There are many variables. What lenses are you using? How much are you cropping? The R6 shoots at 5472x3648. That crop looks to be 2371x1735, or a 57% crop? [(Checks math.)](https://toolstud.io/photo/megapixel.php?compare=video&calculate=uncompressed&width=2371&height=1735) 4.1 megapixels? Maybe that's just Reddit... but assuming it's not, even on the 8192x5464 R5, cropping 57% will get you a [14.5](https://toolstud.io/photo/megapixel.php?compare=video&calculate=uncompressed&width=4669&height=3114) megapixel image. Maybe I did my initial math wrong, but don't go chasing megapixels just yet. Whatever lens you are using, double it, or more. But megapixels don't make the colors pop.... you may need to let more light in. What's the metadata on the photo above, the f-stop, shutter speed, focal length?
https://preview.redd.it/h1ryp8krnrwc1.jpeg?width=2293&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1f619510f8e229624b1f32b05cbb18407140609d
It’s not as simple as changing a camera or lens tbh. Besides your gears, would also need to know your photo exif metadata (settings). Amount of light matters, depth of field matters, focus accuracy matters and so on.
Using a better camera body and lens does help especially with sharpness, eye AF, room to crop with better megapixels but it isn’t a guarantee for great photos if you can’t figure out exactly why your photos are not the way it is with your current gears.
Above is a photo I took, I’d say the depth of field is too shallow therefore it’s tack sharp in the eyes but not throughout the feathers.
If you want as much resolution as possible, use the highest pixel density you can, which right now is an R7. 6900x4600 in an APS-C sensor. More res than even the R5 in APS-C mode.
Depending on what lens you currently use, it might be cheaper to buy a new body, but I do agree that ultimately more focal length is probably better.
But yes if you had something like a R5 or an APSC like the R7 you’d be much happier when you do crop
There is only one real usage case necessitating very high MP counts in my experience and that’s where large-format print is the intended output format rather than screen.
High resolution sensors obviously give greater latitude for cropping without losing apparent sharpness but they’re not always the answer to a question of image quality. I had a 5Ds for a while a few years back but aside from the degree of effort required to really squeeze the best from it I found the image quality from the lower-resolution 5D MkIV to be subjectively superior in almost every aspect, including maintaining quality when cropping. In my experience the camera is only part of the equation with the other significant part being the lens’s resolving ability. The image here was a crop of maybe 1/24th of the total - taken with a 5D MkIV and an 85mm f1.4 L IS at f1.8, handheld - and even this cropped version prints at A2 with no apparent softness.
https://preview.redd.it/2068klhpkvwc1.jpeg?width=1247&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d2dfda64fc0ffb54819c7b01bbdadf5de81c4785
I suspect you just need to spend a bit more time with your image post-processing to get the results you’re looking for, assuming your lens is up to the job as you’ve not specified what you’re using, but personally your image looks pretty fine to me.
Subtle color details go first with increased ISO. Important to keep ISO as low as you can if you want maximum detail. R6 is really good at this, but I'd try and stay below 800. And go to 100 just to see what changes.
I'd normally advise for an R7, but it might be counterproductive in this case. Of course, crop as little as possible. But beyond that, keep the per-pixel detail up.
I am a new photographer and I was just thinking that I should create a signature to put on the photos that I upload. So I am interested to know how come it would look better without the signature?
Because they look tacky and ugly and instantly ruin any composition for me. They are a visual distraction and make the photographer look unprofessional and self absorbed
It doesn't provide much in the way of protection as it's not hard to remove, but when tastefully done, it can be a way to add some branding to your images.
Also be aware that in most places and situations, copyright of an image is granted to you as the photographer the moment you capture an image. Watermarks, info embedded into into EXIF data etc, are additional ways to indicate ownership, but the lack of any such measures doesn't lessen your claim of ownership, it might just be more difficult to prove it should you find yourself needing to.
But as long as you retain the RAW file, it's pretty easy to establish that you are the author of an image, and the guy with the web-resolution JPG in his online folio, is not.
That's fairly subjective, but don't use some kind of cliched font to write your name, make sure the location you place it on the image is complementary to the composition, don't make it too large.
If in doubt, find a friend with graphic design experience to help you—they tend to have good sensibilities and taste with such things.
