“Conformity is the jailer of freedom, and the enemy of growth.” —John F. Kennedy

Places ShowcaseFirst sunshine of 2018!

User avatar
LindaShorey
Mentoris Secundus
Mentoris Secundus
Posts: 1398
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 11:50 am
Location: Yakima, WA
Social Media Opt-In: No
Editing option: Yes, feel free to edit my image
Contact:

First sunshine of 2018!

Post by LindaShorey » Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:30 am

For someone solar-powered like me, this morning was soul food!

yes, I added the bighorn sheep to #3, but the moon is real :)

#1 - I carefully focused and held the camera as steady as possible, tried a few apertures...and then ended up softening in pp!

Question: with the general rule of reciprocal number as shutter speed based on focal length, doesn't that only apply to full frame cameras? My Olympus has a crop factor of 2, so my 300 mm lens gives equivalent angle of view of a 600 mm. When I looked upward to the moon and zoomed for a close-up, I could see I wasn't holding it steady. Guess the general rule is moot in my case, but I'm curious about the crop sensor question.
Attachments
1 P1100067 crop.jpg
1 P1100231.jpg
1 P1100011-2.jpg
"What's important in a photograph and what isn't." http://photographylife.com/whats-import ... -what-isnt

User avatar
Matt Quinn
Mentoris Magnus
Mentoris Magnus
Posts: 2143
Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2017 3:12 pm
Location: MD in winter: Cape Cod in summer
Social Media Opt-In: No
Editing option: No, please do not edit my images
Contact:

Post by Matt Quinn » Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:38 am

Linda, I found the softness in #1 very attractive. Reminded me of Steve's Red Beard. The bison's, not Steve's. The clarity on the eagle is enough to frighten one. That eye pierces. Stay far away. Matt
Matt Quinn

"...approach the light as opposed to the subject." Stan Godwin

User avatar
LindaShorey
Mentoris Secundus
Mentoris Secundus
Posts: 1398
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 11:50 am
Location: Yakima, WA
Social Media Opt-In: No
Editing option: Yes, feel free to edit my image
Contact:

Post by LindaShorey » Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:43 am

Matt Quinn wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:38 am
Linda, I found the softness in #1 very attractive. Reminded me of Steve's Red Beard. The bison's, not Steve's. The clarity on the eagle is enough to frighten one. That eye pierces. Stay far away. Matt
Thank you Matt! Even from great distances those piercing eyes can make me feel ill at ease as I zoom in with the camera. (I might try dialing back on the orange in the landscape pic just a skosh :) )
"What's important in a photograph and what isn't." http://photographylife.com/whats-import ... -what-isnt

User avatar
Matt Quinn
Mentoris Magnus
Mentoris Magnus
Posts: 2143
Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2017 3:12 pm
Location: MD in winter: Cape Cod in summer
Social Media Opt-In: No
Editing option: No, please do not edit my images
Contact:

Post by Matt Quinn » Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:44 am

LindaShorey wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:43 am
Matt Quinn wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:38 am
Linda, I found the softness in #1 very attractive. Reminded me of Steve's Red Beard. The bison's, not Steve's. The clarity on the eagle is enough to frighten one. That eye pierces. Stay far away. Matt
Thank you Matt! Even from great distances those piercing eyes can make me feel ill at ease as I zoom in with the camera. (I might try dialing back on the orange in the landscape pic just a skosh :) )
Agree.
Matt Quinn

"...approach the light as opposed to the subject." Stan Godwin

User avatar
Charles Haacker
Mentoris Primus
Mentoris Primus
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:20 pm
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
Social Media Opt-In: No
Editing option: No, please do not edit my images
Contact:

Post by Charles Haacker » Thu Jan 11, 2018 3:09 am

LindaShorey wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:30 am
[...] Question: with the general rule of reciprocal number as shutter speed based on focal length, doesn't that only apply to full frame cameras? My Olympus has a crop factor of 2, so my 300 mm lens gives equivalent angle of view of a 600 mm. When I looked upward to the moon and zoomed for a close-up, I could see I wasn't holding it steady. Guess the general rule is moot in my case, but I'm curious about the crop sensor question.
I wondered about this a long time ago with compact cameras capable of zooming out to equivalent 200 mm (Nikon P7000, crop factor 4.6). So I went out and physically tested it to a fare-thee-well. I hand-held at various focal lengths keeping careful track of the real vs. the virtual. I used a tripod. I tested with vibration reduction both on and off, also both on and off the tripod (VR definitely smears shots as shutter speeds get closer to 1 or more seconds, I've proved it for myself). I did a pretty exhaustive series and established that the shutter needs to be about the reciprocal of the ACTUAL focal length rather than the virtual equivalent. The higher you can push the shutter (generally) the better, but your 300 should produce excellent sharpness at 1/300 or so provided your hold is also reasonably steady. If you can get it higher, well swell. If you have stabilization in the lens or body you can even get away with a lower shutter (tested and proved that too). If you mount the camera on a tripod you can test for yourself if it helps; it may depending (always depending). But the focal length that matters is the actual one, not the virtual.
Friends call me Chuck. :photo: This link takes you to my Flickr albums. Please click on any album to scroll through it.
(I prefer to present pictures in albums because I can put them in specific order.)

