Need tips on getting sharp landscapes (Page 3): Sorry, my iPad is much to be desired when it comes to accurate typing. "Have you done anything to this image is POST?" is what it should...

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

jeep_daddy wrote:

The settings shouldn't be the problem here. But, ... (show quote)

Sorry, my iPad is much to be desired when it comes to accurate typing. "Have you done anything to this image is POST?" is what it should have said. If not, all raw . . . . .

Heather Iles Loc: UK, Somerset

jeep_daddy wrote:

Sorry, my iPad is much to be desired when it comes to accurate typing. "Have you done anything to this image is POST?" is what it should have said. If not, all raw . . . . .

We knew what you meant, but I know that there are members on here who are very particular. You just forgot to proof read what you wrote. I don't always proof read and should know better, as I was a legal secretary and had to be accurate.

Rab-Eye Loc: Indiana

Forgive me if this has already been mentioned. I was not going to read through three pages of posts. Has anyone suggested using using hyperfocusing? You used to set with the DOF scale on your lens. Today, with that feature gone from ever modern lens I own, I use an app that calculates the hyperfocal setting using focal length and aperture. All you need on your lens is a distance scale.

8by10

What camera? Does it have mirror lockup?

Heather Iles Loc: UK, Somerset

Rab-Eye wrote:

Forgive me if this has already been mentioned. I was not going to read through three pages of posts. Has anyone suggested using using hyperfocusing? You used to set with the DOF scale on your lens. Today, with that feature gone from ever modern lens I own, I use an app that calculates the hyperfocal setting using focal length and aperture. All you need on your lens is a distance scale.

Ben, would you be kind enough to let us know what this App is called? I am interested in it, as I too find it difficult in getting sharp landscapes and judging the distance. I can then look it up on Amazon.

Thanks.

H

papa Loc: Rio Dell, CA

Just Fred wrote:

Thanks for the info. I'm sure more qualified folk... (show quote)

f/22? I can't for the life of me figure how the toll diffraction takes on even the best 2.8 glass above f/11 is going to help sharpness and he said it's a Takumar, WOW! IMHO, the shot is the best it can be with that camera/lens. Post in DxO Optics Pro 11 with Clear View will clean up near all haze and greatly improve any pic with aerial that's present. Those are the beans.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

twowindsbear wrote:

I'll blame atmospheric haze due to the distance

Or possibly smoke IF there's a forest fire somewhere near enough for the wind to send some your way

I too see haze.

papa Loc: Rio Dell, CA

So, here's your shot with one adjustment in post-processing. I used DxO Optics Pro 11 and "Clear View" at intensity 100 (maximum) setting. That was the only change and it cleaned up most all of the blue haze from aerial that's found on distant shots. Other than that, better glass would show more detail. Takumar was a cheap brand when made, so don't expect more of your equipment than it's capable of, is my suggestion.

SirMontgomery wrote:

I'm not sure if this is a lens limitation or operator error. Taken with a Takumar 135mm f/2.5 lens. Any advice is much appreciated.

(Download)

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

This image has an incredible amount to offer. It's quite sharp enough. One just needs to bring out its best.
--Bob

SirMontgomery wrote:

I'm not sure if this is a lens limitation or operator error. Taken with a Takumar 135mm f/2.5 lens. Any advice is much appreciated.

(Download)

papa Loc: Rio Dell, CA

I was conveying the point that all distant shots have aerial that can be cleared up with one click and a slider in less than a minute. Of course, additional processing can be done or overdone to the point of rasterizeing to one's appeal, or not. I took another five minutes to do it to my appeal. I personally don't find appeal in unrealistic one click HDR for landscapes, though it does appeal me for cityscapes. I like the natural look with realistic colors for landscapes.

rmalarz wrote:

This image has an incredible amount to offer. It's quite sharp enough. One just needs to bring out its best.
--Bob

(Download)

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I agree with you wholeheartedly on the HDR approach to anything, one click or whatever process. I have to do them sometimes for clients, but don't rely on that as a crutch for not knowing how to expose. As for this photo, I simply did a small amount of work in ACR, and then the most noticeable change was made doing an image specific white point adjustment and a small amount of burning and dodging. I'd probably lean more towards this being more of what was there when photographed.
--Bob

papa wrote:

I was conveying the point that all distant shots have aerial that can be cleared up with one click and a slider in less than a minute. Of course, additional processing can be done or overdone to the point of rasterizeing to one's appeal, or not. I took another five minutes to do it to my appeal. I personally don't find appeal in unrealistic one click HDR for landscapes, though it does appeal me for cityscapes. I like the natural look with realistic colors for landscapes.

papa Loc: Rio Dell, CA

Here's another two minute PP in DxO optics pro 11 Elite.

rmalarz wrote:

I agree with you wholeheartedly on the HDR approach to anything, one click or whatever process. I have to do them sometimes for clients, but don't rely on that as a crutch for not knowing how to expose. As for this photo, I simply did a small amount of work in ACR, and then the most noticeable change was made doing an image specific white point adjustment and a small amount of burning and dodging. I'd probably lean more towards this being more of what was there when photographed.
--Bob

(Download)

wapiti Loc: round rock, texas

Just Fred wrote:

I agree. I get the best results (mostly) with very small apertures and very long shutter speeds. Landscapes don't move, unless as you say, you have clouds and/or water. And then, sometimes the results with those are impressive, too.

wapiti Loc: round rock, texas

Just Fred wrote:

I know the OP didn't approve the re-posting of his... (show quote)

I agree. The many versions of this image are beautiful and definitely a keeper, IMO.

papa Loc: Rio Dell, CA

Just Fred wrote:

I can't see any EXIF information. Did you remove it, or is there none? Was this shot as a JPEG?

Not knowing much about the shot (aperture setting, shutter speed, ISO), etc., I can only suggest that a tripod would help. An aperture of f/11 or smaller should be used, and the shutter speed commensurate with the ISO.

Maybe, it's time for you to slow down and learn basic photography before spewing misinformation, friend. Your opinions are unfounded and often incorrect.