Posted: 1/19/2017 7:14:41 PM EDT
Got a new lens (Canon 10-18) for wide angle shots and landscape pictures. Local area had a neat sunset, so I tried out a few shots. Does it seem a bit... grainy? ISO wasnt too high (800), with a shutter speed of 0"8 and an aperture of F11. I wasn't using a tripod, so I am not sure if things would have dramatically improved. Maybe its the aperture too small? |
|
Quoted:
http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm240/voodoo3dfx/20170119172444_IMG_0393_zpsqc4v5sln.jpg Got a new lens (Canon 10-18) for wide angle shots and landscape pictures. Local area had a neat sunset, so I tried out a few shots. Does it seem a bit... grainy? ISO wasnt too high (800), with a shutter speed of 0"8 and an aperture of F11. I wasn't using a tripod, so I am not sure if things would have dramatically improved. Maybe its the aperture too small? The catch with asking for a critique is that you usually need to tell us what your artistic vision was for the shot so that we can be all moving you in that direction. The resized image is too small to judge focus or digital noise. If you were really hand holding the camera for just short of one second, you did a great job for the lack of motion blur. The big problem here is exposure, where this seems to be greatly underexposed. This is easily explained by your small aperture for the deep depth of field and the too short shutter speed due to hand holding. Here is where the tripod comes in handy in that you get to use the needed long shutter speed without any resulting motion blur from your shaky hands. After adjusting the exposure, contrast, and color, I cropped out a bunch of the foreground which didn't seem to be adding anything, and cropped a bunch of the sky for the same reason, and a little off the right side due to the bright specs and lack of "sunset". Attached File This may or may not jive with what you originally envisioned for the shot. |
|
Quoted:
The catch with asking for a critique is that you usually need to tell us what your artistic vision was for the shot so that we can be all moving you in that direction. The resized image is too small to judge focus or digital noise. If you were really hand holding the camera for just short of one second, you did a great job for the lack of motion blur. The big problem here is exposure, where this seems to be greatly underexposed. This is easily explained by your small aperture for the deep depth of field and the too short shutter speed due to hand holding. Here is where the tripod comes in handy in that you get to use the needed long shutter speed without any resulting motion blur from your shaky hands. After adjusting the exposure, contrast, and color, I cropped out a bunch of the foreground which didn't seem to be adding anything, and cropped a bunch of the sky for the same reason, and a little off the right side due to the bright specs and lack of "sunset". https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/30551/20170119172444-IMG-0393-zpsqc4v5sln-a-129255.JPG This may or may not jive with what you originally envisioned for the shot. Quoted:
Quoted:
http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm240/voodoo3dfx/20170119172444_IMG_0393_zpsqc4v5sln.jpg Got a new lens (Canon 10-18) for wide angle shots and landscape pictures. Local area had a neat sunset, so I tried out a few shots. Does it seem a bit... grainy? ISO wasnt too high (800), with a shutter speed of 0"8 and an aperture of F11. I wasn't using a tripod, so I am not sure if things would have dramatically improved. Maybe its the aperture too small? The catch with asking for a critique is that you usually need to tell us what your artistic vision was for the shot so that we can be all moving you in that direction. The resized image is too small to judge focus or digital noise. If you were really hand holding the camera for just short of one second, you did a great job for the lack of motion blur. The big problem here is exposure, where this seems to be greatly underexposed. This is easily explained by your small aperture for the deep depth of field and the too short shutter speed due to hand holding. Here is where the tripod comes in handy in that you get to use the needed long shutter speed without any resulting motion blur from your shaky hands. After adjusting the exposure, contrast, and color, I cropped out a bunch of the foreground which didn't seem to be adding anything, and cropped a bunch of the sky for the same reason, and a little off the right side due to the bright specs and lack of "sunset". https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/30551/20170119172444-IMG-0393-zpsqc4v5sln-a-129255.JPG This may or may not jive with what you originally envisioned for the shot. To the naked eye, the sky was more pronounced and colorful. I am guessing for those kind of skies, a tripod is much needed. |
