Photography question

Crop the photo and save it as bird cropped. Open up the photo and it should open at a resolution of 100%, the image will be larger than the one you cropped.

The reason.

When you viewed the the uncropped photo, it was probably compressed to fit on the screen. If the photo width was 3600pixels and the screen was 1200pixels, it was compressed 33%.

But, If the resolution of the photo was the same as the screen, the above will not be true.

Thanks Fatcat,

Here is a quick experiment. Even with a 200mm lens this little chap was barely visible in the photo amid the vegetation in my garden but with your help he has grown in the world. I will have a bash with some of my other stuff now. 

Cheers

There are two things here, zooming (just changing the way it appears on your monitor) and upsizing (creating a new image that is made up of more pixels).

When you crop, you throw away pixels but the size of the image on the screen may not change (some software will automatically enlarge it). You now have two choices. 1. Leave the cropped image as is and simply view at a higher zoom (usually accessed by the "View" menu) or; 2) upsize the image in pixels (how this is accessed varies with the software you are using). You don't really get any more detail doing this, although some of the interpolation algorithms that create the extra pixels are bloody brilliant at guessing the interpolated pixels creating what looks to be a more detailed and sharper image. More sophisticated processing software will give you a choice of what type of interpolation you want to use. Now, with the upsized image (made up of more pixels), you can then consider judicious use of the sharpening tools to make the image "snap" a little more, but don't overdo it. The sharpening tools will be less effective if you don't upsize the image first.

Thanks Winky,

I only have MS Office Picture Manager on my laptop. There is a CD that came with the camera (View NX2) but my CD drive is broken (effing Dell). 

I can buy an external CD drive or buy some software - what software would you (or anyone else here recommend? 

The problem with cropping is that you lose pixels and therefore resolution of an image viewed at the same size on the monitor. As Winky points out you can resize the image but that only goes so far. If you have a 400% crop the results wont be as good as a 100% crop as the software doesn't have as many pixels to average out. It also depends on the resolution of your camera's sensor. Cropping will obviously work better with pictures taken with a high resolution sensor. I use Photoshop CS5 to resize and I am not aware of a budget software that can do it, but others may know.

On a different note; I just love where you live. A photographer's paradise. 

ATB

Steve

Just a a few quick notes about scaling up an image using software (Photshop, etc.)

Try different types of sampling, in Photshop the transform does not have obvious options, but at the bottom of the 'resize image' there are various options like bi-cubic, (I would say gaussian, but I think Adobe call it something else).

Try a couple of different options. Which is pretty much what Winkyincanada says.

You can also use a sharpen filter, but be wary, these tend to just change contrast around edges and can cause 'ringing'. I don't like them.

You can also look at where the black and white points are in the image, and tighten them up, it will increase the contrast, and often the chroma, though. Worth a try though, and often nicer than a sharpen filter.

Here is the bit that until you get into it sounds strange, adding a little grain, or noise will sharpen the image. Don't do too much, or you will have something that looks like Super 8. Film post software tends to have very sophisticated grain options, Photoshop's is poor, but even a plain layer of noise can improve the sharpness of an image.

A good way to get noise, which I have used on a film shoots, is to put the lens cap on, put the gain of the camera right up, and take a image.

You can add this with a screen, or multiply, or other layer blending options depending on your software.

Grain is part of all camera images and comes originally from the chemical medium spread on paper, or the negative to make the image. With digital cameras, it comes from the chip dithering between the different values it could give for any given pixel. Digital cameras also tend to mimic the qualities of film (chemical) cameras, as it is something we are accustomed to.

As for software, Photoshop is one of the most widely used photo 'enhancing' tools out there, but it is pricey, and compared to film tools, lacking in some areas. Still a good all round post tool to try get hold of. Photographers here may have other good options though, as Photoshop will have an awful lot of functions that are really only for design work.

I hope that isn't all too 'waffley'.

Jamie

Nothing wrong with waffling if what you're saying is useful. It's certainly useful to me, but I doubt of any use to Sniper. He did say he knows very little about photography, he's just learned about cropping and pixels. Discussing blending layers and bicubic interpolation etc. is a bit over the top.

Sniper

I'd recommend you use Picasa 3 for basic editing, it's a free download from google, so it must be good. Find your way around a basic program before contemplating looking at something like photoshop. Go through all the editing functions, observing how they alter the photo.

With regards to resizing the bird photo, it looks fine as it is. I bet it wasn't easy to spot, it blends in well with the colours of the tree.

You are quite right Fatcat.

Perhaps all I should have said is that if it all ends up a soft, it can be surprising what adding a bit of grain can do to make an image look better.

It is fun to experiment with what you can do to images once you have them in some software though.

Yes. I remember my first digital photos. I ordered digital copies as well as prints from a 35mm negative, I was amazed how simply increasing contrast seemed to lift a veil from the image. Then I discovered saturation.

Oh man, did I overdo it when I first started digitising film using a Nikon Coolpix 35mm slide scanner. I look back at some of what I did and just shudder!

Hi Sniper,

I personally agree with fatcat when he says "with regards to resizing the bird photo,it looks fine as it is.I bet it wasn't easy to spot,it blends in well with the colours ot the tree",and that's his respectable opinion on a picture.I think you should have taken a better light measurement on the liitle bird,say setting your camera on spot?IAs fatcat said,it's not easy but I see the leafs in your photo are on the right exposure while the bird is in the shadow:you could have sacrifice the high lights.

Thanks for all the info and advice chaps.

