Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
Home | Photography Digest | Active Topics | Newest Pictures | Search | Login | Register | Help
Photo Analysis
I dont like how this came out.
(?)
If you would like to post a reply, then please login (if you already have an account) or register (if you don't).
Page: 1 2 next>>
May 23, 2017 13:52:30   #
bdk
 
This was shot on a tripod, wired remote, VR off, at 44mm at ISO64, 2 sec exposure and F32, I chose F32 because I wanted the hill to be in focus and the rocks in front also in focus . The only thing I wanted to be blurry ( silky) was the water.

I do not like how the dead leaves on the hill came out....to me they look off or blurry or something.
any ideas what to do next time? Or should I go down to F8 and really make them blurry?
any suggestions are appreciated.


(Download)
 
May 23, 2017 14:03:07   #
CaltechNerd
 
At f32 you may be suffering from diffraction distortion. When light passes an edge, the light will spread a bit (this "proves" light is a wave, other experiments "prove" it is a particle, it's actually itself with wave/particle aspects). A good experiment would be to try f22, f16, f8. See what the smallest f-stop is that doesn't distort. When Ansel Adams used f64 he was using huge plates, compared to our sensors or 35mm film.

I shoot with a D600 and kit lens and have good luck at f18 or even slightly higher.
May 23, 2017 14:32:29   #
bdk
 
thank you, I had read about diffraction but never thought it would come into play at F32, next time i'll drop down a few stops and try again.....its a very scenic stream and I shoot there
often.
CaltechNerd wrote:
At f32 you may be suffering from diffraction distortion. When light passes an edge, the light will spread a bit (this "proves" light is a wave, other experiments "prove" it is a particle, it's actually itself with wave/particle aspects). A good experiment would be to try f22, f16, f8. See what the smallest f-stop is that doesn't distort. When Ansel Adams used f64 he was using huge plates, compared to our sensors or 35mm film.

I shoot with a D600 and kit lens and have good luck at f18 or even slightly higher.
At f32 you may be suffering from diffraction disto... (show quote)
May 23, 2017 14:50:16   #
Spider223
 
Have you tried setting your focus point on the stick in the middle of the water? I'm thinking at f32 and focusing on the stick, your depth of field would encompass both the rocks in the foreground and the hill. It looks like you are solidly focused on the foreground rocks, and just on the edge at the hill.
May 23, 2017 15:11:32   #
R.G. (a regular here)
 
Diffraction starts to come into play at f/11 (or thereabouts depending on the lens and the sensor size and resolution).

In my experience, foreground rocks are quite tolerant of their position within the DOF. At f/16 or thereabouts, if you'd focused on the tree on the left or even the trunks on the right you'd have had enough DOF to keep the rocks from looking soft.

Another point to consider is that if you lifted the shadows to any extent, the contrast would have dropped. That on its own can result in softness and a loss of clarity where the detail is concerned. You seem to have the Blacks fairly well sorted out, but the contrast in the mid-tone region looks as though it might be a bit low. Clarity will help with that - you'd just have to keep an eye on not letting the darker darks become too pronounced.
May 23, 2017 15:21:11   #
rmalarz (a regular here)
 
With a 2 sec exposure, even a light breeze that would move the leaves every so slightly will cause a bit of blurring. Although caltechnerd brought up diffraction, Ansel Adams' f/64 is not the same dia as your f/64 would be. It would be considerably larger.
--Bob

bdk wrote:
This was shot on a tripod, wired remote, VR off, at 44mm at ISO64, 2 sec exposure and F32, I chose F32 because I wanted the hill to be in focus and the rocks in front also in focus . The only thing I wanted to be blurry ( silky) was the water.

I do not like how the dead leaves on the hill came out....to me they look off or blurry or something.
any ideas what to do next time? Or should I go down to F8 and really make them blurry?
any suggestions are appreciated.
 
May 24, 2017 06:13:23   #
kymarto
 
bdk wrote:
thank you, I had read about diffraction but never thought it would come into play at F32, next time i'll drop down a few stops and try again.....its a very scenic stream and I shoot there
often.


Diffraction limiting kicks in around f11 on full frame and lower on smaller sensors. Of course at f11 it is not strong, but by f22 it will already be limiting sharpness quite noticeably.
May 24, 2017 07:01:23   #
selmslie (a regular here)
 
bdk wrote:
This was shot on a tripod, wired remote, VR off, at 44mm at ISO64, 2 sec exposure and F32, I chose F32 because I wanted the hill to be in focus and the rocks in front also in focus . The only thing I wanted to be blurry ( silky) was the water.

I do not like how the dead leaves on the hill came out....to me they look off or blurry or something.
any ideas what to do next time? Or should I go down to F8 and really make them blurry?
any suggestions are appreciated.

Definitely diffraction. It shows up even in the rocks. According to the LENS DIFFRACTION & PHOTOGRAPHY your D800 is even diffraction limited at f/11 due to the pixel spacing. Scroll down to the 'Diffraction Limit Calculator' and click show advanced.

Since the final image eventually cropped to about 28 MP, you would also have gotten a better result with a 50 mm prime lens.
May 24, 2017 08:14:04   #
joehel2 (a regular here)
 
I think the problem was the leaves; a mass of leaves of their small size and fairly consistent color palette, at the distance you were shooting, tend to show more as a textural element. I think if the size of the individual leaf was larger, you would have got what you were looking for. Nicely done.
May 24, 2017 08:42:19   #
Mark7829
 
I really don't see diffraction as the main issue. I see light and composition. The light is flat, likely shot during overcast. They're heavy shadows all around with no detail. Harsh and distracting branches interfere with the serenity of the scene. The exposure is a little too long as the water texture is lost to bright white. There are many more issues with this image that diffraction alone can not be the blame.
May 24, 2017 09:59:27   #
camerapapi (a regular here)
 
You did not mention what camera you used. Mirrorless for instance do not necessarily shoot at the aperture set in camera.
At f32, regardless of camera (except for large format) you should expect something called refraction. If you are not aware of the word it simply means that with such a small opening in the diaphragm rays of light bend as they pass through the hole making blurry some areas of the image.
You could try selective sharpening of the blurry areas. Is not a cure all but it helps.
Next time try f16 with a neutral density filter. A polarizer acts as a neutral density filter under these circumstances and will give you a factor of 2 (s stops less of light) to blur the water.
 
May 24, 2017 11:18:36   #
jackm1943
 
I would recommend that you go back and focus stack this image shooting at f8 if you have a crop frame body or at f11 if you have a full frame body. It's a very simple procedure and can give great results.
May 24, 2017 14:51:13   #
Meives
 
I don't know what happened. I am not a fan of blurred water. But I never have my ISO so low. Your camera can do ISO 800 or 1600. I don't think you need 2 seconds for blurred water. I have to see what others use. David


May 24, 2017 17:50:54   #
boberic (a regular here)
 
I think at least some of the lack of sharpness is due to the 2 sec shutter speed. Did you use a cable release? I know that you wanted the silky effect of the falls, but a faster speed 1/30 or so, would have given a blur without as much camera shake (if that was the problem)
May 24, 2017 18:39:53   #
cambriaman (a regular here)
 
From the offered solutions it appears the old "f./8 and be there applies"
Page: 1 2 next>>
Photo Analysis
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2016 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.