Photo-a-day

[j.o.s.h.1408]

At Bobster: its not fair, your a professional photographer and you will always have the best pics here

[Bobster]

At Bobster: its not fair, your a professional photographer and you will always have the best pics here

not true, some people in this thread have posted fantasitc captures

[kalniel]

Firefox only gives me exif data on the original image.

1) f22 1/4 400
2) f16 1/60 400
3) f16 1/20 200
4) f22 1/30 400

Thanks. Some non-expert thoughts:

#1 might be soft if some wind caught it I guess, and regardless of whether your camera moved grass etc. has a tendancy to move in the wind as well. If you had IS it was turned off for the tripod shot right? Glare sometimes causes softer pictures as well on my camera (but usually it's localised to where the sun is). The picture might look better with a bit of post process sharpening? Looking at it again, it doesn't really look too soft to me, just lowish contrast.

#2 I can't explain.. it looks like different elements of the scene are sharp while others between them are not. IS on while camera resting on something? Earthquake?

#3 is good, as you know.

#4 is better, but still a little soft, possibly due to diffraction.

My recommendations would be to:

a) open up a bit to get your shutter speed up - you have bags of DoF to play with anyway, you keep clear of diffraction problems, and the lens might well be sharper a bit more open.
b) make sure you turn off IS if you have it while resting your camera on something. Keep it on for handheld.
c) use mirror lock up
d) TAKE MORE THAN ONE PICTURE AT A TIME!!

[Blastuk]

i see dust spots
and some of the pics are a bit low on contrast

[Syd]

Thanks. Some non-expert thoughts:

#1 might be soft if some wind caught it I guess, and regardless of whether your camera moved grass etc. has a tendancy to move in the wind as well. If you had IS it was turned off for the tripod shot right? Glare sometimes causes softer pictures as well on my camera (but usually it's localised to where the sun is). The picture might look better with a bit of post process sharpening? Looking at it again, it doesn't really look too soft to me, just lowish contrast.

#2 I can't explain.. it looks like different elements of the scene are sharp while others between them are not. IS on while camera resting on something? Earthquake?

#3 is good, as you know.

#4 is better, but still a little soft, possibly due to diffraction.

My recommendations would be to:

a) open up a bit to get your shutter speed up - you have bags of DoF to play with anyway, you keep clear of diffraction problems, and the lens might well be sharper a bit more open.
b) make sure you turn off IS if you have it while resting your camera on something. Keep it on for handheld.
c) use mirror lock up
d) TAKE MORE THAN ONE PICTURE AT A TIME!!

Ok, well i have learnt somthing instantly, on my 18-200 I ALWAYS leave IS on, never thought to turn it of when using a 'support'.

hmmm, open up more, normally I shoot portrait/animals/macro etc so stopping down is not somthing I have done a great deal - perhaps use f12 ish? Will that still give me massive dof?

c) eh? how do you mean?

Thanks for the pointers though, much appreciated

i see dust spots
and some of the pics are a bit low on contrast

I know, I had dust on the sensor and a rain spot on the lens - DOH!

Bob - could you give me any other pointers?

[kalniel]

hmmm, open up more, normally I shoot portrait/animals/macro etc so stopping down is not somthing I have done a great deal - perhaps use f12 ish? Will that still give me massive dof?

If you use f/11 you can get a sharp picture from 1.9feet to infinity. So yes.

c) eh? how do you mean?

Forgotten what it's called on the Nikon - anti-shock or exposure delay or something. It flips the mirror up and waits for the vibrations to calm down before exposing the shot.

[Syd]

KK makes sense I will look into that - didn't know that was an option.

[kalniel]

Heh sorry, ninja edited in the bit about f/11 too.

[Bobster]

im not big into landscapes, f/14-16 is usually the way people sway

i also have a pretty steady hand so 1/20 @ 17/18mm isn't a problem for me hand held, if your tripod is heavy enough you shouldn't get much in the way of movement in the wind (unless gale force)

modern IS glass is intelligent enough to know when u've stuck it on a tripod ..

18-200mm isn't what i would say is the most amazingly sharp lens in the world for landscapes, but at f/14 that shouldnt be much of a problem..

Brammers is the guy you want to ask about landscapes - that's his field

the only time my shots see landscape is when ive got a person in the foreground

[Syd]

Heh sorry, ninja edited in the bit about f/11 too.

Thanks

im not big into landscapes, f/14-16 is usually the way people sway

i also have a pretty steady hand so 1/20 @ 17/18mm isn't a problem for me hand held, if your tripod is heavy enough you shouldn't get much in the way of movement in the wind (unless gale force)

modern IS glass is intelligent enough to know when u've stuck it on a tripod ..

18-200mm isn't what i would say is the most amazingly sharp lens in the world for landscapes, but at f/14 that shouldnt be much of a problem..

Brammers is the guy you want to ask about landscapes - that's his field

the only time my shots see landscape is when ive got a person in the foreground

Thanks Bob - thanks for the response but if l/s ain't your bag at least tell me you what you thought of my 'wild' cat shot. Its kinda a person

[KidChameleon]

My (inexpert) thoughts on the landscapes:

Set the aperture to f8-11. Smaller than that starts to make everything look out of focus. Experiment at home using a tripod or a table - Take the same photo but with different apertures. You'll probably see around f14-f16 it starts losing sharpness all over.

#1 Doesn't really have anything of interest in the photo. It looks like a nice background to have a person in the foreground, but there is no real subject.

Similar with #2. The wall in the bottom corner looks awkward and there is no real point of interest.

#3 Looks good.

#4 Is a nice idea but personally I would have gone for a shallower depth of field.

[Syd]

My (inexpert) thoughts on the landscapes:

Set the aperture to f8-11. Smaller than that starts to make everything look out of focus. Experiment at home using a tripod or a table - Take the same photo but with different apertures. You'll probably see around f14-f16 it starts losing sharpness all over.

#1 Doesn't really have anything of interest in the photo. It looks like a nice background to have a person in the foreground, but there is no real subject.

Similar with #2. The wall in the bottom corner looks awkward and there is no real point of interest.

#3 Looks good.

#4 Is a nice idea but personally I would have gone for a shallower depth of field.

Thanks for the tips

I will try with shallower dof, but what is the purpose of f16 f22 etc - apart from macro lens's?

re 4, i took about 20 i will post another with shallow when i have more time

[Bobster]

we're coming from film remember, so f/22 didnt bother film the same as it bothers a crop sensor..

[kalniel]

I will try with shallower dof, but what is the purpose of f16 f22 etc - apart from macro lens's?

Because with DSLRs they let the photographer choose what compromise they make, rather than the camera choosing for them. If there's a shot you need a long exposure for and you don't have an ND filter (or you need an *even* longer shot) then the only way to reduce the light coming in is to stop right down. Sometimes a shot that's slightly compromised is better than no shot at all.

[Syd]

Because with DSLRs they let the photographer choose what compromise they make, rather than the camera choosing for them. If there's a shot you need a long exposure for and you don't have an ND filter (or you need an *even* longer shot) then the only way to reduce the light coming in is to stop right down. Sometimes a shot that's slightly compromised is better than no shot at all.

Hmm, that does make sense.

[TheAnimus]

Also, when using f32, you can get wonderfully sharp pictures, the Depth Of Field is massive, so the focus appears better.

This is very good for taking landscapes, but espesually good for city scapes!