|
Quoted:
To the naked eye, the sky was more pronounced and colorful. I am guessing for those kind of skies, a tripod is much needed. Correct exposure and post processing. Tripod will get you sharp images. Given the extreme contrast between the ground, sky, and horizon... this scenario is a candidate for HDR, exposure blending, or graduated neutral density filter. |
|
Quoted:
Correct exposure and post processing. Tripod will get you sharp images. Given the extreme contrast between the ground, sky, and horizon... this scenario is a candidate for HDR, exposure blending, or graduated neutral density filter. Quoted:
Quoted:
To the naked eye, the sky was more pronounced and colorful. I am guessing for those kind of skies, a tripod is much needed. Correct exposure and post processing. Tripod will get you sharp images. Given the extreme contrast between the ground, sky, and horizon... this scenario is a candidate for HDR, exposure blending, or graduated neutral density filter. 80D has HDR, should it always be on then? |
|
Quoted:
80D has HDR, should it always be on then? I don't have any idea how well those in camera modes work. I meant taking at least 3 exposures ("correct", over, and under) and then blending them in a HDR program like Photomatix. I have only played around with HDR stuff when it was all the rage years ago, so I don't know what the current techniques are. |
|
Quoted:
To the naked eye, the sky was more pronounced and colorful. I am guessing for those kind of skies, a tripod is much needed. With proper post processing you could probably have gotten what you wanted to see. Attached File |
|
Quoted:
Why did you shoot at f11? With that wide of a lens you should be able to shoot wide open and still get enough depth of field. Is there a place that explains what you mentioned more in depth? I have read landscape shots should be between 8 and 12 to start off. |
|
Quoted:
To the naked eye, the sky was more pronounced and colorful. I am guessing for those kind of skies, a tripod is much needed. Yes, a tripod can be handy. So can any other thing like the hood of your car, the flat top of a fence post, etc. Another thing to be careful about for sunrise and sunset is the auto white-balance setting. For sunrise and sunset, you need to have the auto-WB turned OFF (set it to sunny) so that the colors you see remain as is. With auto-WB on, the camera is going to try to make the sky look like the color at noon. |
|
Quoted:
Is there a place that explains what you mentioned more in depth? I have read landscape shots should be between 8 and 12 to start off. Depth of field (the amount of the image that appears to be in focus) basically comes in "razor thin", "shallow", "medium", and "deep". Artistically, for each shot, you need to decide which of those you want. For most people, landscapes usually end up in the medium to deep categories. Sometimes that is a good thing, sometimes not. Wide angle lenses naturally have a deeper depth of field, telephoto lenses have a shallower depth of field. A wider aperture (bigger hole, smaller f number) has a shallower depth of field. Short focus distances have a shallower depth of field than longer distances. A depth of field calculator so that you can play with the numbers: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html |
|
Quoted:
Depth of field (the amount of the image that appears to be in focus) basically comes in "razor thin", "shallow", "medium", and "deep". Artistically, for each shot, you need to decide which of those you want. For most people, landscapes usually end up in the medium to deep categories. Sometimes that is a good thing, sometimes not. Wide angle lenses naturally have a deeper depth of field, telephoto lenses have a shallower depth of field. A wider aperture (bigger hole, smaller f number) has a shallower depth of field. Short focus distances have a shallower depth of field than longer distances. A depth of field calculator so that you can play with the numbers: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html But wait! There's more! 
