I was going through some older photos the other day and saw some I thought might merit some lightroom time. If I remember correctly, I was shooting across a small pond with a 70-300 lens when I took this. I expected that when I zoomed in I would see good detail on the crane and life would be wonderful. Life is still wonderful, but the detail was not there at all. It was not a good shot at all. What should I have done different in this shot to achieve a good detail on the crane from that distance please?
Zoom detail fell short
- Thread starter texaslimo
- Start date
You need to resize your photos to 1000 on the long side. That should work.
Guidelines to adding a photo to your post.
1. Resize photo to 1000px on the long side.
2. Resolution set to 72ppi (Pixels Per Inch)
These guidelines will be good for viewing on a computer but will not be good for printing. This will help safeguard your copyright.
BF Hammer
Senior Member
Bright white bird against dark background. The crane is overexposed and that is where the detail is mostly lost.
This is where we would use spot-metering rather than matrix-metering. Even then you likely would be darkening the exposure.
Shooting raw to get the extra dynamic range to recover, I would duplicate the image as 2 layers over each other, then process the exposure separately. Layer-mask and paint the mask to reveal the appropriate part of the lower layer, then merge.
This is where we would use spot-metering rather than matrix-metering. Even then you likely would be darkening the exposure.
Shooting raw to get the extra dynamic range to recover, I would duplicate the image as 2 layers over each other, then process the exposure separately. Layer-mask and paint the mask to reveal the appropriate part of the lower layer, then merge.
Clovishound
Senior Member
I agree with BF that the main problem is blown out highlights. I also looked at the beak of the bird and it doesn't look quite sharp either. It could be AF was locked on something else, or it could be motion blur. No EXIF data to look at and see what the shutter speed was.
When shooting white birds, I usually give it about 1.5 to 2.5 stops underexposure. Exactly what I choose is normally based on experience. I give more compensation in bright sunlight, and/or with a predominantly dark background. If you are shooting with a mirrorless, the display often clues you in that the subject is over/underexposed, and changing compensation will change the look of the display. On a DSLR a quick review of the image after you take it can also clue you in.
When shooting white birds, I usually give it about 1.5 to 2.5 stops underexposure. Exactly what I choose is normally based on experience. I give more compensation in bright sunlight, and/or with a predominantly dark background. If you are shooting with a mirrorless, the display often clues you in that the subject is over/underexposed, and changing compensation will change the look of the display. On a DSLR a quick review of the image after you take it can also clue you in.
BF Hammer
Senior Member
@Clovishound I do see exif on the image. 1/500s at f/7.1 (135mm).
If a tripod was used, VR should be turned off. Focus might be off. Shutter speed by all recommendations at 135mm is fine. But I will add that I never have had an exceptionally good example of a 70-300mm lens. There are many versions, but I found both of mine to be low contrast and soft in general. A used 70-200mm f/2.8 is a much better match for a high-resolution D850.
@texaslimo after uploading the image, there is another button to click on to insert the photo into your post so it will show the full size photo.
If a tripod was used, VR should be turned off. Focus might be off. Shutter speed by all recommendations at 135mm is fine. But I will add that I never have had an exceptionally good example of a 70-300mm lens. There are many versions, but I found both of mine to be low contrast and soft in general. A used 70-200mm f/2.8 is a much better match for a high-resolution D850.
@texaslimo after uploading the image, there is another button to click on to insert the photo into your post so it will show the full size photo.
Last edited:
BF Hammer
Senior Member
I know this is turning into old news, but I remembered I have a 2nd exif viewer installed. Some extra details...
FILE PROPERTIES
[ ./ ]
Content-type: image/jpeg
Size: 450402 bytes (439.85 KB)
Last modified: Mon, 08 Sep 2025 00:22:59 GMT
Dimensions: 2289x2079 pixels
IMAGE META DATA
Date: 2019-06-16 15:04:45 -0400
Creator: RICHARD GERMANY
Make: NIKON CORPORATION
Model: NIKON D850
Lens: 70.0-300.0 mm f/4.5-5.6
Focal Length: 135mm, 135mm (35mm equivalent)
Aperture: ƒ/7.1
Exposure Time: 0.0020s (1/500)
ISO equivalent: 400
Flash Fired: No
White Balance: Auto
Distance: Infinite
Software: Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 13.1 (Windows)
Exposure: aperture priority (semi-auto)
Exposure Bias: none
Metering Mode: Matrix
Focal Length: 135
Color Space: sRGB
Focal Length (35mm): 135
LensModel: 70.0-300.0 mm f/4.5-5.6
Preserved Filename: _DSC0518.JPG
It looks like the recorded focal distance was at infinity. I am guessing that was a near-miss on focus and it should be just a bit shorter than that. Otherwise I cannot criticize the exposure choices much. I think I would have accepted a higher ISO with Auto-ISO active and taken a higher f-stop more like f/11. On my D750 I'm willing to take photos at ISO 3200 in some situations, ISO 1600 anytime.
FILE PROPERTIES
[ ./ ]
Content-type: image/jpeg
Size: 450402 bytes (439.85 KB)
Last modified: Mon, 08 Sep 2025 00:22:59 GMT
Dimensions: 2289x2079 pixels
IMAGE META DATA
Date: 2019-06-16 15:04:45 -0400
Creator: RICHARD GERMANY
Make: NIKON CORPORATION
Model: NIKON D850
Lens: 70.0-300.0 mm f/4.5-5.6
Focal Length: 135mm, 135mm (35mm equivalent)
Aperture: ƒ/7.1
Exposure Time: 0.0020s (1/500)
ISO equivalent: 400
Flash Fired: No
White Balance: Auto
Distance: Infinite
Software: Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 13.1 (Windows)
Exposure: aperture priority (semi-auto)
Exposure Bias: none
Metering Mode: Matrix
Focal Length: 135
Color Space: sRGB
Focal Length (35mm): 135
LensModel: 70.0-300.0 mm f/4.5-5.6
Preserved Filename: _DSC0518.JPG
It looks like the recorded focal distance was at infinity. I am guessing that was a near-miss on focus and it should be just a bit shorter than that. Otherwise I cannot criticize the exposure choices much. I think I would have accepted a higher ISO with Auto-ISO active and taken a higher f-stop more like f/11. On my D750 I'm willing to take photos at ISO 3200 in some situations, ISO 1600 anytime.
Clovishound
Senior Member
BF, what EXIF reader are you using? I'm using xlFr, and it shows only file data, no camera data. It normally works on files that have metadata.
BF Hammer
Senior Member
@Clovishound I read it with xlFr in Firefox. I'm also running Exify for the hover-view of basic exif info.
But I think I see where you are going wrong. First click on his image attachment to view the pop-up full screen image. Then right-click and view exif.
But I think I see where you are going wrong. First click on his image attachment to view the pop-up full screen image. Then right-click and view exif.
