>I'd like some pointers on evaluating technical aspects of my photos. I >take a lot of pictures of animals, and some of them I ask the shop to do a >crop equivalent to about an 8x10 to get some faux telephoto and remove >background I didn't really want. They always look so much bigger in the >viewfinder than they do in the prints. I'm not sure I've done anything >that's worthy of real enlargement. But even if it looks okay in the >4x6, the crop always looks kind of blurry and grainy. So I'm wondering >how to determine which effects are due to the film, the cheap optics that >I use, possibly something not quite in focus at the developer, and how >much is just me.
>I'm sure a lot of it is just me. But I do use an old zoom with a cheap, >teleconverter, and I've never had really good optics to play with. >I'd been planning a new lens for a while until the real world slapped me >silly, and now that's going to have to wait. I'm often sure if my >focus was off or if the camera was shaking. I often take photos in bad >lighting but I have some recent ones in good sun, I think the exposure >was good. Is grain caused by anything besides the film and poor >exposure? It seems most obvious in out of focus areas. >I try to use a tripod when I can, it's a cheap one but I usually keep it >as short as it gets, it seems pretty stable that way. With a remote >release when I can, but sometimes mobile subjects make that impractical. >Or I use it as a monopod. I tend to use faster film, 400 or 800, because >of lighting and telephoto work. The last was Kodak High Definition, I >don't know how high definition it really is. How large should I expect >the prints to get before grain becomes obvious from a few inches away? Okay, some people have already made recommendations about film. I have tried both Provia 100 and 400 -- slide film. The 400 looks a lot like the 100, actually. And, for deer and other things that tend to freeze when they see one, I think a ISO of 100 is enough. For birds and squirrels and other faster moving things, 400 at least. I've done the same thing, tried wild life photography with a cheap zoom. Results are not that good. Though as far as grain goes, you should be able to get 8x10's with minimal grain. Maybe you need to dump your cheap zoom and get a better cheap zoom. The animals around here, again, are often in shade. Just the local conditions. I stop down (up?) if needed. Go one stop bigger (say from 4 to 5.6 ) if the animal is in shade (stop down from what the meter says) and let the highlights burn out and crop later. Tripod is not always helpful if the animals are moving around a lot. And most TCs fail in deep shade and with the aperture stopped down (up?). Most of my stuff is still cr_p, but I find I am improving a tad. So I figure, just practice. Take lots and lots of shots and hope one is a keeper. Taking pictures of wild life may be one of the hardest areas of photography. Not that landscapes aren't hard, they have their own trickiness. It's just that animals don't really cooperate. ;-) And I have figured, for myself, somehow someday, I have to get some good big glass. I see no way around it for achieving decent shots. HTH, but probably not. Also, it is nice if there are animals you can sort of "revisit," where they can get used to you coming around at the same times of day and things. Makes them less spooked on the whole. Also no sudden moves, don't look them in the eye, and turn off the beep on your camera if it has one, but I am sure you know all that. Marnie aka Doe :-) I have concluded, IMHO, anyone attempting to do it without top notch equipment is basically nuts. OTOH, no one ever said I was completely sane.
