I dont like how this came out (Page 3): Blending??? Really??? How about f/8 manual hyper focus ONE SHOT and it would all be in focus. I never get tired of reading poor advice from this...

papa Loc: Rio Dell, CA

jcboy3 wrote:

The simplest thing to do is to take two images; one with focus on the rocks in the stream designed to blur the water, and one with focus on the leaves designed to get sharp images of the leaves. Blend them in Photoshop or some other image editor.

Blending??? Really??? How about f/8 manual hyper focus ONE SHOT and it would all be in focus. I never get tired of reading poor advice from this wbesite and most advice here is, so what's new???

canon Lee

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.

My humble opinion is that the water looks like spilt milk. A bit over done. Try a faster shutter speed, and a shorter DOF.

jcdonelson

Don't let these "experts" convince you not to shoot at higher f-stops.
I asked several professional photographers and the shoot at f/32 etc all the time.
natgeo or getty never refused an image because it was shot at f/22.
Thats a quote from Bryan Peterson.

papa Loc: Rio Dell, CA

jcdonelson wrote:

Don't let these "experts" convince you not to shoot at higher f-stops.
I asked several professional photographers and the shoot at f/32 etc all the time.
natgeo or getty never refused an image because it was shot at f/22.
Thats a quote from Bryan Peterson.

You can't argue with a sick mind.

papa Loc: Rio Dell, CA

jcdonelson wrote:

Don't let these "experts" convince you not to shoot at higher f-stops.
I asked several professional photographers and the shoot at f/32 etc all the time.
natgeo or getty never refused an image because it was shot at f/22.
Thats a quote from Bryan Peterson.

You need to bone up on diffraction limiting and at what f/stops that occurs. Your advice is not sound and here's why. https://photography.tutsplus.com/articles/when-sharp-isnt-sharp-diffraction-and-apertures--photo-9267
Definition of expert: An ex is a has been and a spurt is a drip under pressure.

jcdonelson

Sure some clarity will be lost, but in practice it really is not noticeable at normal viewing size.
If you can avoid fine, but if not your image will be fine.
Note the examples in the article at at 100%, and he used f/36 at an example, because his argument is weak.
If he had shown the image at normal viewing size, you would not see it.
He admits "but is tolerable even up to f/16" the warns you off from f/11. I call BS.
Just so you understand, in some cases the lack of focus will look worse than the diffraction at normal viewing size.
And it is better than bad focus, or not as good composition, or not taking the shot.
It's pretty much an armchair lawyer argument, that won't stand in the way of a great image.

jcdonelson

Also note that he fails to show how the lack of focus would have looked due to DOF, because his experiment did not consider that fact.
So again I call BS.

papa Loc: Rio Dell, CA

jcdonelson wrote:

Sure some clarity will be lost, but in practice it... (show quote)

What is manual hyperfocal for a wide angle and what is the advantage? Do you even have a clue what you're doing? Ignorance is evident much sooner then intelligence. Experience and know.

genehp Loc: carbondale,PA

dead leaves was the breeze blowing. the water is smashing be proud I,loved it thank you.