Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

M10 with 35mm Summilux v2

 

Today I wanted to take a picture of my hometown in the fall sun. But the result wasn't quite what I was hoping for. The foreground was perfectly sharp, but the background was a bit blurred in all the pictures. 

Before I started, I set the aperture to f/8 and focused at the hyperfocal distance according to the lens scale, about 4.5 meters. I ignored the advice to stop down one extra stop on digital cameras. Then I took more photos without checking the settings any further. When I got home, I realized that I had inadvertently touched the aperture ring and all the photos had been taken at f/5.6. With these settings, my DOF app showed that I only had an acceptable focus to about 10-15 meters. No wonder the background wasn't really sharp.

In addition, I was there at the wrong time. The sun had already moved so far west that the left side of the image was in shadow. Tomorrow I'll try again a little earlier in the day, and double check all the settings on my camera!

Edited by evikne
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've done the same thing many times at 5.6 and often chosen to ignore my previous learnings!  I like 5.6 generally so sometimes fall into it for landscapes for some unknown reason/habit

Look forward to seeing the next photos, this is a very nice composition 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, grahamc said:

I've done the same thing many times at 5.6 and often chosen to ignore my previous learnings!  I like 5.6 generally so sometimes fall into it for landscapes for some unknown reason/habit

Look forward to seeing the next photos, this is a very nice composition 

I tend to agree, somehow 5.6 being in the street and landscape probably my preferred aperture almost at any situasion, sometimes i love that soft effects unintentionally

@evikne truth to b told, i love the image but everyone might vary in their preferences, softness add souls to her but of course at times we might prefer it to be all sharp

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello evinke,

Nice photo.

An image captured on a sensor/film only has 1 plane of best focus. This image plane is at a right angle to the view of that plane from the lens.

"Depth of field" is the degree of unsharpness that is considered acceptable at distances before & beyond the best focus image plane.   

Added to the declining sharpness on either side of the best focus image plane with most lenses: Lenses with floating elements sometimes have less "depth of field" than other lenses when focusing on the same subject & using the same aperture. As indicated on the respective lens barrels.  

When I am photographing a subject & I want to include subjects in focus that are in front of & behind the image plane focused on:

When I use lenses WITHOUT floating elements: I use a 2 stops smaller setting than what is indicated on the lens barrel.

When the depth of field markings on the lens barrel indicates that f4 is sufficient - I would set the lens to f8. And adjust the shutter speed accordingly.

If I were using a lens WITH floating elements: I would use a 3 stop smaller setting than what is indicated on the lens barrel.

When the depth of field markings on the lens barrel indicates that f4 is sufficient - I would set the lens to f11. And adjust the shutter speed accordingly.

You might try this on A VERY SOLID TRIPOD even if you don't use a tripod very often. And compare it to other settings for the same scene.

Because, without a stable base to compare with: There are too many variables introduced when doing hand held photography.

Even tho all of us have wonderful photos taken at f2 & 1 second, handheld.

Best Regards,

Michael

Edited by Michael Geschlecht
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I agree with those who say that everything doesn't always have to be sharp. I usually like a slightly blurred background myself (and sometimes very blurry), but in this case the church in the background was perhaps the most important thing to have in focus. But if I had focused directly on it, I would have wasted a lot of DOF behind it instead of using it on the foreground. Therefore, I decided to try using the hyperfocal distance, which went a bit wrong, because I'm not so used to it. 

But I'm afraid the sky isn't as nice today, and rain is forecast for the whole next week. And after that, there might not be many leaves left on the trees. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Today I had the opportunity to take the pictures again, at a better time and with better settings (not that the difference is so visible in this forum, but I can see it well on my screen at home). All images were taken at f/11, ISO 200 and 1/250th sec. The focus was set to the hyperfocal distance of f/8, about 5 meters. 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

A slightly different perspective completely changes the foreground. Can't decide which one I prefer.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited by evikne
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I soon realized that 35mm was too narrow. Here's a panoramic shot of the canal boats stitched together from three images in LR.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited by evikne
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

And here is one made up of four images.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Keith (M) said:

#9 for me - the soft curve of the foliage in the foreground frames the mid and distant areas resulting in a very pleasing image.

Thank you, I agree. I like the yellow foliage in #8, but #9 has a cleaner composition and shows more of the water.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a super wide panorama merged from four images:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

And another panorama, merged from three shots. I like these colors.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

All shots look completely different when you click on them for high resolution, at least here on my screen.

Edited by evikne
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...