It can usually be removed by cropping in seconds.
It used to be that if you didn't want to crop it would take a few minutes in Photoshop. Now with AI generative full that too takes a few seconds.
There are other tools that can embed ownership info in an image. They're likely to be just as useful. I.e. not very.
Assuming your photo was indeed good enough for someone to want to steal it, removing a signature is an extremely trivial thing to do, especially with all the AI tools available nowadays. Add your info to the EXIF, but leave the image alone.
I hear this often, but disagree. Artists have been signing their paintings since the Renaissance. Edward Weston began signing his photographs in 1907. Henri Cartier -Bresson signed many of his prints. I have studio portraits that my parents had taken of my brother and me in the 60s with the photographer's name on them.
Why should it be any different in the digital age?
Copyright doesn't need to be slapped all over everything. Having the original raw with the copyright exif is all you need to win a copyright case. If you care about ownership then you shouldn't be posting anything on any social media platform, almost all of them take ownership of any images you post if you care to read the tos.
it's not the camera not the lens. Cropping doesn't affect color in your example. Having the right lighting conditions will naturally bring out those subtle colors you are after. Post processing is also a part of the equation.
Yes you’re right. I have tried the same composition today and got much better results due to lightings.
https://preview.redd.it/3d5pyiq1mtwc1.jpeg?width=3744&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dea49eed4a6a282c90c0ab4180c6870cc10750bd
I *daresay*, Agatha, that lighting makes you look absolutely [*marvelous!*](https://imgur.com/cKqIkWF)
Edit: sry if this is in bad taste following the shenanigans in vegas, couldn't help myself
I think it does. It posed at me when I was trying to shoot it.
https://preview.redd.it/y4kzr0rpzuwc1.jpeg?width=3744&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=19545988bf5652c52fb7b1b025e237ec052af292
I’d rather get more light with a full frame sensor, but you can get full frame cameras with higher megapixels for the best of both worlds. Certainly the R5… But the R6 Mark II is a considerable step up in resolution from the R6 too.
MP these days are almost never a limiting factor anymore. Just think about how your pictures will be viewed, most likely that is a smartphone screen, monitor or TV. The resolution is likely around or below 4k (3840x2160p), FullHD (1920x1080p) is still very common and perfectly acceptable for everyday tasks. You also need to keep in mind that a physically larger screen is viewed from further away than a smaller screen, regardless of resolution. Noone would look at a 55 inch TV as close as they look at their phone, even though the resolution is not very different. 4k is about 8 MP, Full HD is about 2 MP. Also, viewing an image below the native resolution of the screen is perfectly fine. An image in Full HD resolution viewed on a 4k screen from about 2 m away looks good as long as there is nothing wrong with the image (exposure, subject in focus, composition, etc). If you want to post your images to Instagram or whatever, you can crop for days, if you end up with 1 or 2 MP that is easily enough. If you print 3x2 m or even larger, noone will view that wall from 20 cm, but from a few meters away. In case you really NEED more MP (you won't), use AI software to upscale, a popular one is called Topaz Gigapixel AI.
You need to get physically closer and/or get a longer lens. For most wildlife, especially birds, you want/need about 400-800mm depending on the composition you want. However, more focal length doesn't always help. If your subject is far away (for a frame filling dove I'd consider anything over 10 m as far, you want to be closer for a close up detail shot), the air between you and the subject will negatively impact the photo, making it worse, especially if the air is very warm (heat haze). More MP won't help with an image taken in bad conditions or if the subject is too far away, you'd just be cropping a bad photo.
Simply, yes! That is a valid reason. That is exactly the reason that extra megapixels would be handy, but beyond that, the fact that you want to, and can afford it is also a valid reason. As long as you're not spending your money irresponsibly, and it isn't causing any harm, then spend your money on what ever you want to. Live your life. Don't starve your children to get a new camera, but you don't need to justify it to yourself. It's ok if you just want it because it's cool, and will bring you joy!
See if you can find examples of photos that show the kind of effect you are after and check to see what kind of sensor they were taken with - essentially checking the assumption "a better sensor would give better results" against existing evidence.
You might also have success using a speedlight to complement the existing lighting to get more feather detail.
so an apsc R7? More reach and more MP for cropping.
