Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3       end
  

Archive 2013 · focusing for landscape photography

  
 
jimmy462
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · focusing for landscape photography


vbnut wrote:
I just returned (on June 26th) from a 7 day Alaska cruise that sounds similar to what Dave is describing, and boy do I wish I had read this thread before my trip. I took lots of shots with my 7D and 10-22 mm at f/22, along with some shots with my 200 mm and even my 400 mm at similar apertures, and was very disappointed when I started looking at them on my computer as they were quite soft. I wasn't certain what I had done wrong or if I needed to MA the focus on my 10-22, now
...Show more

Hi vbnut, etal,

The reason you're encountering visible blurriness at f/22 on your 7D is because that camera's sensor pixel pitch is finely-graded enough actually resolve that aspect of a lens's performance! In actuality, what the 7D can do is out-resolve (or, over-sample) the point-source airy disk pattern of an f/22 optic.

To put this another way, your 7D did exactly what your requested it to do. What you asked the camera to do is this...

"Hello, 7D. I understand that your sensor's ultra-fine pixel pitch of 4.3 microns can easily resolve the 29.3 micron airy disk of an f/22 diffracted point source when projected onto your surface? So, I'm curious, that an image is made up of infinite point sources I wonder what it would look like if I asked you to take an image of infinite point sources all diffracted together at f/22?"

And your camera asked you back, "Let me see if I've got this right. You're going to set your lens to f/22 so I can resolve the actual blurring effect caused by the diffraction of all those point sources coming from that mountain over there?"

And you said, "Yep, Let's see what that looks like!"

Click.

And your 7D said, "Well, what do you think?"

Diffraction Limited Photography: Pixel Size, Aperture and Airy Disks:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

I hope this helps...
Jimmy G



Jul 05, 2013 at 10:42 AM
splathrop
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · focusing for landscape photography


Isquare. Yeah, the difference can be large, especially in big prints, > 21 inches wide, for instance. And the difference between f/16 and f/8 or f/5.6 can be larger still, when those apertures approximate the sweet spot of the lens you choose to use. Some of the best primes are notably better at f/5.6 even than they are at f/8.

In small prints, not so much visible difference.

Note, too, that it can't be stressed enough to let the expectations of the mind's eye into your thinking. If you are photographing macro subjects, where tiny detail that you never see visually is going to be evident, stopping way down to get depth of field isn't going to be too jarring, because you never expect to see that tiny stuff anyway. When you can see the facets in an insect's eye, it's always going to look sharp. At the other extreme, portraits can also look sharp despite being objectively slightly soft, also because of expectations. We don't have expectations for seeing facial detail anywhere near as high as the hair follicles and pores our cameras can record, so all that have to be delivered are the details that satisfy normal visual expectations. Showing more can even be jarring.

Landscapes are more demanding. The problem with them is that they are composed of zillions of discrete objects, almost all of which the viewer will have experienced seeing close up. So if there is a beach in the foreground, you may need to resolve sand grains. Nearby leaves may need to show veins and surface fuzz. And because each detail gets relatively few pixels, getting it all done can be demanding, for lenses, illumination and technique all together.



Jul 05, 2013 at 07:35 PM
1adam-12
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · focusing for landscape photography


First.. thank you to all that have made suggestions and instructions... Second, I should have asked this question a month ago so i could go out and experiment... soooo much info to wrap my head around....

I have been trying to play a little with my camera and lenses here at home... Not enough time to try and understand and put into use the HYPER FOCAL method... So my plan is going to be to use auto focus and to shoot as MANY shots of each scene i can at varying f-stops for f/8 to f/22... Im think i am going to bring a laptop with me to check my results on screen each night and adjust my shooting as needed....The great advantage of digital is i can shoot shoot shoot until my hearts desire.... If i shoot hundreds of shots and get a few dozen acceptable images, i will be satisfied for a good start at landscape photography...

again, thank you to all.... you have given me a ton of useful info... and it is greatly appreciated... i hope i can repay some day...

