results as you were dependent upon the local chemist! I saw what basically the same photo could look like if processed in the dark room by a "professional" and that made it even more frustrating!
Now that I can do all that, and more, on my computer (especially with new AI tools), I'm much more content. However, I always think the screen image looks better (more vibrant) than the print. I think I need to stand back from my prints and give them some good light!
So if you don't sell your prints, you just upload or sell your files? That was really the essence of my original question.
On the vibrancy matter - it’s a bit of an art form. Most computer monitors are back lit. Which makes the colours appear brighter. You should create two different files, one for printing and one for displaying on screen. The general exposure of the print version should be higher. Not only that, some pigments appear darker, when printed, than others. So play around with the HSL panel for your print files, figure out which pigments need a boost and increase the luminosity of this particular colours in the HSL. I make money through various revenue streams but not printing. There are too many people at it these days. You have to spend a lot of time and money on marketing to stand out in the crowd and that then means you need to price your prints higher for all the time you spend on them, which then decreases demand. Hardly anyone makes a significant income from printing. Plus, people don’t buy unique photography/art in the way they used to do. They just get something generic from Amazon or a local homeware store.
Would that our "better photos" were so good as your not worthy of prime time, of placing on your website' real estate - "marginal' photos, Scott! Lol
Thank you for the helpful tips one should go through re analysis both after the fact, as well as to keep in mind in the back of our minds when in the act of taking thereof.
As we both know, it's the mind behind the scenes, guiding the camera that is the real key to a great image.
Sure it's "de lovely" to have fancy, schmancy cameras with lenses made of glass ground to the ultimate levels of crystal clarity perfection but, all of that?
That's like fertilizer left in the bag without a mind that matters, a mind possessed of true vision, born of, powered by that still small voice, spark of inspiration and goading, spoken from within!
Not, to put too fine a point on it!
The Blurr detracts from the subject. In my opinion there is to much blurr.
Thanks for your opinion
Thank you so much for this video which is not only very nice but of highest importance. In fact, such an important video for wildlife and landscape photographers was missing. A video well worth seeing is made by Matt Brandon (ruclips.net/video/3jhcdkQLbFQ/видео.html) but it concentrates on portrait photography. The list of important points may differ depending on whether you photograph wildlife, macro, landscape, portait, street photography, etc., but every photographer should create a list of points which he considers to being important to his own work. It is very helpful to have this list deep in your mind while being at the location because many occasions are unique and will never come back.
Glad you enjoyed it and I will check that video out at some point. Thanks for watching.
My eyes immediately shifted to the very blurry area on the left. Very distracting. Beautiful bird though
Thanks for your opinion
Thanks
Thank you Tony, that’s very kind. Much appreciated.