All the great photographers use cameras! No, really. :|

User avatar
Charles Haacker
Mentoris Primus
Mentoris Primus
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:20 pm
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
Social Media Opt-In: No
Editing option: No, please do not edit my images
Contact:

Post by Charles Haacker » Thu Jan 11, 2018 3:15 am

LindaShorey wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:30 am
For someone solar-powered like me, this morning was soul food!

yes, I added the bighorn sheep to #3, but the moon is real :)

#1 - I carefully focused and held the camera as steady as possible, tried a few apertures...and then ended up softening in pp!
The technical foofawraw covered, the pitchers are lovely! I especially love that rolling landscape in #1, but I am sincerely impressed that you added the Bighorn to #3. Had you not leaked it who'd'a knowed? If the light had been wrong it would've given it away, but it's perfect. Well, full disclosure in the age of fake news I guess. If ya hadn't told us and we figgered it out we'd'a hadda revoke yer something something... :D
Friends call me Chuck. :photo: This link takes you to my Flickr albums. Please click on any album to scroll through it.
(I prefer to present pictures in albums because I can put them in specific order.)

All the great photographers use cameras! No, really. :|

User avatar
LindaShorey
Mentoris Secundus
Mentoris Secundus
Posts: 1398
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 11:50 am
Location: Yakima, WA
Social Media Opt-In: No
Editing option: Yes, feel free to edit my image
Contact:

Post by LindaShorey » Thu Jan 11, 2018 3:22 am

Charles Haacker wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 3:15 am
The technical foofawraw covered, the pitchers are lovely! I especially love that rolling landscape in #1, but I am sincerely impressed that you added the Bighorn to #3. Had you not leaked it who'd'a knowed? If the light had been wrong it would've given it away, but it's perfect. Well, full disclosure in the age of fake news I guess. If ya hadn't told us and we figgered it out we'd'a hadda revoke yer something something... :D
-
LOL, thank you kindly Chuck! On photo forums I feel the need to have
a clear conscience :D

Re stabilization, I do have it. And I double-checked my settings after our last discuss. I used the Canon bridge camera for four years and noticed I was much more wobbly at the end of that time than the beginning. No matter, I was very happy with most of my shots today for image quality, especially at f/8 and f/9.5. Here's #1 a little less saturated (maybe). The crop is a bit different too, though I forgot to crop some from sky. It's nearing my bedtime here - ha.

Many thanks!
Attachments
1 P1100067-1crop.jpg
"What's important in a photograph and what isn't." http://photographylife.com/whats-import ... -what-isnt

User avatar
minniev
Mentoris Legatus
Mentoris Legatus
Posts: 3203
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 3:55 am
Location: Mississippi
Social Media Opt-In: Yes
Editing option: Yes, feel free to edit my image
Contact:

Post by minniev » Thu Jan 11, 2018 2:34 pm

These are all quite beautiful, each in its own way, yet they work as a set, too. I’d be hard put to choose a favorite since I like them all so much. Great compositions, subjects, exposure, color treatment. Whether you added that sheep is immaterial to me.

As for the tech stuff - I like the sharper version of the wide angle scene better in this instance, though I often prefer the softer ones in other instances. Individual taste is all. The equation for hand-holding seems fairly true for m43 too, but there are so many other factors - camera and lens weight, image stabilization, our own strength and steadiness. Another m43 quirk - diffraction happens earlier in the range. Before I switched to m43, I happily used f22 for many landscapes, but I found that with m43 that induced a lot of odd blur. Now tend to hang out around f5 - f-8 and have even shot landscapes at f1.8.
"God gave me photography so that I could pray with my eyes" - Dewitt Jones

User avatar
LindaShorey
Mentoris Secundus
Mentoris Secundus
Posts: 1398
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 11:50 am
Location: Yakima, WA
Social Media Opt-In: No
Editing option: Yes, feel free to edit my image
Contact:

Post by LindaShorey » Thu Jan 11, 2018 4:22 pm

minniev wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 2:34 pm
These are all quite beautiful, each in its own way, yet they work as a set, too. I’d be hard put to choose a favorite since I like them all so much. Great compositions, subjects, exposure, color treatment. Whether you added that sheep is immaterial to me.

