It isn't supposed to be this way: Yesterday, I was near Boston to shoot a flyover of the RAF Red Arrows. Whist they were a half hour late I was taking a few shots just to check my...

jonjacobik Loc: Quincy, MA

Yesterday, I was near Boston to shoot a flyover of the RAF Red Arrows. Whist they were a half hour late I was taking a few shots just to check my settings. For the jets I chose ISO 500 1/3200 f5.0 with a polarizer. Nikon D7500 and Tamron 18-400. For this shot, 65mm. Hand Held. So this test shot of Harbor should not have been tack sharp. I used single point focus centered on the Custom House - clock tower. Yet the top of the crane in the distance is sharp, the boats in the harbor are tack sharp, and even the ripples in the water look pretty sharp. If you asked me to guess, I'd F20 or higher.

Why is everything so sharp?

(Download)

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

jonjacobik wrote:

Yesterday, I was near Boston to shoot a flyover of... (show quote)

Because every thing is so far away and the DOF is tremendous at that range plus the 1/3200 SS is pretty fast to kill camera movement. And it appears to be an extremely clear, calm day so very little haze or atmospheric disturbance to effect the image.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Personally, I'd be more concerned about the preponderance of a blue cast to the photo than the depth of field.
--Bob

robertjerl wrote:

Because every thing is so far away and the DOF is tremendous at that range plus the 1/3200 SS is pretty fast to kill camera movement. And it appears to be an extremely clear, calm day so very little haze or atmospheric disturbance to effect the image.

bleirer

Check out a dof calculator. After a couple hundred feet at those settings depth of field is infinity.

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

bleirer wrote:

Check out a dof calculator. After a couple hundred feet at those settings depth of field is infinity.

Exactly, especially at 65mm

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

rmalarz wrote:

Personally, I'd be more concerned about the preponderance of a blue cast to the photo than the depth of field.
--Bob

10 seconds or so with the white balance or color temp slider in Lightroom will cure that.

Just tried it in PS (then deleted everything) and it cured the blue cast - but not the mirrored buildings the blue on them is the reflections of sea and sky.

LeeinNC Loc: Morganton, NC

robertjerl wrote:

10 seconds or so with the white balance or color temp slider in Lightroom will cure that.

Just tried it in PS (then deleted everything) and it cured the blue cast - but not the mirrored buildings the blue on them is the reflections of sea and sky.

F5.0 makes the whole image sharper.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I used my own method and got pretty close to a natural look.
--Bob

robertjerl wrote:

10 seconds or so with the white balance or color temp slider in Lightroom will cure that.

Just tried it in PS (then deleted everything) and it cured the blue cast - but not the mirrored buildings the blue on them is the reflections of sea and sky.

jonjacobik Loc: Quincy, MA

Thanks everyone. I've learned something about DOF. The rules of thumb I've been using don't work in all realities, and there are some things I can still learn.

The blue cast was my overuse of the vibrance slider.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Ah, here's a bit to keep in mind. Processing photographs is a lot like cooking. One adds just enough spice such that if it weren't there it'd be missed. However, it is not there overpowering the flavor of the food. A judicious amount of adjustment to an image really gets that image to be noticeable. As a spice, too much and that's all one will taste.
--Bob

jonjacobik wrote:

Thanks everyone. I've learned something about DOF. The rules of thumb I've been using don't work in all realities, and there are some things I can still learn.

The blue cast was my overuse of the vibrance slider.

Pablo8 Loc: Nottingham UK.

rmalarz wrote:

Ah, here's a bit to keep in mind. Processing photographs is a lot like cooking. One adds just enough spice such that if it weren't there it'd be missed. However, it is not there overpowering the flavor of the food. A judicious amount of adjustment to an image really gets that image to be noticeable. As a spice, too much and that's all one will taste.
--Bob

Good use of a reference to using spice in cooking. However I cannot comprehend some 'Cooks/Chefs' (on TV) will ad 6 or7 different spices to one dish / recipe. I'm sure many spices are completely overpowered in these show-off programmes.

catchlight.. Loc: Wisconsin USA- Halden Norway

ISO 500, and a shutter speed at 3200...?

As for me... f5, ISO 200, and the shutter could go as low as 100 or even lower than that (with image stabilization). all depends on what I need for motion blur. There are good charts that

At f 20 your actually reducing sharpness and 3200 is overkill. ISO 500 in sun is a waste of shadow detail.

Recomendations:

Quote

"For jets, aperture priority works best. f/5.6 to f/8 and let the camera deal with shutter speed. For propeller planes, use shutter priority with a speed of 1/25 second to 1/125 second so the props blur and the aircraft look like they're really flying, not hanging from a string."

https://www.nikonusa.com/en/learn-and-explore/a/tips-and-techniques/taking-great-photographs-at-airshows.html

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

jonjacobik wrote:

Yesterday, I was near Boston to shoot a flyover of... (show quote)

Depth of field increases as the distance from the subject increases. SO, because you were a LONG way away, you had good DOF even though you were shooting at f5.0.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Funny. I can't remember another poster complaining about too much sharpness.

Pablo8 Loc: Nottingham UK.

jerryc41 wrote:

Funny. I can't remember another poster complaining about too much sharpness.

Yorkshire saying..."Nowt so queer as folk".