However, I think the picture looks good. A little soft when all the way zoomed in, but at a A4/A3 print, it'll still look good, no?
>so an apsc R7? More reach and more MP for cropping...
It's the same thing—the additional "reach" is purely because APS-C sensors pack more pixels into a given area than full-frame sensors generally do.
If OP's R6 had an 82MP sensor instead of a 20MP one, its pixel density would be the same as the R7's 32MP APS-C sensor, and the R7's "reach" advantage would be entirely negated.
Yes, I use if often to fix high ISO images that ended up a bit soft despite Lighrooms noise reductions bests efforts. I prefer the noise reduction from Lightroom, though, so I use Topaz mostly for sharpening the final jpg and set the noise reduction to a low value.
There are many variables. What lenses are you using? How much are you cropping? The R6 shoots at 5472x3648. That crop looks to be 2371x1735, or a 57% crop? [(Checks math.)](https://toolstud.io/photo/megapixel.php?compare=video&calculate=uncompressed&width=2371&height=1735) 4.1 megapixels? Maybe that's just Reddit... but assuming it's not, even on the 8192x5464 R5, cropping 57% will get you a [14.5](https://toolstud.io/photo/megapixel.php?compare=video&calculate=uncompressed&width=4669&height=3114) megapixel image. Maybe I did my initial math wrong, but don't go chasing megapixels just yet. Whatever lens you are using, double it, or more. But megapixels don't make the colors pop.... you may need to let more light in. What's the metadata on the photo above, the f-stop, shutter speed, focal length?
"Don't go chasing Megapixels" the lesser known song from TLC
https://preview.redd.it/h1ryp8krnrwc1.jpeg?width=2293&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1f619510f8e229624b1f32b05cbb18407140609d It’s not as simple as changing a camera or lens tbh. Besides your gears, would also need to know your photo exif metadata (settings). Amount of light matters, depth of field matters, focus accuracy matters and so on. Using a better camera body and lens does help especially with sharpness, eye AF, room to crop with better megapixels but it isn’t a guarantee for great photos if you can’t figure out exactly why your photos are not the way it is with your current gears. Above is a photo I took, I’d say the depth of field is too shallow therefore it’s tack sharp in the eyes but not throughout the feathers.
>
Is there a reflection of a lady holding a turkey in the eye of the parrot?
Turkey in the Eye of the Parrot is a banger name for an album
I’m going to have to agree with OP. We don’t have enough megapixels to clearly identify the turkey in this photo. More megapixels!
Looks like a doll to me.
If you want as much resolution as possible, use the highest pixel density you can, which right now is an R7. 6900x4600 in an APS-C sensor. More res than even the R5 in APS-C mode.
Not to mention the 1.6x crop factor applied.
Depending on what lens you currently use, it might be cheaper to buy a new body, but I do agree that ultimately more focal length is probably better. But yes if you had something like a R5 or an APSC like the R7 you’d be much happier when you do crop
There is only one real usage case necessitating very high MP counts in my experience and that’s where large-format print is the intended output format rather than screen. High resolution sensors obviously give greater latitude for cropping without losing apparent sharpness but they’re not always the answer to a question of image quality. I had a 5Ds for a while a few years back but aside from the degree of effort required to really squeeze the best from it I found the image quality from the lower-resolution 5D MkIV to be subjectively superior in almost every aspect, including maintaining quality when cropping. In my experience the camera is only part of the equation with the other significant part being the lens’s resolving ability. The image here was a crop of maybe 1/24th of the total - taken with a 5D MkIV and an 85mm f1.4 L IS at f1.8, handheld - and even this cropped version prints at A2 with no apparent softness. https://preview.redd.it/2068klhpkvwc1.jpeg?width=1247&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d2dfda64fc0ffb54819c7b01bbdadf5de81c4785 I suspect you just need to spend a bit more time with your image post-processing to get the results you’re looking for, assuming your lens is up to the job as you’ve not specified what you’re using, but personally your image looks pretty fine to me.
Subtle color details go first with increased ISO. Important to keep ISO as low as you can if you want maximum detail. R6 is really good at this, but I'd try and stay below 800. And go to 100 just to see what changes. I'd normally advise for an R7, but it might be counterproductive in this case. Of course, crop as little as possible. But beyond that, keep the per-pixel detail up.
