Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Decisions Decisions....Advise Needed
Page <<first <prev 5 of 5
Feb 13, 2012 16:34:37   #
ole sarg Loc: south florida
 
gee, a whole lot of stuff to simply say the small the aperture the greater the bending of light and the greater the depth of field. One has greater depth of field at f22 than at f3.5. Real simple.






senad55verizon.net wrote:
oldtool2 wrote:
I like the third photo, WB makes a big difference. Morning doves make a good subject. Once they land in a tree they do not move around a lot.

Your lens looks to be front focusing a bit. Not bad though, DOF at your settings should be about 58.6 to 61.3 feet. About 1 1/3 feet in front and behind focus point.

Then again you hand held so your focus point might have been off a little. Use Zoombrowser, enlarge the photo and click show auto focus point and you will be able to tell.

Jim D
I like the third photo, WB makes a big difference.... (show quote)


This pic is a great illustration of what DOF really means and what it doesn't mean: the plane of focus is surrounded by a zone (here about 3 feet deep) where everything is "acceptably" sharp. The use of calculated circles of confusion are used to define what is standard and "acceptable". What DOF doesn't mean is that everything within the zone is sharp to the same degree.

Focus is maximally sharp in a plane, and everything nearer and farther is less so.

Here, the wing feathers are sharp, but the catchlight in the dove's eye is less so. This indicates that the camera focus was dead on the money, or rather the feathers.

The original pic was shot at f5.6 and 1/500th, ISO 100.

Want a deeper zone of sharpness? Crank up the ISO to 400 and shoot at f11, or f8 at 1/1000th. Whole new ballgame, folks. If there's noise in the dark spots, deal with it in PP.

I'd say your present lens is performing admirably.
quote=oldtool2 I like the third photo, WB makes a... (show quote)

Reply
Feb 13, 2012 21:33:50   #
rayford2 Loc: New Bethlehem, PA
 
ole sarg wrote:
gee, a whole lot of stuff to simply say the small the aperture the greater the bending of light and the greater the depth of field. One has greater depth of field at f22 than at f3.5. Real simple.






senad55verizon.net wrote:
oldtool2 wrote:
I like the third photo, WB makes a big difference. Morning doves make a good subject. Once they land in a tree they do not move around a lot.

Your lens looks to be front focusing a bit. Not bad though, DOF at your settings should be about 58.6 to 61.3 feet. About 1 1/3 feet in front and behind focus point.

Then again you hand held so your focus point might have been off a little. Use Zoombrowser, enlarge the photo and click show auto focus point and you will be able to tell.

Jim D
I like the third photo, WB makes a big difference.... (show quote)


This pic is a great illustration of what DOF really means and what it doesn't mean: the plane of focus is surrounded by a zone (here about 3 feet deep) where everything is "acceptably" sharp. The use of calculated circles of confusion are used to define what is standard and "acceptable". What DOF doesn't mean is that everything within the zone is sharp to the same degree.

Focus is maximally sharp in a plane, and everything nearer and farther is less so.

Here, the wing feathers are sharp, but the catchlight in the dove's eye is less so. This indicates that the camera focus was dead on the money, or rather the feathers.

The original pic was shot at f5.6 and 1/500th, ISO 100.

Want a deeper zone of sharpness? Crank up the ISO to 400 and shoot at f11, or f8 at 1/1000th. Whole new ballgame, folks. If there's noise in the dark spots, deal with it in PP.

I'd say your present lens is performing admirably.
quote=oldtool2 I like the third photo, WB makes a... (show quote)
gee, a whole lot of stuff to simply say the small ... (show quote)


My understanding is that it's difficult to use spot metering on long telephoto shots; center weighted focusing at these distances works better.

Reply
Feb 14, 2012 18:26:34   #
rmcquese Loc: NW Georgia
 
Thanks for everyone's comments

Reply
 
 
Feb 14, 2012 22:45:14   #
rlcarney5195
 
A quick question. I read someplace that one should turn off IS when using a tripod. Would that hold true for this type of images? Anyone have a comment?

Reply
Feb 15, 2012 06:38:45   #
rmcquese Loc: NW Georgia
 
I have read that many times on UHH so I would say Yes turn off IS if using a tripod.

rlcarney5195 wrote:
A quick question. I read someplace that one should turn off IS when using a tripod. Would that hold true for this type of images? Anyone have a comment?

Reply
Page <<first <prev 5 of 5
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.