2nd try

On 7/29/2014 9:38 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-07-30 01:02:21 +0000, nospam said:

In article 2014072907132454400-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

Also consider that once you add that TC you no longer have that f/2.8
lens, eventhough the chip in the lens will ID it as a 70-200mm f/2.8.

depends on the teleconverter. some will send the effective aperture
while others just pass the lens data on through.

When the metadata/EXIF IDs the lens as a 70-200mm f/2.8 and the image is
shot at 340mm on a D800 @ f/11, it tells me what aperture the shot was
made at, and it tells me that this 70-200mm f/2.8 has at least a TC 0.7
at max zoom. Add to that the use of flash and ISO 2000, it seems to me
that there is still a fair degree of Russian roulette shooting going on.
Peter says he misread the EXIF as f/2.8, but this was shot in aperture
priority @ f/11, so who set that aperture if not him?
Then he says the edge softness might be due to the flash. Once more my
BS meter twitches.

I will continue to say this, the addition of the TC to a Nikkor 70-200mm
f/2.8 in addition to the exposure settings used amounts to compromising
the potential of a great lens. The TC can be useful under some
circumstances, this particular shoot and subject, is in my opinion not
one of them.


Here are some reasonably sharp images shot using the 80-400 with the 1.4 TC.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140114_Pompano%20buttefly%20%20birds_5639.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140114_Pompano%20buttefly%20%20birds_5757.jpg

Now please stop blaming my TC.



--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Here are some reasonably sharp images shot using the 80-400 with the 1.4 TC.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...0buttefly%20%2
0birds_5639.jpg

that has a *major* sharpening halo.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140114_Pompano%20buttefly%20%20birds_5757.jpg

motion blur.

Now please stop blaming my TC.

that leaves you.

On 7/30/2014 11:11 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

Here are some reasonably sharp images shot using the 80-400 with the 1.4 TC.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...0buttefly%20%2
0birds_5639.jpg

that has a *major* sharpening halo.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140114_Pompano%20buttefly%20%20birds_5757.jpg

motion blur.

Note manual setting. Nothing wrong with motion blur. Of course if you
can do better, please show us.


Now please stop blaming my TC.

that leaves you.

That was my point. I am trying to figure out what I am doing wrong.

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Here are some reasonably sharp images shot using the 80-400 with the 1.4
TC.


https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...o%20buttefly%2
0%2
0birds_5639.jpg

that has a *major* sharpening halo.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...o%20buttefly%2
0%20birds_5757.jpg

motion blur.

Note manual setting. Nothing wrong with motion blur. Of course if you
can do better, please show us.

i didn't say there was anything wrong with motion blur. the point is
that an image with motion blur is not an example of a sharp image.

Now please stop blaming my TC.

that leaves you.

That was my point. I am trying to figure out what I am doing wrong.

overdoing sharpening for one.

your autofocus could be out of adjustment.

try the classic brick wall or newspaper test and see whether your
system is out of whack or not. if it is, then no matter what you do is
going to have problems. if not, then the problem is not the equipment.

On 2014-07-30 13:43:16 +0000, PeterN said:

On 7/29/2014 9:38 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-07-30 01:02:21 +0000, nospam said:

In article 2014072907132454400-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

Also consider that once you add that TC you no longer have that f/2.8
lens, eventhough the chip in the lens will ID it as a 70-200mm f/2.8.

depends on the teleconverter. some will send the effective aperture
while others just pass the lens data on through.

When the metadata/EXIF IDs the lens as a 70-200mm f/2.8 and the image is
shot at 340mm on a D800 @ f/11, it tells me what aperture the shot was
made at, and it tells me that this 70-200mm f/2.8 has at least a TC 0.7
at max zoom. Add to that the use of flash and ISO 2000, it seems to me
that there is still a fair degree of Russian roulette shooting going on.
Peter says he misread the EXIF as f/2.8, but this was shot in aperture
priority @ f/11, so who set that aperture if not him?
Then he says the edge softness might be due to the flash. Once more my
BS meter twitches.

The image was a crop from the center. Edge falloff would not be a
factor, especially with the TC 17.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140727_bronz%20zoo_5289.NEF

After seeing that NEF I hold that you are doing something seriously
wrong in the capture phase of your photography, and are then relying on
post to fix things. Unfortunately you have such a damaged RAW file,
fixing in post is tough. The image can be improved, but one has to be
quite careful as to exactly what they are doing in post to get it close
to being acceptable.

First here is a side-by-side comparison of your unmolested and
questionable NEF along side one of my adjustments/crop of the shot.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_824.jpg
....and my final rendition.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/BZ_5289-1Af.jpg

All I can say is, you are doing something very wrong and your shooting
technique needs some attention. At this stage I couldn't even begin to
guess what the cure is. You have a great camera, you have a great lens,
and both should give you exemplary performance in low light. You have
given us the evidence that you are not shooting to the potential of
your equipment.


I will continue to say this, the addition of the TC to a Nikkor 70-200mm
f/2.8 in addition to the exposure settings used amounts to compromising
the potential of a great lens. The TC can be useful under some
circumstances, this particular shoot and subject, is in my opinion not
one of them.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2014-07-30 14:00:10 +0000, PeterN said:

On 7/29/2014 10:57 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 18:38:43 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

I will continue to say this, the addition of the TC to a Nikkor
70-200mm f/2.8 in addition to the exposure settings used amounts to
compromising the potential of a great lens. The TC can be useful under
some circumstances, this particular shoot and subject, is in my opinion
not one of them.

Some months ago I read very good things of the TC20-III on the last
two 70-200mm lens, with the warning that the TC2-20-II is a waste of
money with those lenses. Unfortunately I can't remember where I read
it.


Can't say. This shot was made using the TC17II. I have some reasonably
sharp, cropped images, using that combination.

This one from a canoe:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140101_sanibel.jpg

I wouldn't call that reasonably sharp, even after you had blessed it
with whatever you did in post. To my eye there are some OoF issues
which you have made snapshot acceptable in post.
Once again you have pushed things to the limit out to 340mm with that
TC. As much as you want to convince yourself that the way you use the
TC is OK, you have yet to provide evidence to demonstrate that as fact
from the combo of equipment and subjects you have available. I dare say
that there are others getting superior results with lesser cameras than
your fine D800 & 70-200mm f/2/8.

Hand held:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140103_more%20birds%26%20test%20shots_3839.jpg

....but

with the TC17 pushed to its limit at 340mm. Add to that the crop and
whatever else you did in post and the result isn't particularly good.
VR should have dealt with the hand held issues without too much
problem. The neck feathers are there, but not particularly well
defined. There is an obvious halo around the bill
....but the eye is great!
I also have to ask, why f/18?
....and if you are going to crop anyway, why bother with that pesky TC?


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 09:43:16 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 7/29/2014 9:38 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-07-30 01:02:21 +0000, nospam said:

In article 2014072907132454400-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

Also consider that once you add that TC you no longer have that f/2.8
lens, eventhough the chip in the lens will ID it as a 70-200mm f/2.8.

depends on the teleconverter. some will send the effective aperture
while others just pass the lens data on through.

When the metadata/EXIF IDs the lens as a 70-200mm f/2.8 and the image is
shot at 340mm on a D800 @ f/11, it tells me what aperture the shot was
made at, and it tells me that this 70-200mm f/2.8 has at least a TC 0.7
at max zoom. Add to that the use of flash and ISO 2000, it seems to me
that there is still a fair degree of Russian roulette shooting going on.
Peter says he misread the EXIF as f/2.8, but this was shot in aperture
priority @ f/11, so who set that aperture if not him?
Then he says the edge softness might be due to the flash. Once more my
BS meter twitches.

The image was a crop from the center. Edge falloff would not be a
factor, especially with the TC 17.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140727_bronz%20zoo_5289.NEF

I presume this is the original unedited image and that it hasn't been
cropped. I have looked at this in Photoshop, NX2 and Photo Paint (I
haven't the module for your camera to enable me to open in DxO) and I
have to agree with Savageduck. There seems to be something seriously
wrong somewhere.

The image is very flat with the main part of the histogram occupying
about 1/3 of the width available. There are long thin tails on both
the bright and the dark side but not even they reach the ends. The
result is that you have an extremely flat murky image which you have
had to deal with in post processing. My question is, how did this come
about?

Ignoring the focal length, the EXIF reports "Auto exposure,
Aperture-priority AE, 1/60 sec, f/11, ISO 2000, Compensation: -1/3".
This suggests the lighting was not good but was it really as flat and
monotonous as the image suggests? And why the compensation of -1/3?

How would you have shot this without the teleconverter? Apart from the
size, would the results have been any different?



I will continue to say this, the addition of the TC to a Nikkor 70-200mm
f/2.8 in addition to the exposure settings used amounts to compromising
the potential of a great lens. The TC can be useful under some
circumstances, this particular shoot and subject, is in my opinion not
one of them.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 7/30/2014 10:40 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 09:43:16 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 7/29/2014 9:38 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-07-30 01:02:21 +0000, nospam said:

In article 2014072907132454400-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

Also consider that once you add that TC you no longer have that f/2.8
lens, eventhough the chip in the lens will ID it as a 70-200mm f/2.8.

depends on the teleconverter. some will send the effective aperture
while others just pass the lens data on through.

When the metadata/EXIF IDs the lens as a 70-200mm f/2.8 and the image is
shot at 340mm on a D800 @ f/11, it tells me what aperture the shot was
made at, and it tells me that this 70-200mm f/2.8 has at least a TC 0.7
at max zoom. Add to that the use of flash and ISO 2000, it seems to me
that there is still a fair degree of Russian roulette shooting going on.
Peter says he misread the EXIF as f/2.8, but this was shot in aperture
priority @ f/11, so who set that aperture if not him?
Then he says the edge softness might be due to the flash. Once more my
BS meter twitches.

The image was a crop from the center. Edge falloff would not be a
factor, especially with the TC 17.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140727_bronz%20zoo_5289.NEF

I presume this is the original unedited image and that it hasn't been
cropped. I have looked at this in Photoshop, NX2 and Photo Paint (I
haven't the module for your camera to enable me to open in DxO) and I
have to agree with Savageduck. There seems to be something seriously
wrong somewhere.

The image is very flat with the main part of the histogram occupying
about 1/3 of the width available. There are long thin tails on both
the bright and the dark side but not even they reach the ends. The
result is that you have an extremely flat murky image which you have
had to deal with in post processing. My question is, how did this come
about?

Ignoring the focal length, the EXIF reports "Auto exposure,
Aperture-priority AE, 1/60 sec, f/11, ISO 2000, Compensation: -1/3".
This suggests the lighting was not good but was it really as flat and
monotonous as the image suggests? And why the compensation of -1/3?

How would you have shot this without the teleconverter? Apart from the
size, would the results have been any different?



The day was overcast and the lighting was flat. The shots were made
through a thick glass. The strobe was too far from the glass and I
stupidly had the diffuser down. I suspect the greenish grey flatness was
caused by light scatter. If I had used my better beamer, and the strobe
was closer I don't think I would have had the issue. I will try to go
back within the next week or so and test my theory.

I will also take the camera over to Nikon and double check on the focus.


--
PeterN

On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 23:47:26 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

--- snip

The image was a crop from the center. Edge falloff would not be a
factor, especially with the TC 17.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140727_bronz%20zoo_5289.NEF

I presume this is the original unedited image and that it hasn't been
cropped. I have looked at this in Photoshop, NX2 and Photo Paint (I
haven't the module for your camera to enable me to open in DxO) and I
have to agree with Savageduck. There seems to be something seriously
wrong somewhere.

The image is very flat with the main part of the histogram occupying
about 1/3 of the width available. There are long thin tails on both
the bright and the dark side but not even they reach the ends. The
result is that you have an extremely flat murky image which you have
had to deal with in post processing. My question is, how did this come
about?

Ignoring the focal length, the EXIF reports "Auto exposure,
Aperture-priority AE, 1/60 sec, f/11, ISO 2000, Compensation: -1/3".
This suggests the lighting was not good but was it really as flat and
monotonous as the image suggests? And why the compensation of -1/3?

How would you have shot this without the teleconverter? Apart from the
size, would the results have been any different?



The day was overcast and the lighting was flat. The shots were made
through a thick glass. The strobe was too far from the glass and I
stupidly had the diffuser down. I suspect the greenish grey flatness was
caused by light scatter. If I had used my better beamer, and the strobe
was closer I don't think I would have had the issue. I will try to go
back within the next week or so and test my theory.

I will also take the camera over to Nikon and double check on the focus.

The glass may be a major part of the problem. Internal reflections
bouncing backwards and forwards will flatten any image. I don't know
that punching more light through with the Better Beamedr will do you
much good either. Getting the other side of the glass might help but
might have to be quick. :-)
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2014-07-31 03:47:26 +0000, PeterN said:

On 7/30/2014 10:40 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 09:43:16 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 7/29/2014 9:38 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-07-30 01:02:21 +0000, nospam said:

In article 2014072907132454400-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

Also consider that once you add that TC you no longer have that f/2.8
lens, eventhough the chip in the lens will ID it as a 70-200mm f/2.8.

depends on the teleconverter. some will send the effective aperture
while others just pass the lens data on through.

When the metadata/EXIF IDs the lens as a 70-200mm f/2.8 and the image is
shot at 340mm on a D800 @ f/11, it tells me what aperture the shot was
made at, and it tells me that this 70-200mm f/2.8 has at least a TC 0.7
at max zoom. Add to that the use of flash and ISO 2000, it seems to me
that there is still a fair degree of Russian roulette shooting going on.
Peter says he misread the EXIF as f/2.8, but this was shot in aperture
priority @ f/11, so who set that aperture if not him?
Then he says the edge softness might be due to the flash. Once more my
BS meter twitches.

The image was a crop from the center. Edge falloff would not be a
factor, especially with the TC 17.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140727_bronz%20zoo_5289.NEF

I presume this is the original unedited image and that it hasn't been
cropped. I have looked at this in Photoshop, NX2 and Photo Paint (I
haven't the module for your camera to enable me to open in DxO) and I
have to agree with Savageduck. There seems to be something seriously
wrong somewhere.

The image is very flat with the main part of the histogram occupying
about 1/3 of the width available. There are long thin tails on both
the bright and the dark side but not even they reach the ends. The
result is that you have an extremely flat murky image which you have
had to deal with in post processing. My question is, how did this come
about?

Ignoring the focal length, the EXIF reports "Auto exposure,
Aperture-priority AE, 1/60 sec, f/11, ISO 2000, Compensation: -1/3".
This suggests the lighting was not good but was it really as flat and
monotonous as the image suggests? And why the compensation of -1/3?

How would you have shot this without the teleconverter? Apart from the
size, would the results have been any different?



The day was overcast and the lighting was flat. The shots were made
through a thick glass.

Now you give us this snippet of information.

The strobe was too far from the glass and I stupidly had the diffuser
down. I suspect the greenish grey flatness was caused by light scatter.
If I had used my better beamer, and the strobe was closer I don't think
I would have had the issue. I will try to go back within the next week
or so and test my theory.

I suspect the problem lies more with the glass barrier than the flash.
That said you might have done better with the flash off camera,and
better positioned to illuminate the subject, and not to interact with
the glass barrier. The addition of a CPF rather than the TC might be a
better way to go. Remember, you are going to crop anyway.

I will also take the camera over to Nikon and double check on the focus.

Now that you have revealed the existence of the thick glass barrier
between lens and subject, I doubt that there is anything wrong with the
lens, Might I suggest a move to manual focus for the next time you try
this shot, for at least one of the shots.

For now, I would hold off on having Nikon check the camera/lens combo.
If you do don't forget to tell them the exact circumstances on the
problematic shoot.

It seems to me you need more planning at the location for this shot.


--
Regards,

Savageduck