CindyHouk Loc: Nw MT

I will research a Blue Blocker, not sure what that is yet....thanks for the suggestion.

CindyHouk Loc: Nw MT

Thanks for the cheat sheets, I will print them out and keep them in my camera case for next time.

CindyHouk Loc: Nw MT

Thanks!

CindyHouk Loc: Nw MT

Thanks....I am still trying to wrap my head around all the different rule of thumbs! But I am getting there.

CindyHouk Loc: Nw MT

Thanks and yes - I do live in a very scenic area of Montana and LOVE it!

CindyHouk Loc: Nw MT

Thanks....there is so much more to this than just clicking the button...I have so much to learn but I am having fun with it.

gessman Loc: Colorado

I'm glad you chose this subject because there's a couple of ideas I've wanted to share with you since your original post but first let me just say that your images are very appealing and as an admitted "newbie" to serious photography, you are doing an excellent job. It is obvious that you are eager to learn and improve and I think I can share a couple of ideas with you that I haven't seen mentioned in all the comments your threads have received. Everyone has been very welcoming to you and given you much complimentary feedback which is well deserved, not only for your choice and presentation of the subject matter you've chosen and your eye in composition but your overall execution as well. You appear to be drawn to landscapes at the moment and the things I want to mention may be of benefit to you but will require a little study. I'll make it as simple and easy as possible by providing some references. I mention this now because, while it's good to learn as you go, some things are better learned before you begin if you're serious. These two ideas are two such things you will want to sort out before you get too far into your journey and start looking back and wishing you had known them from the start. You may already know about them but the images you've posted since joining uhh, while very good still, do not indicate that you are aware of them.

The words or phrases in bold italics that follow are ideas with which you will want to become very familiar. Some will say that you shouldn't concern yourself with these issues at this time but my experience is that now is the perfect time before you embark on several trips and come home with lots of shots of the scenery from which you will want pictures, scenery that you may or may not get a chance to revisit later hence, you should do it right the first time and every time from the first trip because you are not guaranteed a re-do opportunity.

Landscapes, unless purposely intended to do otherwise, offer two challenges in particular:

(1) Good focus (depth of field) from near to far. There are basically three methods of achieving
good focus:

(a) First, perhaps the quickest method is to set your aperture to the smallest opening (f/22 maybe) but
that can often be problematic in the end due to limitations of the lens you're using. When you shoot at
the smallest aperture available you can experience barrel distortion and/or chromatic
aberration, neither of which offer the best possible outcome but both of which can be somewhat
corrected in post processing.

(1a) Barrel distortion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distortion_(optics)

(2a) Chromatic aberration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration

(b) The second method involves the use of what is known as the hyperfocal distance which
basically means you focus roughly 1/3rd of the way into your scene leaving the other 2/3rds of the
scene beyond your focal point to infinity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperfocal_distance
For more precise measurement of the hyperfocal distance there are scales or calculators:
http://www.outsight.com/hyperfocal.html with other methods available by using Google.

(c) Third is a method called focus stacking which involves taking multiple shots in increments
from the front of your scene working your way to the back using the "sweet spot" (sharpest setting) of
your lens when possible, an aperture usually between one to two f/stops up from wide open. Many
use settings between f/5.6 and f/11, sometimes just three shots, often more up to perhaps nine and
then using post processing software like Lightroom or Photoshop to stack the shots together which will
give you good focus from near to far. Here's an example set of instructions:
https://digital-photography-school.com/?s=landscape+focus+stacking

Focus stacking is also used in processing other images such as macro shots of insects and flowers
when it is desirable to have the entire subject in sharp focus.

(2) The second consideration is total coverage of the dynamic range (of light):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range#Photography
Digital camera sensors cannot capture the total dynamic range of light from white to black so they need
some help in post processing if an image is to be maximized in terms of light as it existed in a given
scene. That concept is aptly demonstrated in this short video by Marc Wallace who made this video for
AdoramaTV, a service to photographers provided by the big New York photo store Adorama, a highly
respected merchant of photo equipment and supplies, a store that many members of uhh patronize:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S3T-qQFZsA&t=20s

By watching that video you have at least been given an opportunity to decide with clarity whether or not
you will be a person who is willing to accept the images as they come straight from the camera or
whether there is value and merit in learning some rudimentary post processing to take advantage of
knowing what is possible. If you have an image with both black and white in it and you want them
properly represented you'll know what to do. If you're willing to accept dark grey instead of black and
off-white rather than pure white you can take it as it comes from the camera processed by the settings
you choose for your images. The problem with that is that almost all shades of every color is affected by
the presence of black and white and their contribution to make colors lighter and darker so without black
and white, the colors aren't going to be accurate. It may not matter so much in landscapes with all the
different colors and shades but it sure might with the colors in a wedding or a picture of a steak on a
menu.

One popular way of dealing with the wide variance is a process called high dynamic range
imaging, (hdr) explained here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-dynamic-range_imaging. Basically,
you shoot multiple images varying the setting by at least three (or more) increments usually using the
shutter speed so the aperture and iso remain constant and then stacking those images much as you do
for focus stacking but for a different reason. One might not ordinarily do this but if your shots need to be
precise and cover the wide range, hdr can be a very desirable and valid method.

To sum this up, I agree that your images are very nice, most especially the subject matter and your composition but you're making compromises with the exposure as in the image you posted yesterday at http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-457270-1.html, and the three you posted previously, if you were to process the images to achieve maximum detail in the lower part of the scenes as they should be, you will blow out all the detail in the sky and by exposing for the sky, the land portion is underexposed and the yellow aspen trees are a muddy gold color and not nearly as bright as they might be ordinarily. One way to get both the lights and darks in a landscape image is to use hdr. Admittedly, some folks overdo it but it doesn't have to be done that way to achieve excellent results and seems to offer the best possibility of getting good exposure in both the light and dark parts of an image, very important in landscapes. All this may look like a bit too much but it really isn't. It's simple to learn and like riding a bike, once you've done it, you're good from then on, plus, knowing you're going to use the process it'll help you be more selective and deliberate in choosing your subject matter. With the advent of digital cameras and processes like this at our disposal, I look back on my earlier arrival in Colorado 38 years ago and wish someone had stopped me before I got hundreds or thousands of images shot and told me how to come home with what I went after. Them hills get pretty steep to keep on climbing to take the same shot over and over trying to get it right. Your shots are close but with just a little effort they can be better, no offense. You're obviously serious about this so I hope this helps you avoid wasting a lot of time and effort having to re-do shots you could have had the first time out or worse yet, losing them altogether.

Then too, there's always the possibility of buying a handheld light meter and measuring the light falling on your scene rather than the light the scene is reflecting. That's a much more accurate method of metering a landscape. Another method is to buy a grey card and take a meter reading with your camera of the card with the same light hitting the card that is hitting the scene by holding the card up between you and the scene, setting your mode dial to "M" and setting your iso, aperture, and shutter speed according to your in-camera meter reading and firing away as long as the light doesn't change suddenly as with clouds coming over.

There are a lot of good photographers in uhh and I'm sure if I've gotten anything wrong here they'll be happy to step in and help you out with the correct information. I'm enjoying some intermittent dementia, so...

SX2002 Loc: Adelaide, South Australia

Beaut shots Cindy but please, don't go overboard with the PP...there are too many pics on these pages that no longer resemble photographs they have been so "manipulated"...try for good shots off your camera rather than rely on heaps of editing...

CindyHouk Loc: Nw MT

Wow...thank you so much for taking the time to do this. I have a lot of reading/studying to do that's for sure. I know I lack the umph in my pictures and it's because of the lack of DoF ....but I don't know how to get it..this will help once I can get an understanding and handle on it.

CindyHouk Loc: Nw MT

Thanks!

LightBender Loc: Paradise, TX

Sorry about posting on your post, but thought you might be interested in the chart. Not at all certain how accurate it is.

(Download)

PAR4DCR Loc: A Sunny Place

Good going Cindy.

Don

PAR4DCR Loc: A Sunny Place

Good going Cindy.

Don

BudsOwl Loc: Upstate NY and New England

Very nice Cindy. You made a daring leap into what seems to be new settings for you. You did well. Keep up the good work.
Bud

gessman Loc: Colorado

You're quite welcome. I would look at the hyperfocal distance approach first because it should get you the quickest results for good dof and then turn your attention to hdr when time permits. It'll all come together for you. Good luck as you move forward. You will want to read up on metering methods and alternative metering methods as well for when you're out shooting which I won't go into here, ways to trick your camera into giving you an exposure that will render the best picture when it might not want to. Just use Google and search for those subjects.