Dave



Jul 08, 2013 at 12:33 PM
Derek Weston
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · focusing for landscape photography


There is no reason to stop way down to f16-f22 if everything you're shooting is at or near infinity at f5.6 or whatnot.

I've shot plenty of great landscapes at f5.6 . . . and they look better for it because I'm not killing the image with diffraction.

Most lenses are at their sharpest from f4 to f8ish. My thinking is that you need to take advantage of that if you can.



Jul 08, 2013 at 12:35 PM
Chris Anthony
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · focusing for landscape photography


Hi Dave, I don't believe this was addressed, but you mentioned bringing your tripod and doing long exposures. This will not be possible on the ship as they never turn off the engines and the ship will have a constant rumble.
I'd also like to ask when are you going? I'm going on an Alaskan cruise at the end of August and would be more then happy to help you if by some chance it's the same cruise.
Also, don't over think it, have fun and I'm sure you'll come back with wonderful memories.



Jul 08, 2013 at 01:37 PM
1adam-12
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · focusing for landscape photography


Bringing the tripod for off ship photos... 7 days out of seattle... Ketchikan, Tracy Arm Ford (Anchorage), Juneau, Skagway, Inside Passage and Victoria British Columbia..

plan on doing whale watching, A train tour inland, a lumberjack exhibition and a couple "city" tours.... hopefully i will get some good areas to get some good landscapes..

Dave

Oh.. and we are going on Celebrity Cruises..



Jul 08, 2013 at 01:48 PM
Chris Anthony
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · focusing for landscape photography


Certainly you will get good landscape opportunities. I took my tripod to Hawaii on a 15 day cruise(from long beach) I used it exactly twice. Both were in Honolulu because we were there later then normal(I even tried using it on the ship, well just because) I'm about 99% sure I'm not bringing it to Alaska and hoping to get by with a monopod.


Jul 08, 2013 at 02:20 PM
1adam-12
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · focusing for landscape photography


OK.. i have another question... If those of you that do landscape photography HAD to take ONLY 1 lens.... which lens would that be...

I have the following Canon lenses..
16-35 L
24-70 L
70-200 MK II

My plan is to take the 16-35 and the 70-200...

I am NOT apposed to purchasing a prime lens for this trip IF it were to get me better results..

thanks again...Dave



Jul 08, 2013 at 03:04 PM
Chris Anthony
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · focusing for landscape photography


Dave, what body are you using?


Jul 08, 2013 at 03:41 PM
1adam-12
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · focusing for landscape photography


5D MK III


Jul 08, 2013 at 04:00 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · focusing for landscape photography


splathrop wrote:
Isquare. Yeah, the difference can be large, especially in big prints, > 21 inches wide, for instance. And the difference between f/16 and f/8 or f/5.6 can be larger still, when those apertures approximate the sweet spot of the lens you choose to use. Some of the best primes are notably better at f/5.6 even than they are at f/8.


Do you make a lot of 21" wide prints?

I do. You can produce a tremendously sharp print from a f/16 photograph on a full frame camera. The only place you are likely to see a sharpness difference is if you look at unsharpened 100% crops on the screen.

1adam-12 wrote:
OK.. i have another question... If those of you that do landscape photography HAD to take ONLY 1 lens.... which lens would that be...

My plan is to take the 16-35 and the 70-200...

I am NOT apposed to purchasing a prime lens for this trip IF it were to get me better results..


That is really a question that only you can answer - since there is no ideal for landscape photograph focal lengths. I know folks who shoot almost nothing but wide to ultra wide for landscape - yet I and a few folks I shoot with are big fans of moderate to long telephotos for landscape.

Are you really only going to take one lens, or is this just some sort of theoretical question? Your "plan... to take the 16-35 and the 70-200" could work, and I know people who work with that combination or similar. Some might add a basic 50mm prime, but others might not.

Dan





Jul 08, 2013 at 04:07 PM
1adam-12
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · focusing for landscape photography


I have a Canon IPF8300 44" wide format printer... I am hoping to get that ONE shot that i can print as large as i can get it.. (I am looking to get a final print at 44x60.. or somewhere in that size) to print, face mount to a sheet of acrylic and hang it on my living room wall....