Depth of field is fairly mathematics heavy to gain a full understanding of it (I don't know the math lol). Google Circle of Confusion and Hyperfocal Distance. The core of it is that a lot of factors affect depth of field. Aperture, focal length, focus distance, and format size. Now you can either do the math or rely on experience, but you have to go out and play to get a better understanding of how it works. |
|
Quoted:
Depth of field (the amount of the image that appears to be in focus) basically comes in "razor thin", "shallow", "medium", and "deep". Artistically, for each shot, you need to decide which of those you want. For most people, landscapes usually end up in the medium to deep categories. Sometimes that is a good thing, sometimes not. Wide angle lenses naturally have a deeper depth of field, telephoto lenses have a shallower depth of field. A wider aperture (bigger hole, smaller f number) has a shallower depth of field. Short focus distances have a shallower depth of field than longer distances. A depth of field calculator so that you can play with the numbers: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html Quoted:
Quoted:
Is there a place that explains what you mentioned more in depth? I have read landscape shots should be between 8 and 12 to start off. Depth of field (the amount of the image that appears to be in focus) basically comes in "razor thin", "shallow", "medium", and "deep". Artistically, for each shot, you need to decide which of those you want. For most people, landscapes usually end up in the medium to deep categories. Sometimes that is a good thing, sometimes not. Wide angle lenses naturally have a deeper depth of field, telephoto lenses have a shallower depth of field. A wider aperture (bigger hole, smaller f number) has a shallower depth of field. Short focus distances have a shallower depth of field than longer distances. A depth of field calculator so that you can play with the numbers: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html Does the depth of field change when taking sunset pictures? (As in the case in my posted picture) Obviously the larger aperture the more light comes in.. (which is useful for low light conditions). However, you are sacrificing the DOF. So, I guess you either have to find a balance or decide on if the sky is your focus rather than the field + the sky? |
|
That's my point. With that lens, both would likely still be in focus even at the maximum aperture.
Check out hyperfocal distance For that lens at maximum aperture, the hyperfocal distance is short. Meaning you could focus on something in the foreground (like the trailer) and the sky would still be in focus. |
|
Quoted:
That's my point. With that lens, both would likely still be in focus even at the maximum aperture. Check out hyperfocal distance For that lens at maximum aperture, the hyperfocal distance is short. Meaning you could focus on something in the foreground (like the trailer) and the sky would still be in focus. Jesus thats heavy reading. 
|
|
Here is a rendition with a little more color. This is a .jpg image and a .jpg will restrict what you can do. A .jpg processed in camera will have some of the information that the sensor captured thrown away. RAW is not a image but rather it is a file with all of the captured info. To work with a RAW file on a PC or Mac, you need a RAW processor, like Lightroom (or perhaps the program that came with your camera). With RAW, you can save some photos that otherwise would be a throwaway. I made about 4 simple adjustments in Lightroom. If you shoot in RAW, you have more leeway in post processing. HDR not necessarily needed, though Lightroom 6+ has a pretty decent HDR feature.
It is always better to try to get the settings right in camera. An open aperture would be helpful here, as would a tripod for low light shots. ETA....with RAW, you can set white balance in post processing. 
|
|
Quoted:
Is there a place that explains what you mentioned more in depth? I have read landscape shots should be between 8 and 12 to start off. I shoot at f/2.8 on my 11-16 all the time. Super-wides like that have inherently high depth of field; you almost have to go out of your way at very short focal lengths (or more specifically, focus on something in the very near foreground) to really achieve any kind of narrow DOF. These are all at f/2.8 and between 11 and 16 mm.  DSC_6764-PerspectaCloudStars by FredMan, on Flickr
 DSC_9719-Sunset_lzn by FredMan, on Flickr
 DSC_6069-Sunrise by FredMan, on Flickr
 StarTrails Stack 11mm 2016-03-16 by FredMan, on Flickr
 DSC_6341-11mm HousePondMilky by FredMan, on Flickr
Everything's nice and sharp. In particular, look at the second to last one, the "StarTrails Stack 11mm" one. Note that the grass in the foreground is sharp (some of the tall grass shows movement due to wind pushing stalks between frames), the flashlight is sharp, the house is sharp, and the stars are sharp. I set the lens manually to focus at infinity for this shot, and took a few hundred frames, then stacked them. ETA, here's the opposite end of the DOF spectrum. Shot at f/2.8 and 35mm. Has a DOF of somewhere around an inch. The Nikon logo and D500 are sharp, but the text on the power button is out of focus. My intent with this shot was to only have the D500 sharp, everything else could be out of focus.  D500 by FredMan, on Flickr
|
|
When should I use deeper depth of field?
In landscape photography it is important to get as much of your scene in focus as possible. By using a wide angle lens and a small aperture you will be able maximize your depth of field to get your scene in focus http://digital-photography-school.com/understanding-depth-field-beginners/ This is the part that gives me a headache. It states even when you use a wide angle lens, to reduce your aperture size to get a longer DOF. So, whats the difference here? Only because its low light? |
|
Quoted:
http://digital-photography-school.com/understanding-depth-field-beginners/ This is the part that gives me a headache. It states even when you use a wide angle lens, to reduce your aperture size to get a longer DOF. So, whats the difference here? Only because its low light? You're using an ULTRA wide angle lens. At that extreme (10mm) the depth of field is tremendous. I think the hyperfocal distance of that lens at 10mm f4.5 is something like 4 feet. Meaning you could focus on something 4 feet in front of you and there would be sharp focus to infinity. You are getting the basic concept but you have to understand that you are dealing with extremes on the wide end at 10mm. |
|
Quoted:
You're using an ULTRA wide angle lens. At that extreme (10mm) the depth of field is tremendous. I think the hyperfocal distance of that lens at 10mm f4.5 is something like 4 feet. Meaning you could focus on something 4 feet in front of you and there would be sharp focus to infinity. You are getting the basic concept but you have to understand that you are dealing with extremes on the wide end at 10mm. Quoted:
Quoted:
http://digital-photography-school.com/understanding-depth-field-beginners/ This is the part that gives me a headache. It states even when you use a wide angle lens, to reduce your aperture size to get a longer DOF. So, whats the difference here? Only because its low light? You're using an ULTRA wide angle lens. At that extreme (10mm) the depth of field is tremendous. I think the hyperfocal distance of that lens at 10mm f4.5 is something like 4 feet. Meaning you could focus on something 4 feet in front of you and there would be sharp focus to infinity. You are getting the basic concept but you have to understand that you are dealing with extremes on the wide end at 10mm. Fair enough. 
I used this calculator, and at f4.5 /10mm is just under 4 feet. (You were on the mark) But my 18 to 55 f3.5 with my focal being 18 is almost 4 times that.
Wow. How the hell do you guys remember this stuff? 
|
|
Quoted:
http://digital-photography-school.com/understanding-depth-field-beginners/ This is the part that gives me a headache. It states even when you use a wide angle lens, to reduce your aperture size to get a longer DOF. So, whats the difference here? Only because its low light? Depth of field has many more parts to it than just aperture. DOF with a 10mm lens at F2.8 is far greater than a 1000mm lens at the same aperture. Depth of field is the the range where the image is perceived to be sharp. What do you do when you are trying to see something better? You squint your eyes. This is the equivalent to closing down the aperture. Why does this work? Science. Without getting into the math and science and stuff... It basically "bends" the light rays together more so that whatever you are looking at appears sharper. Now, think of taking a picture of a person with a 10mm lens at 100 feet F/2.8. Imagine that there is a second person a foot behind the first person. Focus is set on the front person. Relatively speaking, the two people will be fairly small. The second person is simply too small to see if they are *actually* in sharp focus. So if they appear to be in focus, that range is considered to be within the depth of field. So what happens if you change nothing but the lens to a 1000mm? The subject is far larger and more "zoomed" in. You will be able to tell whether or not he second person is in acceptably sharp focus. So a 10mm lens at F/2.8 focused at 20 feet will have vastly greater DOF than a 1000mm lens F/2.8 focused at 20 feet. You can experiment with it yourself. Set your aperture to the widest you can get (lowest number). Take a picture of a row of cars leading away from you. Use the widest lens you have. Then without moving, put on the longest lens you have and takea picture using the same focal point with the same aperture. You should be able to tell that the range in which things appear to be in focus is far greater with the wide angle shot even though they are shot with the same settings. |
|
Quoted:
Depth of field has many more parts to it than just aperture. DOF with a 10mm lens at F2.8 is far greater than a 1000mm lens at the same aperture. Depth of field is the the range where the image is perceived to be sharp. What do you do when you are trying to see something better? You squint your eyes. This is the equivalent to closing down the aperture. Why does this work? Science. Without getting into the math and science and stuff... It basically "bends" the light rays together more so that whatever you are looking at appears sharper. Now, think of taking a picture of a person with a 10mm lens at 100 feet F/2.8. Imagine that there is a second person a foot behind the first person. Focus is set on the front person. Relatively speaking, the two people will be fairly small. The second person is simply too small to see if they are *actually* in sharp focus. So if they appear to be in focus, that range is considered to be within the depth of field. So what happens if you change nothing but the lens to a 1000mm? The subject is far larger and more "zoomed" in. You will be able to tell whether or not he second person is in acceptably sharp focus. So a 10mm lens at F/2.8 focused at 20 feet will have vastly greater DOF than a 1000mm lens F/2.8 focused at 20 feet. You can experiment with it yourself. Set your aperture to the widest you can get (lowest number). Take a picture of a row of cars leading away from you. Use the widest lens you have. Then without moving, put on the longest lens you have and takea picture using the same focal point with the same aperture. You should be able to tell that the range in which things appear to be in focus is far greater with the wide angle shot even though they are shot with the same settings. Quoted:
Quoted:
http://digital-photography-school.com/understanding-depth-field-beginners/ This is the part that gives me a headache. It states even when you use a wide angle lens, to reduce your aperture size to get a longer DOF. So, whats the difference here? Only because its low light? Depth of field has many more parts to it than just aperture. DOF with a 10mm lens at F2.8 is far greater than a 1000mm lens at the same aperture. Depth of field is the the range where the image is perceived to be sharp. What do you do when you are trying to see something better? You squint your eyes. This is the equivalent to closing down the aperture. Why does this work? Science. Without getting into the math and science and stuff... It basically "bends" the light rays together more so that whatever you are looking at appears sharper. Now, think of taking a picture of a person with a 10mm lens at 100 feet F/2.8. Imagine that there is a second person a foot behind the first person. Focus is set on the front person. Relatively speaking, the two people will be fairly small. The second person is simply too small to see if they are *actually* in sharp focus. So if they appear to be in focus, that range is considered to be within the depth of field. So what happens if you change nothing but the lens to a 1000mm? The subject is far larger and more "zoomed" in. You will be able to tell whether or not he second person is in acceptably sharp focus. So a 10mm lens at F/2.8 focused at 20 feet will have vastly greater DOF than a 1000mm lens F/2.8 focused at 20 feet. You can experiment with it yourself. Set your aperture to the widest you can get (lowest number). Take a picture of a row of cars leading away from you. Use the widest lens you have. Then without moving, put on the longest lens you have and takea picture using the same focal point with the same aperture. You should be able to tell that the range in which things appear to be in focus is far greater with the wide angle shot even though they are shot with the same settings. Now that all makes sense. Because the view (10mm) is so far out, you can't tell the difference. |
|
How the hell do you guys remember this stuff? Believe it or not, it's just like anything else you get proficient at. It becomes second nature. Get out there and take LOTS of pictures at all sorts of apertures, focal lengths, and shutter speeds and you start to notice trends. You start to notice that *this* set of A/F/S gets you *that* look. Then you start trying to get *that* look by using *this* set, and holy cow! It works!! I'm most definitely not a pro, and only consider myself an educated amateur. Whatever skill I may have comes from lots of reading (online and books) and lots of doing, but I've never taken any kind of photography class. I think some formal education might have allowed me to pick up on some things sooner, but I know them much better for having picked them up on my own through trial and error. I've been taking pictures for 43 years, SLR pictures for 24 years, and DSLR pictures for 11 years. I didn't REALLY start down the path of enlightenment until 5 or 6 years ago. Up until then I was pretty much just using the "auto" feature, or one of the "style" functions (portrait, action, "flower", etc.) |
|
Quoted:
Believe it or not, it's just like anything else you get proficient at. It becomes second nature. Get out there and take LOTS of pictures at all sorts of apertures, focal lengths, and shutter speeds and you start to notice trends. You start to notice that *this* set of A/F/S gets you *that* look. Then you start trying to get *that* look by using *this* set, and holy cow! It works!! I'm most definitely not a pro, and only consider myself an educated amateur. Whatever skill I may have comes from lots of reading (online and books) and lots of doing, but I've never taken any kind of photography class. I think some formal education might have allowed me to pick up on some things sooner, but I know them much better for having picked them up on my own through trial and error. I've been taking pictures for 43 years, SLR pictures for 24 years, and DSLR pictures for 11 years. I didn't REALLY start down the path of enlightenment until 5 or 6 years ago. Up until then I was pretty much just using the "auto" feature, or one of the "style" functions (portrait, action, "flower", etc.) Quoted:
How the hell do you guys remember this stuff? Believe it or not, it's just like anything else you get proficient at. It becomes second nature. Get out there and take LOTS of pictures at all sorts of apertures, focal lengths, and shutter speeds and you start to notice trends. You start to notice that *this* set of A/F/S gets you *that* look. Then you start trying to get *that* look by using *this* set, and holy cow! It works!! I'm most definitely not a pro, and only consider myself an educated amateur. Whatever skill I may have comes from lots of reading (online and books) and lots of doing, but I've never taken any kind of photography class. I think some formal education might have allowed me to pick up on some things sooner, but I know them much better for having picked them up on my own through trial and error. I've been taking pictures for 43 years, SLR pictures for 24 years, and DSLR pictures for 11 years. I didn't REALLY start down the path of enlightenment until 5 or 6 years ago. Up until then I was pretty much just using the "auto" feature, or one of the "style" functions (portrait, action, "flower", etc.) Do you notice the trends when you off load them onto your PC? I feel the lcd doesn't do much justice to the picture. If i really want to know, i wifi it to my phone. |
|
Quoted:
Do you notice the trends when you off load them onto your PC? I feel the lcd doesn't do much justice to the picture. If i really want to know, i wifi it to my phone. As I have mentioned before, you need a color calibrator for your monitor. A decent monitor helps too. What monitor do you have? Phones don't have the most accurate screens and some even produce more color saturation. |
|
I do all my "keep/reject" work on my laptop, 1600x900 Lenovo screen.
I'm looking for things like sharpness and framing. Shooting in raw allows you to correct a lot of color issues. Doing my primary sorting on a phone screen isn't going to give me the image size I need to make a determination. Check out color-calibrating your computer screen. |
|
Quoted:
As I have mentioned before, you need a color calibrator for your monitor. A decent monitor helps too. What monitor do you have? Phones don't have the most accurate screens and some even produce more color saturation. Quoted:
Quoted:
Do you notice the trends when you off load them onto your PC? I feel the lcd doesn't do much justice to the picture. If i really want to know, i wifi it to my phone. As I have mentioned before, you need a color calibrator for your monitor. A decent monitor helps too. What monitor do you have? Phones don't have the most accurate screens and some even produce more color saturation. I think I misstated. He said he notices trends, i asked him how he sees those trends either on the cam right after the shot or does he upload them to the PC to see it.
|
|
Quoted:
I think I misstated. He said he notices trends, i asked him how he sees those trends either on the cam right after the shot or does he upload them to the PC to see it. I upload to PC to review. I'll look at images on the camera, but the screen isn't really conducive to making keep/reject decisions. And while my D500 does have wifi and with snapbridge I haven't really used it other to install and find out it doesn't work as well as they say it should. I might take a few hundred frames per session. I'm more concerned with getting the shots than anything else. |
|
Quoted:
Does the depth of field change when taking sunset pictures? (As in the case in my posted picture) Obviously the larger aperture the more light comes in.. (which is useful for low light conditions). However, you are sacrificing the DOF. So, I guess you either have to find a balance or decide on if the sky is your focus rather than the field + the sky? Your depth of field depends on the length of the lens, the size of the aperture, and the distance to the subject. The big thing about changing the aperture to get the DOF you want is that you need to make exposure setting adjustments to compensate for the aperture change. Everything in photography is a balance or compromise. Everything. |