The photo of the bird is AFTER it has been zoomed and cropped as per Fatcat's instructions. In the original you would hardly see it. I might post the original later when I have a moment. I would not have spotted it if I had not heard it first. I was a fair way away (I was using a 200mm lens at max - never used one before) - I needed to use continuous shooting and did not know how to set it up (the camera is only 2 days old and being from an IT background I have not read the handbook). The bird is a male Sun Bird and he is tiny and jumps about and hovvers when sipping the nectar from some whopping big yellow flowers - there is very little time to do anything other than point the camera and keep a finger on the trigger. He seems to keep regular hours and announces himself with a distinctive whistle so I will find him again soon. I have found out how to do continuous shooting and I am going to catalogue all the birds that come into our garden.

Over the last 3 weeks we have seen a Sea Eagle overhead almost daily and this is a very rare sight or so I am told. I trashed my entry level Sony a200 when I got a face full of the South China Sea a month ago (taking pics of Mrs.Sniper by the beach) and I was missing so much good stuff I went out and bought the best camera in the little town where I live which turned out to be a Nikon D5100 so the sensor etc is quite good I believe. 

Fabio, I have no idea how to take a light reading - advice is welcome. Yes, pity he was under a leaf and in some shadow as the blue around his neck is electric in the sunlight. 

Another interesting project is to catch the Swifts (astonishing acrobats) sipping from and dipping into  our pool whilst on the wing. Another job for continuous shooting I think. They are shameless shows off and they will do this even if I am standing in the middle of the pool. I tried to shoot them with the camera set to Speed Priority and the shutter to 1/1000 but the pics were all dark. Yesterday I set the Nikon to Speed - 1/1000 and ISO 500 in bright sunshine (!) and pics were better but I had not worked out the continuous shooting thing at that time and the squadron of show offs sped off elsewhere. They will be back so any advice would be welcomed.

Interestingly, and by way of an idle experiment, I used these settings using the 200mm lens plus f9 to take the photo of some flowers which is my last post on the nice photos thread. I was amazed at the detail (which of course you can't see on the forum) - zooming in on my laptop I thought I'd eventually see individual photons!  Speed Priority is new to me as previously I only ever used 'A' and ISO 100 in bright sunshine and then played around with f stops not really knowing what I was doing. 

Steve, thank you. Yes, this is a photographers paradise and it has inspired me to buy a better a camera with a separate 200mm lens and to learn more about this interesting hobby. I feel like getting up early and walking around the garden and beach with my finger on the trigger all day.

The Nikon is a thing of beauty and I plan to do it justice and learn how to use it more effectively but I am not sure I want to get into photoshop and I think Fatcat is right maybe Picasa 3 is all I need and all I want. 

Here is the original before cropping. I probably have hundreds of photos that could benefit from enlarging and cropping but as much as possible I'd like to know I had used my camera to its full potential before resorting to software. The original is 3.74 MB and the cropped version is puny 397kb.

I think that you need to be much much closer with a much much bigger lens.

There is only a certain amount that you can do with cropping and I think that you are way beyond what is possible for acceptable quality.

Sorry.

Tony, 10 to 15 feet with some camouflage and patience would be possible. I might give it a go in a few weeks. 

Bananahead, I'm not looking to get on the front cover on National Geographic, I just want to catalogue the birds in my garden and the only quality that is acceptable is the quality that is acceptable to me and no one else. 

Sorry

Camouflage, patience, and maybe some tempting food? 

But yes, stick with what you have, and if photographing small birds really grabs you, then you can take it further and spend more money.  However, that's expensive as you'd need at least a 400mm f4. That's just not worth it unless you're really hooked by it.

Tony

I recently got a Tamron 200-400 off ebay. It's not all that for sharpness and quite slow but it's been giving me an insight into using a longer lens recently and was cheap!

Before, my longest lens was a 70-200l but I gotta say my preference is still for 'the bigger picture' shot and I prefer using the 135l which gives more of that and is super sharp, such that if I do crop, it still looks good.

So, perhaps be sure of and check what you like before plunging on an expensive new big lens and practice on your chosen software. Also, consider shooting in RAW and pushing up your speeds (and ISO if needed) to help with detail if it needs it, as lighting fast moving subjects is a perennial issue.

The picture below was shot this morning with the Tamron and it's very murky out, so shot in RAW which gives many more possibilities for tweaking an image of a fast moving flappy thing from a slow lens and high ISO!!!

Thanks Tony, I can't imagine forking out loads of dosh for a 400mm f4 but who knows the bug may yet bite. I'm looking forward to some time off and getting cammed up and lying in wait for the right shot - hence my name. 

Jamie, thanks for the advice. I have never used RAW so I will give it go. 

Fatcat, I have downloaded Picasa 3 and it looks great. I had a little play with it earlier and it seems to do what I want it do very nicely, thank you. 

"Fabio, I have no idea how to take a light reading - advice is welcome".

Sniper,I see you have had a Sony a200,I own an a450.I bought it two years because I still have some very nice Minolta AF lenses at my disposal which fit to it.As for the light metering is just a simple thing:all cameras have it.You can choose among three settings:multisegment,center weighted and spot.In the first one all the light in the scene you're pointing is considered by the lightmeter,in the second there's a predominance in the middle and then spot mode is a very restricted point,such as the little bird in your pic.Hope this helps.

Hi Sniper, 

Another option for capturing pictures of the birds is to use a tripod with a remote release. If you know where your birds like to roost or if you use a bird feeder this can be a better option than dressing in camo gear, unless you have other reasons for doing so . The birds don't seem to mind the camera and you can use a shorter focal length lens. I use a Hahnel remote which is not expensive. The Nuthatch below was taken this way using a 105mm lens and these birda are very shy.

ATB

Steve

Steve,

Great photo of the Nuthatch. I think tripod and remote is a good idea. I will look into this on our shopping trip to manila.