As for the tech stuff - I like the sharper version of the wide angle scene better in this instance, though I often prefer the softer ones in other instances. Individual taste is all. The equation for hand-holding seems fairly true for m43 too, but there are so many other factors - camera and lens weight, image stabilization, our own strength and steadiness. Another m43 quirk - diffraction happens earlier in the range. Before I switched to m43, I happily used f22 for many landscapes, but I found that with m43 that induced a lot of odd blur. Now tend to hang out around f5 - f-8 and have even shot landscapes at f1.8.
Thanks so much for your compliments, great info and viewpoint, Minnie. That's a good point about wide views probably looking better sharp. I'm going to revisit some images with that in mind. So easy to get into a certain mindset and to "see" less or more than viewers :D
"What's important in a photograph and what isn't." http://photographylife.com/whats-import ... -what-isnt

User avatar
Charles Haacker
Mentoris Primus
Mentoris Primus
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:20 pm
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
Social Media Opt-In: No
Editing option: No, please do not edit my images
Contact:

Post by Charles Haacker » Thu Jan 11, 2018 4:37 pm

minniev wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 2:34 pm
These are all quite beautiful, each in its own way, yet they work as a set, too. I’d be hard put to choose a favorite since I like them all so much. Great compositions, subjects, exposure, color treatment. Whether you added that sheep is immaterial to me.

As for the tech stuff - I like the sharper version of the wide angle scene better in this instance, though I often prefer the softer ones in other instances. Individual taste is all. The equation for hand-holding seems fairly true for m43 too, but there are so many other factors - camera and lens weight, image stabilization, our own strength and steadiness. Another m43 quirk - diffraction happens earlier in the range. Before I switched to m43, I happily used f22 for many landscapes, but I found that with m43 that induced a lot of odd blur. Now tend to hang out around f5 - f-8 and have even shot landscapes at f1.8.
PLEASE Ignore me if you already know all this, but generally, f/22 is not necessary for landscapes. F/5 to 8 will work, not only fine but better in many if not most cases, considering all relevant factors. Even wide open will work, although most lenses are not at their best wide open; a stop or stop-and-a-half down is often where the "sweet spot" is. The "odd blur" you've noticed is due to a phenomenon called diffraction, which is closely related to the refraction that we are all familiar with. Refraction (he intoned pedantically while peering around the roomful of eager faces over the tops of his pince-nez in that curiously intense way he affected...) occurs when light passes through a transparent or translucent medium (think atmosphere, glass, water), and the over-simple answer for why is that light slows down very slightly when passing through, causing it to bend slightly. You can see this with a glass of water and a straw. Put the straw in the water and it will appear to offset slightly before straightening out and continuing in its original direction. The water is not acting as a lens because it is not itself curved, but the light you perceive coming from the straw in the water is refracted as it slightly slows down, causing the perceived offset. It is why it so difficult to spear a fish while standing on the bank; refraction causes the fish to appear to be in a different place than it actually is.

Diffraction is also caused by light slowing down, by (for lack of a better simile) "tripping" over a solid object in passing. It's much the same as a water wave arriving at a beach and breaking; the lower part of the wave strikes the bottom first and slows down, causing the upper part of the wave to break. If it were a light wave it would bend slightly toward the object. Light bends slightly around all solid objects. The solid-object edges of the blades of your iris diaphragm cause the light passing through to bend slightly toward the edges and away from the point of sharpest focus refracted by the lens. This causes a slight but measurable scatter, a defocusing, and the smaller the hole through which the light must pass the greater the scatter. f/22 causes more diffraction scatter than larger holes, and that's where your visible "odd blur" comes from. Pretty generally no lens is at is best either wide open or stopped all the way down. There is no real need for f/22 in most landscapes because there are many other factors affecting depth of field, one of the main ones being distance: the greater the range to the plane of sharpest focus (and there is only one) the greater the apparent depth of field, and it is apparent; an illusion. Focal length is a factor (the reason the f/64 school stopped way down was they were using long focal lengths to cover large formats). True, if you are shooting to infinity with a large foreground object in frame and you want to hold sharp focus on it then you may be forced to use f/22 plus "hyperfocal" focus and accept some loss of overall sharpness for the illusion of greater depth of field. Piet Francke is an expert in focus stacking, which overcomes the DOF challenge at very close focus. He doesn't need to stop down far, just to the lens's "sweet spot": he basically slices through a scene with multiple planes of sharpest focus, then assembles them into a stack. But now I'm off the rails on a tangent.

Suffice to say that very generally (very), very small apertures are not needed in landscape, and you heard that from The Sharp Freak Bunny himself! :lol: (f/8 and be there! Weegee)
Friends call me Chuck. :photo: This link takes you to my Flickr albums. Please click on any album to scroll through it.
(I prefer to present pictures in albums because I can put them in specific order.)

All the great photographers use cameras! No, really. :|

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest