John Howard Loc: SW Florida and Blue Ridge Mountains of NC.

Hi everyone. I have been following UHH for a while but just subscribed to this landscape section. I looked at quite a few of the posts and noted one with a pano shot with 5 85mm shots. I do this also because for a lot of landscapes, the interesting bit is middle third horizon. Wide angles make this bit so small it cannot be appreciated. Stitching shots from an 85 mm or longer draws the viewer in to the interesting bit. A related question (at least for me) is how many of you stay with everything in sharp focus (small aperture) versus focusing specifically on the interesting subject of the shot and letting the rest go soft to direct the viewers attention. To lighten my load I have started to switch to slower lenses, like F4 versus 2.8. I have never used the fast end of a 2.8 lens for landscape. In the example attached I think I missed the best focal point. Foreground is a bit soft and the background pretty sharp.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

John, to reply to your 'everything in focus' question, I'm a strong believer in the f/64 approach. Yup, everything in focus.

Your photograph is quite nice. I really like the subtle changes in tonality.
--Bob

John Howard Loc: SW Florida and Blue Ridge Mountains of NC.

Thanks. I also typically want everything sharp and try to do that using a sweet spot on the lens. That can be, depending on the lens down at f5.6 which is challenging for DoF. In the shot I posted I was so in luv with the mountain and cloud background, and was a bit rushed, I did not check sharpness on the building.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I like a sharp focus on the subject, where the composition will determine how much DOF I'll strive to achieve. Using this image as a discussion, I'd take a number of images with the focus on the building in the foreground and again using the largest rock in the foreground. I'd also capture at f/8 thru f/13 for each focus-point setting. I'd then sort out the results on a larger monitor in post, picking the best and tossing the rest. I don't stitch together shots, so obviously my approach will be even more work to gather all these captures across multiple images.

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

With 'scapes I will go with the smaller apertures. For other subjects, like flowers and portraits, I will use widwer apertures to isolate the subject, if need be.

juan_uy Loc: Uruguay

Thanks for sharing.
It reinforces the conception, not always explicitly mentioned, that not even pros take just one excellent picture. It's usually one excellent from a bunch of pictures that were taken at the moment.
Something one has to keep in mind, with digital there is no sense in risking having the excellent one for not taking enough variations.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Thanks Juan. The approach I mentioned also requires a lot of aggressive culling. If none of them worked, get rid of them all and promise to do better next time. If 2, 3, whatever seem equally good or exactly the same, you still need to cull down to the best one. Regarding lots of shots, I've learned to stopped getting home and wishing I'd tried something else / another version when I go through the results. It's a pleasure to have too many to choose from. It's such a disappointment, when I didn't take enough. I'd also like to have a version from the camera that has the least need for editing / cropping / etc in post. I realize not all want the amount of computer time needed by this approach.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

I shoot 99% of my landscapes at f/11, matching ISO and Shutter Speed. These day, most Panoramas I shoot are on a 70-200 at 100 mm.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

A soft background in a shot of the great outdoors would seem like a bit of a waste, unless the subject at the focus point was absolutely the only subject.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

John, I had already drafted my topic on "softer stories" last night, but how appropriate that we'd have both yours and mine this morning in the newly created Landscape forum! The second photo I posted has very little detail in the hills behind. For me, it's all about what you're trying to capture and express in your image - including the light and weather. I can't imagine wanting to apply a strict rule to every landscape scene I encounter. On the other hand, my journey through photography has taken many joyful side tracks of exploration and I have no client to please

treadwl Loc: South Florida

I agree with the several members here who believe in maximum DOF for a landscape image. Otherwise what is the point? However I also believe in working the scene to get the most out of it. I may never return so I want to get everything before I leave thus I shoot lots of angles and different settings. If I am not satisfied with the results I just may throw out the entire set. If I don't like it now, my taste aren't going to change so what is the point in keeping something I won't ever be satisfied with. This also may mean that even on location, I may not find anything I like so the camera stays safely tucked away. I recently went to a beach shoot for sunrise and the light never happened, the sea looked muddy, and half the lights on the pier were not lit. I settled for enjoying the moment on the beach. I'd rather return for a location with one image that makes me happy, than a card full of images that just don't work for me.

Worth noting is that I'm willing to wait all day of necessary for the light to be right so I can get my shot. I think as photographers we need to develop patience.

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

Ocassionally it works, especially with moving water and longer exposures.
I will post a few exampes in a new thread..

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Depends on the scene and where the main interest is. A shallow DOF can give you fore and middle ground or middle and back ground- or any one of the three. I know there are those who do sharp from fore to back. Not sure why - some feel they have failed if everything is not as sharp as a razor. I prefer the viewer to go directly to what I wish them to look at (why I took the picture in the first place). Removes the need for leading lines when there aren't any! But I like to think of this hobby as art pictures - not just a record of every blade of grass - unless that is the requirement.

Wanderer2 Loc: Colorado Rocky Mountains

It depends on the scene but most of the time with landscapes I prefer maximum DOF. I recently discovered focus stacking. What a great tool to add to our landscapes toolbox.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Exactly! Weston and Adams would be proud.

Andy