Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sweet shot. You don't really need the mountains sharper as the focal point of the shot is the fence post and foreground. The mountains are merely adding context.
Clearly, your current camera has been a good friend of yours for a long time. Having said that, I noticed that your latest post (butterfly thread) shows an aperture of f/9.5, whereas the mountain shot above has it at f/5.6. Which means, your camera does support relatively small aperture which can come in handy for landscape pictures when you want more of the scenery in focus. Although, not allowing you to control aperture can always be an issue.
You could still try to make up for that lack of feature by using the idea of hyperfocal distance. Not sure how much it will help, but you could just try to have some fun with your old buddy. In automatic modes, some cameras will select aperture based on where you set the focus. With hyperfocal distance, you can try to "fool" the camera into submitting for a smaller aperture (light permitting, of course) and consequently getting you a deeper depth of field.
I have a DOF calculation app on my iPhone that has come in handy. If you could get your camera to select an aperture of f/8, and your selected focal length is 37mm (35 mm scale, as is the case with your mountain picture), the hyperfocal distance computes to 3.6m. In other words, setting your focus at 3.7m from you, would have everything beyond it in focus, as well as half the distance between that point and you. So, all you would have to do is to ensure that the significant (closest) subject you have in mind is more than half the distance between you and the hyperfocal distance.
Last edited by EinsteinsGhost; 11-09-2011 at 10:58 AM..
Greetings from Puerto Vallarta. This is a photo I took along the beach last night just after sunset. Been here just a tad over a week and have about five more days of fun and photo ops to go. Life is good!
Clearly, your current camera has been a good friend of yours for a long time. Having said that, I noticed that your latest post (butterfly thread) shows an aperture of f/9.5, whereas the mountain shot above has it at f/5.6. Which means, your camera does support relatively small aperture which can come in handy for landscape pictures when you want more of the scenery in focus. Although, not allowing you to control aperture can always be an issue.
You could still try to make up for that lack of feature by using the idea of hyperfocal distance. Not sure how much it will help, but you could just try to have some fun with your old buddy. In automatic modes, some cameras will select aperture based on where you set the focus. With hyperfocal distance, you can try to "fool" the camera into submitting for a smaller aperture (light permitting, of course) and consequently getting you a deeper depth of field.
I have a DOF calculation app on my iPhone that has come in handy. If you could get your camera to select an aperture of f/8, and your selected focal length is 37mm (35 mm scale, as is the case with your mountain picture), the hyperfocal distance computes to 3.6m. In other words, setting your focus at 3.7m from you, would have everything beyond it in focus, as well as half the distance between that point and you. So, all you would have to do is to ensure that the significant (closest) subject you have in mind is more than half the distance between you and the hyperfocal distance.
Tried to rep you but I must spread some around apparently.
At the risk of sounding totally moronic and ridiculous, I'm having trouble understanding the info you're trying to convey. I have, indeed, had my camera for a while but you might (or might not) be surprised to learn all I've ever done is turn it to one of the presets on the dial, make sure the light is right, and press the button. I've never read the manual and have no clue what my little Kodak P&S is really capable of. My wife already owned it when I met her in August of '03.
I do have a couple years of experience in SLR photography, darkroom practices, as well as experimenting with different film but that was over 15 years ago and I've forgotten everything I learned back then. I know basic stuff like f-stops and ISO but when it comes down to putting it to use with digital photography; I'm as lost as the day is long.
Well now I'm embarrassed that I don't know anything. At least I'm an amazing learner.
Tried to rep you but I must spread some around apparently.
At the risk of sounding totally moronic and ridiculous, I'm having trouble understanding the info you're trying to convey. I have, indeed, had my camera for a while but you might (or might not) be surprised to learn all I've ever done is turn it to one of the presets on the dial, make sure the light is right, and press the button. I've never read the manual and have no clue what my little Kodak P&S is really capable of. My wife already owned it when I met her in August of '03.
I do have a couple years of experience in SLR photography, darkroom practices, as well as experimenting with different film but that was over 15 years ago and I've forgotten everything I learned back then. I know basic stuff like f-stops and ISO but when it comes down to putting it to use with digital photography; I'm as lost as the day is long.
Well now I'm embarrassed that I don't know anything. At least I'm an amazing learner.
Thank you! But, there is no such question that can be considered moronic/ridiculous. So don't worry about it at all. I will expand on my earlier response in a thread where we could share such tips and tricks.
I'm having trouble understanding the info you're trying to convey.
He's just saying that since it was shot with an aperture of f/5.6 and a shutter speed of 1/750 there is probably some way to get the camera to use the same exposure, except with a slower shutter speed (which will not affect anything) and an aperture of f/8 or even smaller in order to get more depth of field. That would, presumably, make the distant mountains a little sharper.
Probably it would not though! First, the clouds appear to be sharp, so the mountains are probably blurred by atmospheric haze rather than DOF. Also, given the crop facter on that camera is 6.6 (a very small sensor) there is probably diffusion even at f/5.6, and it could be more significant if the lens were stopped down more.
But technical crap aside, would you want the mountains sharper? Here's another case in point where kdog and I agree, the center of interest in that photograph is the post and the barbed wires leading to it from the right edge and everything else is context. If you want to "improve" that shot, IMHO you might try selecting on only the post and the strands of wire, and adding a little Unsharp Mask to make those areas stand out. But (and I did download the image and tried all of this to see what the effects were)... adding sharpness to any of that plant life in the foreground is an awful distraction (it could use a little blur as it looks to have been over sharpened as it is), and so is anything that sharpens the mountains or what appears to be buildings in the low area in front of the mountains. Sharpening the clouds is okay though as it doesn't become distracting.
Incidentally, I'm not usually much of a fan of the typical landscape as most people see them. You've got an exception in that image though. I think it is exceptionally attractive.
He's just saying that since it was shot with an aperture of f/5.6 and a shutter speed of 1/750 there is probably some way to get the camera to use the same exposure, except with a slower shutter speed (which will not affect anything) and an aperture of f/8 or even smaller in order to get more depth of field. That would, presumably, make the distant mountains a little sharper.
Actually, you don't need to go f/8 unless you want something closer to you in focus as well. A larger aperture like f/5.6, at 37mm focal length (35mm equivalent) will deliver similar results as f/8, if the focus is set at (at least) 16 ft away compared to (at least) 12 ft for f/8. In other words, with f/5.6, if focus is set at a point on the fence assumed to be 16 ft away, the DOF will extend from 8 ft (from the camera) to infinity. Wheras, with f/8, you would need to set the focus at least 12 ft away, and the DOF will extend from 6 ft to infinity (so you gain 2 ft towards you, compared to f/5.6).
You can accomplish an infinite DOF with f/5.6 as well, except that you must not r hyperfocal distance would increase with larger aperture. In case of f/5.6, you maintain the shutter speed but just need to set the focus at least 16 ft from the camera (and everything from about 8 ft to infinity can be expected to be sharp).
Last edited by EinsteinsGhost; 11-10-2011 at 07:56 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Regardless, it's a great shot.
National Portrait Gallery, London (UK)
