Learning Thread � Landscape Photography

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

08/24/2006 09:23:07 PM · #1076

I've been reading a lot of this thread, but not all, so if this has already been covered, sorry! :)

But I was just wondering what the best aperture to use for landscape photography is? Or maybe not the best, but a good range. I have the Tamron 28-75 lens, and I took it out the other day to try some. When I got home I notice a lot weren't out of focus, but just quite soft...I was shooting at around 5.6-8

wavelength

Nikon D300

08/24/2006 09:49:53 PM · #1077

Originally posted by Mulder:

Usually with landscape, the higher the f/ the better. Also, finding hyperfocal distance for your lens and used f/ is pretty key. Generally, something shorter than 28mm would be ideal to increase DOF also. Longer lenses shorten DOF, as do wide (smaller number) apertures (f-stop)

Message edited by author 2006-08-24 21:50:24.

Mulder

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

08/24/2006 09:53:41 PM · #1078

Is there some equation to find out this hyperfocal distance? (never heard of it before)

I also understand f/ and DOF relations....but was just wondering if there was a 'sweet spot' for this type.

Thanks again.

wavelength

Nikon D300

08/24/2006 09:58:42 PM · #1079

Originally posted by Mulder:

Try DOFmaster.com

edit, add link to online version to play //www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Message edited by author 2006-08-24 22:00:11.

Mulder

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

08/24/2006 10:06:16 PM · #1080

thanks

edit: ok, so my hyperfocal distance...what exactly is that? haha

Message edited by author 2006-08-24 22:07:52.

wavelength

Nikon D300

08/24/2006 10:22:25 PM · #1081

Originally posted by Mulder:

thanks

edit: ok, so my hyperfocal distance...what exactly is that? haha

It's the distance at which (for any given f/ and focal length) you should focus at (probably manually) to achieve the maximu depth of field.

Say, on my Sigma 10-20, at 10mm and f/10 if I could focus the lens to 1.5 feet, everything from .75 feet to infinity is in focus. At f/22, everything from .42 feet to infinity is in focus.

The hyperfocal distance at f/10, 10mm is 1.33 feet. Affording the maximum distance toward and away from the lens.

At 20mm, f/10 the hyperfocal is moved out to 5.67 feet, and gives me from 2.6 feet to 7500 feet in sharp focus. If you play about a bit, you find that f/16 and 3.35 feet focus gives you from 2 feet to infitiy at 20mm.

JunieMoon

Sony Alpha a7 II

Sony FE 3.5-5.6/28-70 mm OSS

08/24/2006 10:23:03 PM · #1082

In my experience when I used to shoot film with an slr, I usually used a 24mm lens with an aperture anywhere from 11-22. Usually on the high side. As to focus, I have always been told that the best way to focus is to choose a point about midway in your viewfinder, then use that as your guide. It usually gives me the result that the image from front to back is in focus. There is no noticable dof issues.

JunieMoon

Sony Alpha a7 II

Sony FE 3.5-5.6/28-70 mm OSS

08/24/2006 10:32:50 PM · #1083

One more thing as to composition, there is a great article in Popular Photography this month about landscape photography. They give 5 main points to shoot great photos.
1.) Look to the light. Guess when. The magic time. The first hour or two after sunrise and the last hour before sunset.
2.) Capture the clouds. This gives your image its own personality so it doesn't look like all the other shots that have been taken of the same image.
3.) Keep it simple. Design elements should be limited to, say, background of blue sky, main subject plane, foreground. Use wedges, triangles or other diagonal divisions for most drama.
4.) Capture the color. Use brilliant saturation levels. This is why a polarizer is such a handy tool. It makes everything more saturated.
5.) Do your footwork. Before taking your pictures, go the the sight in advance to choose the best location and angle. This saves on doing it when you get there, especially when dealing with sunsets. You need to set up your camera where you want to shoot, and wait for the best color and light of your landscape when it happens. See my DPC Cinema image. It was a sunrise on the cape. The rays of light coming from the sun as it broke through lasted a mere 20 seconds. If I had not been waiting for it, I never would have gotten the rays in that 20 second window.

Message edited by author 2006-08-24 22:35:11.

Tamron 70-180mm F/2.8 Di III VXD

08/25/2006 03:03:40 AM · #1084

Originally posted by MadMan2k:

A landscape that I took with my film camera in a lightning storm:

This is certainly a nice image, Jon. Quite a task to capture that lightning so well. Only thing I can suggest is to perhaps apply a black-to-transparent gradient up top (on a new layer) in "Overlay" mode to darken up the bright whites. And perhaps crop a bit off the top, too. This will "contain" the image more and the viewers' eyes will be less likely to leave the shot.

MadMan2k

Sony Alpha a6400

08/26/2006 01:56:06 AM · #1085

Thanks. I edited it a little more, how's this?:

Canon RF 24-105mm F/4L IS USM

08/26/2006 02:19:54 AM · #1086

That's much better, very nice. No more dominant blown-out sky and I like how you boosted the blues some more. Also, now the horizon line is no longer almost-centered so the composition seems to be improved significantly as well. Nice re-edit.