Its a pretty ambitious goal... but i think i can do it.... I am looking to replicate (as best i can) what Peter Lik is doing...

I have been face mounting to acrylic for over a year now and can get excellent results up to 30x40 so far.... so, 40x60 should be doable.. the good thing is i have the printer and laminater, so the costs are pretty low for me to do it myself...

I also might try to do a panorama and face mount to 3-4 separate sheets of acrylic and mount them on the wall to create the multiple mount panorama...

anyways... those are my goals... may or may not pull it off... but what do i have to loose but time and a few bucks...

Dave



Jul 08, 2013 at 04:18 PM
Chris Anthony
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · focusing for landscape photography


If you are serious about getting that "one" shot, I'd take all the gear you can, because who knows what that shot will be until you see it. You may even consider renting something for any gaps you might have or a specialty lens like a tilt shift. I have bought two lenses this year in anticipation of my cruise, the 100-400 and 17-55. I needed an all around fast lens and the 17-55 is the choice for crop, and I needed something longer then 70-200 for wildlife.


Jul 08, 2013 at 04:31 PM
johnctharp
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · focusing for landscape photography


1adam-12,

I've been digging into 'sharpness' scores at DxOMark, and from what I can see, your 70-200/2.8 II is likely the sharpest lens you can take (that you can afford without renting).

If you wanted to augment that with a wider lens, either the Sigma 35/1.4 Art or the Canon 24/2.8 IS and 35/2 IS seem to provide similar resolution on a 5D III (as tested by DxOMark). Particularly since you mention shooting off of a moving boat, the IS in the 35/2 will likely be of use, as would the focal length and aperture for 'walk-around' shots. I know it would be replicating the long end of your 16-35 and wider end of your 24-70, but it really does rate as much sharper alongside the Sigma 35 and the 24/2.8 IS.

As a side note (and you can check all of the above yourself if you like) the 300/2.8 IS II rates as the sharpest lens for the 5D III at 22 perceived MP, which means that it may even out-resolve the sensor, again according to DxOMark's testing. So if you wanted to rent a lens that's sharp enough for your printer, the new 300 is as sharp as you're likely to get .



Jul 08, 2013 at 09:09 PM
bigbluebear
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · focusing for landscape photography


I've shot some landscapes at 5.6-8 that I found acceptable to me. Sometimes f/11. IMO it's better to stay in that sweet spot if you can. The only time I'd consider going with a smaller aperture like f/16 is if I want slower shutter speeds or if there are things in foreground and background that I'd like to be in focus.

I usually shoot in live view and focus on an object that is approximately 2/3rd into the scene.

Are there any other tips out there? It'd be great to learn from others.




Jul 10, 2013 at 03:44 AM
Ferrophot
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · focusing for landscape photography


Be a bit cautious about extreme depth of fields at long ditances. I've been on a mission to get aircraft passing cresent moon shots lately. Although the depth of field calculators say all will be in focus (moon at 300,000 miles, plane at 1 mile) I find that I must focus on the aircraft to get it sharp, not the moon (which is easier).


Jul 10, 2013 at 08:04 AM
splathrop
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · focusing for landscape photography


I am NOT apposed to purchasing a prime lens for this trip IF it were to get me better results..


Then do this. Take the 70-200. Buy a 1.4 extender for it. And buy the Zeiss 50 f/2.0 MP. It will get you better results than just about anything else you can use—although you might want to consider several other Zeiss lenses at different focal lengths if you happen to prefer those, including 21mm, 24mm, and 35mm. I wouldn't consider the great Zeiss 100mm f/2.0. It's wonderful for semi-macro and for portraits, and for short tele landscapes, but it's also not as versatile an addition to the 70-200mm as the 50 MP would be—which is also good for semi macro, etc. Another advantage of the 50 is lower cost.



Jul 10, 2013 at 09:14 AM
splathrop
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · focusing for landscape photography


bigbluebear, there are better focal opportunities than an all-purpose-rule 2/3rd into the scene. You need to get a sense of the optimum hyperfocal distance for each lens when using it at its sweet-spot aperture on your camera. For a lens wider than a 50mm that can be quite near at hand. And I find my 50mm Zeiss 50 MP gives me great hyperfocal performance between 30ft and the horizon when focused at 60ft at f/5.6. For a Zeiss 21 the corresponding hyperfocal distance is only 10 feet (maybe less), far short of 2/3rds of the way into most scenes.

Look here:
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html



Jul 10, 2013 at 09:24 AM
OntheRez
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · focusing for landscape photography


1adam-12

(Took me a moment to figure out why your handle seemed familiar. You are dating yourself

I consider it a misperception to think that landscape photography is only (or even mostly) done with ultra wide angle lenses. Yes, they are good when you want a horizon to horizon shot and sometimes that can be great. OTOH, my lens usage in descending order in landscape here in the Sonoran Desert (with generally infinite horizons) is 400mm f/5.6L, 24 f/3.5 TSE L II, 300mm f/4.0, 16-35mm f/2.8L. There are times that I do attempt to covey the horizon to horizon vastness of a space. I use either the 24 TSE (preferred) or the 16-35 f/2.8 (original version). The TSE is of course a whole 'nother beast, but allows for views that can't be generated otherwise. The 16-35mm comes up for bashing on a regular basis around here, but to be honest I have no complaints about the lens' capabilities when shooting on a 1DsIII. I've printed to 16x20 with it and certainly the human eye (without a magnifying glass) can't find anything wrong it. With your crop camera you would only be using the center portion of the lens so complaints about "softness in the corners" wouldn't apply. If you intend to stay with crop cameras the 10-22mm EF-S is a really fine lens. I used it a lot back in my 20D days.

You've gotten multiple technical statements about "circle of confusion" and other good stuff. On a practical basis I rarely go narrower than f/8.0. It seems to be a sweet spot with my camera and most of the lenses I use. A DOF calculator will give you some idea of what your focus area will be but basically at f/8.0 if you focus towards infinity you will pretty much get the entire distance in focus. If you are trying to create a vista that is in focus from just in front of you all the way to a distant horizon, you will quite likely have to "stack" pix of the same view taken at ever narrowing apertures. That's a fascinating approach also.

As someone else noted, since you'll be only steps from your gear, you might as well take all your toys and see what works best. I've never had the opportunity to go up the Inside Passage. You're likely to have an incredible time.

Robert



Jul 10, 2013 at 02:08 PM
Edward Rotberg
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · focusing for landscape photography


I just want to re-iterate one point that there seems to be some contention on. Scott Stoness and bigbluebear commented on focusing 2/3 into the scene which disagrees with kevindar's 1/3 into the scene. By "scene" in the above, what I am referring to is the full depth of field of the scene based upon focal length, aperture and distance of point of focus.

In short, kevindar's statement is actually factual here. Focusing 2/3 into the scene is dead wrong. For example, let's say that you are using a 24mm lens on a full frame camera (5D Mk III in this case) and are set to f/5.6. If your focal point is at a spot 8 feet away, your depth of field will be from 4.8 feet to 27.8 feet - i.e. everything within that range will be in focus. Clearly 8 feet is much closer to 1/3 of the way into the scene than 2/3rds. Notice that at f/5.6, with the above set-up, the Hyperfocal distance is 11 feet 4 inches. If you set your focus to this distance, everything from 5 feet 8 inches to infinity should be in focus.

The above is a bit of a simplification, but it gets the point across. Focus 1/3 into the desired depth of field that you want, once you have set up your lens' aperture and focal length for that desired depth of field. Do not use 2/3 into the scene as your focal point! That advice is erroneous.

Finally there are lots of apps for smart phones that will do these calculations for you. Many are free and they are a godsend, especially since the camera manufacturers stopped including the DOF markings on the lenses themselves. Get one and learn to use it before you go on your trip.

Have fun and bring back some great photos!

= Ed =



Jul 10, 2013 at 06:56 PM
1      
2
       3       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.