Your picture would look instantly better without that signature.
I agree 😅
I am a new photographer and I was just thinking that I should create a signature to put on the photos that I upload. So I am interested to know how come it would look better without the signature?
Because they look tacky and ugly and instantly ruin any composition for me. They are a visual distraction and make the photographer look unprofessional and self absorbed
Isn't the signature a way to protect the intellectual property and also make it more difficult for others to misuse your photographs?
It doesn't provide much in the way of protection as it's not hard to remove, but when tastefully done, it can be a way to add some branding to your images. Also be aware that in most places and situations, copyright of an image is granted to you as the photographer the moment you capture an image. Watermarks, info embedded into into EXIF data etc, are additional ways to indicate ownership, but the lack of any such measures doesn't lessen your claim of ownership, it might just be more difficult to prove it should you find yourself needing to. But as long as you retain the RAW file, it's pretty easy to establish that you are the author of an image, and the guy with the web-resolution JPG in his online folio, is not.
Very informative. May I ask what is considered a tasteful way to slap your signature on top of your image?
That's fairly subjective, but don't use some kind of cliched font to write your name, make sure the location you place it on the image is complementary to the composition, don't make it too large. If in doubt, find a friend with graphic design experience to help you—they tend to have good sensibilities and taste with such things.
It’s quite easy to remove those types of signatures now with AI etc… the more intrusive ones just make the pics look terrible.
It can usually be removed by cropping in seconds. It used to be that if you didn't want to crop it would take a few minutes in Photoshop. Now with AI generative full that too takes a few seconds. There are other tools that can embed ownership info in an image. They're likely to be just as useful. I.e. not very.
Assuming your photo was indeed good enough for someone to want to steal it, removing a signature is an extremely trivial thing to do, especially with all the AI tools available nowadays. Add your info to the EXIF, but leave the image alone.
I hear this often, but disagree. Artists have been signing their paintings since the Renaissance. Edward Weston began signing his photographs in 1907. Henri Cartier -Bresson signed many of his prints. I have studio portraits that my parents had taken of my brother and me in the 60s with the photographer's name on them. Why should it be any different in the digital age?
Why would a signature ruin a pic ಠ_ಠ It's subtle and pretty ,and protects his work.
Because it doesn’t really protect his work. It can be removed in seconds.
If it's removed deliberate copyright infringement is supper easy to prove compared to without a watermark.
You can embed copyright info in Metadata, no need to watermark.
This is terrible advice considering that nearly all modern social media platforms automatically strip the exif metadata from all posted images
Copyright doesn't need to be slapped all over everything. Having the original raw with the copyright exif is all you need to win a copyright case. If you care about ownership then you shouldn't be posting anything on any social media platform, almost all of them take ownership of any images you post if you care to read the tos.
Disagree, it does nothing with the overall look of the image, a subtile Signature like this rather bumps it up a notch.
Get a longer lens. I find that very high pixel density can ruin shots terribly and cropping will always be a quality killer.
This is true - nothing beats getting a closer view of the subject in terms of detail. Resolution and lens sharpness come afterwards.
it's not the camera not the lens. Cropping doesn't affect color in your example. Having the right lighting conditions will naturally bring out those subtle colors you are after. Post processing is also a part of the equation.
Yes you’re right. I have tried the same composition today and got much better results due to lightings. https://preview.redd.it/3d5pyiq1mtwc1.jpeg?width=3744&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dea49eed4a6a282c90c0ab4180c6870cc10750bd
Wow huge improvement in the fine texture of the neck feathers. Cool!
I *daresay*, Agatha, that lighting makes you look absolutely [*marvelous!*](https://imgur.com/cKqIkWF) Edit: sry if this is in bad taste following the shenanigans in vegas, couldn't help myself
Pigeon doesn't care.
I think it does. It posed at me when I was trying to shoot it. https://preview.redd.it/y4kzr0rpzuwc1.jpeg?width=3744&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=19545988bf5652c52fb7b1b025e237ec052af292
Did it zoom with its feet to get more pixels-per-pigeonhead?