Tajhad

Canon EOS R

08/26/2006 03:18:52 AM · #1087

Justin
Help me here please. I really don't understand gradiants (I know - I should have read this Whole thread - I'm lazy I guess).
I downloaded Madman shot and tried the same thing - but mine was even lighter.
Using CS2 -
I created a new layer.
Clicked on the gradient tool. It was on "Linear gradient"
Clicked on the box that said "Black, \White"
Drew a line from the top to the ground.
In the Layer toolbox - switched from normal to Overlay
Took Opacity down to 30%
It is actually lighter.
Can you step me through it please ?

Tajhad

Canon EOS R

Canon RF 24-105mm F/4L IS USM

08/26/2006 07:53:12 AM · #1088

Justin
I went back and tried to find Bear's section on gradients. I've had a further play - getting better results. So I'll keep trying.

Artifacts

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

08/28/2006 09:46:51 PM · #1089

Originally posted by MadMan2k:

Thanks. I edited it a little more, how's this?:

Wow... what a fantastic shot. Daylight lightning is hard to get. Nice composition too. Good post processing. Great job with this image.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70 f2.8 L IS

08/28/2006 10:57:17 PM · #1090

Originally posted by MadMan2k:

Thanks. I edited it a little more, how's this?:

The crop on the reedit is fabulous. Much improves the presentation, IMO. This is a really terrific shot. Daytime lightning is such a difficult thing to capture well.
I was just talking with Steve D. on the 'phone and we were discussing lightning shots; he mentioned this one, so I had to come see :-)

MadMan2k

Sony Alpha a6400

Tamron 70-180mm F/2.8 Di III VXD

08/28/2006 11:48:52 PM · #1091

Thanks for the comments.

For the editing, I really tried the gray-overlay color painting method for the first time, and it works really well, thanks for posting about it. I'll definitely remember it and use it again.

The funny thing is, I got that in about 5 tries with the film camera, but I shot about 30, one after the other, with the digital and didn't get even a little bolt. And since I had to shoot at f/32, the sensor dust was pretty bad.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

08/29/2006 01:46:26 AM · #1092

That's very nice work, madman. Nice to see it can all perk along even without my direct attention :-) And Steve, good to have you back!

Robt.

Tamron 70-180mm F/2.8 Di III VXD

08/30/2006 06:32:28 PM · #1093

Originally posted by Tajhad:

Justin
I went back and tried to find Bear's section on gradients. I've had a further play - getting better results. So I'll keep trying.

Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I'm glad that you've gotten along well enough without me.

Granted, MadMan's shot isn't the best example of a shot that can benefit a lot from a well-done gradient. The reason is the top of the sky was blown out completely. Not much can be done by way of gradients except for blending the gradient in "normal" mode and getting an ugly, artificial gray color. In this case, however, a simple crop came to the rescue. My suggestion to him to use a gradient was poor advice in this case, but I suppose it was worth a try.

Anyway, I guess my point is if you're going to start playing around with gradients, use a shot that has a plain, ugly blue sky with few clouds for the best results.

Here are a few examples from my portfolio that I feel were enhanced with a simple dark-blue-to-trasparent gradient in multiply mode.

Shots with clouds are much harder to do effectively and require you to mask out the clouds so they aren't tinted blue. Stdavidson did an excellent tutorial on techniques for doing this a while ago in this thread. Basically he used a color selection to select the blue, then masked out the inverse (the clouds).

You should also experiment with varying opacities and blending modes. Very rarely do I use a gradient layer at full opacity; it's usually somewhere under 40%. And I've also gotten some nice results using a black-to-transparent gradient with a blending mode of "overlay," which I usually use to darken corners/sides in a landscape.

Message edited by author 2006-09-02 01:39:25.

MadMan2k

Sony Alpha a6400

08/30/2006 07:45:47 PM · #1094

I did use a gradient to process it, I think it was in overlay or soft light mode or something like that. It darkened the top of the clouds, and I cropped from there.

tsheets

09/01/2006 03:53:52 PM · #1095

Originally posted by justin_hewlett:

Something else worth mentioning...rather than making a selection (and inverting it) which can sometimes leave a harsh edge, even with feathering, you can sometimes help things along (in conjunction with reducing opacity / setting a different blending mode)by modifying the blend range of the gradient layer.

I haven't used it much, and really am not at all efficient with it, but I have done it on an image or two where there were nice white puffy clouds, but I wanted to add a gradient to the blue portions of the sky.

I'm sure someone else here can give much better direction in actually using blending ranges, but just thought I'd mention that option as something to play with.

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

09/06/2006 09:28:52 AM · #1096

Originally posted by tsheets:

...modifying the blend range of the gradient layer.

I'm not sure what you mean, would you mind expounding on it a bit?

Bear_Music

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

09/06/2006 09:41:19 AM · #1097

Originally posted by justin_hewlett:

Originally posted by tsheets:
...modifying the blend range of the gradient layer.

I'm not sure what you mean, would you mind expounding on it a bit?

If you right-click on a layer you can select "blending options" and get a dialogue box that includes, among other things, a "blend if" slider bar for "this layer" and for the "underlying layer". These have sliders like those on the levels master adjustment sliders that allow you to constrain tones, and you can also apply "blend if" to any of the individual color channels. You can furthermore hold down the "alt" key while grabbing one of the slider arrows and it will split into two arrows, allowing you to specify a feathered range on that side instead of a precise point.

I have not experimented with this much, and I have never tried it on a gradient overlay, but it's a very interesting idea.

Robt.

tsheets