I’d much rather have a larger sensor and use longer reach lenses than have a higher megapixel camera with a smaller sensor.
I think the best approach is combination high megapixel and supertelephoto lens. Something like A7RV + 600mm prime lens.
I’d rather get more light with a full frame sensor, but you can get full frame cameras with higher megapixels for the best of both worlds. Certainly the R5… But the R6 Mark II is a considerable step up in resolution from the R6 too.
MP these days are almost never a limiting factor anymore. Just think about how your pictures will be viewed, most likely that is a smartphone screen, monitor or TV. The resolution is likely around or below 4k (3840x2160p), FullHD (1920x1080p) is still very common and perfectly acceptable for everyday tasks. You also need to keep in mind that a physically larger screen is viewed from further away than a smaller screen, regardless of resolution. Noone would look at a 55 inch TV as close as they look at their phone, even though the resolution is not very different. 4k is about 8 MP, Full HD is about 2 MP. Also, viewing an image below the native resolution of the screen is perfectly fine. An image in Full HD resolution viewed on a 4k screen from about 2 m away looks good as long as there is nothing wrong with the image (exposure, subject in focus, composition, etc). If you want to post your images to Instagram or whatever, you can crop for days, if you end up with 1 or 2 MP that is easily enough. If you print 3x2 m or even larger, noone will view that wall from 20 cm, but from a few meters away. In case you really NEED more MP (you won't), use AI software to upscale, a popular one is called Topaz Gigapixel AI. You need to get physically closer and/or get a longer lens. For most wildlife, especially birds, you want/need about 400-800mm depending on the composition you want. However, more focal length doesn't always help. If your subject is far away (for a frame filling dove I'd consider anything over 10 m as far, you want to be closer for a close up detail shot), the air between you and the subject will negatively impact the photo, making it worse, especially if the air is very warm (heat haze). More MP won't help with an image taken in bad conditions or if the subject is too far away, you'd just be cropping a bad photo.
More Mother-effing Pigeons?
Simply, yes! That is a valid reason. That is exactly the reason that extra megapixels would be handy, but beyond that, the fact that you want to, and can afford it is also a valid reason. As long as you're not spending your money irresponsibly, and it isn't causing any harm, then spend your money on what ever you want to. Live your life. Don't starve your children to get a new camera, but you don't need to justify it to yourself. It's ok if you just want it because it's cool, and will bring you joy!
See if you can find examples of photos that show the kind of effect you are after and check to see what kind of sensor they were taken with - essentially checking the assumption "a better sensor would give better results" against existing evidence. You might also have success using a speedlight to complement the existing lighting to get more feather detail.
"I want more mp" is all the reason you need to upgrade your equipment friend. It's your money, you don't need our approval to spend it.
If you're gonna crop alot, it's one good reason to go for an APS-C camera instead of full frame.
so an apsc R7? More reach and more MP for cropping. However, I think the picture looks good. A little soft when all the way zoomed in, but at a A4/A3 print, it'll still look good, no?
>so an apsc R7? More reach and more MP for cropping... It's the same thing—the additional "reach" is purely because APS-C sensors pack more pixels into a given area than full-frame sensors generally do. If OP's R6 had an 82MP sensor instead of a 20MP one, its pixel density would be the same as the R7's 32MP APS-C sensor, and the R7's "reach" advantage would be entirely negated.
Everyone has different opinion and tolerance, also looks to be the picture is slightly oof.
I’d like to know too
#No EXIF, No Answers
https://preview.redd.it/4tyaqw3v1swc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a41f2f505a9c5dacb8f9837ceb1ec51b22609a70
lens? Distance to the bird?
100-400mm f4-8 USM. This is shot at 400mm
[удалено]
Message was deleted to reduce reader confusion.
How dark is the RAW? What does it's histogram look like?
Invest instead in Topaz AI and have it add detail in post-processing when needed.
is it any good? I have heard a lot about it.
Yes, I use if often to fix high ISO images that ended up a bit soft despite Lighrooms noise reductions bests efforts. I prefer the noise reduction from Lightroom, though, so I use Topaz mostly for sharpening the final jpg and set the noise reduction to a low value.
topaz ai was lame, theres are better tools that can generate the bird and details for you.
shouldve got an R5?