Your opinion please.
Sep 24, 2019 21:31:50 #
Z7 Nikon. 80-400mm lens at 80mm. ISO1250, f11, 1/200s. Morning light.
A portion of the fishing rod and especially the fluorocarbon line, enlarged and translucent.
Can someone explain?
A portion of the fishing rod and especially the fluorocarbon line, enlarged and translucent.
Can someone explain?
Sep 24, 2019 21:37:42 #
Sep 24, 2019 21:38:00 #
Sep 24, 2019 21:41:08 #
Sep 24, 2019 21:42:06 #
Out of focus or movement but seems to consistent overall to be movement.
Sep 24, 2019 21:45:59 #
Markag wrote:
only UV filter.
Try removing the filter next time you shoot - and see what happns.
Sep 24, 2019 21:46:06 #
The line is going to bend light in all sorts of crazy directions to begin with as sunlight hits it coupled with the comments mentioned above.
Sep 24, 2019 21:46:44 #
IMO - where was the focus? Looks like at F11 it is partly focus and at 1/200 the shutter was to slow for the moving rod & line.
Sep 24, 2019 21:55:54 #
amfoto1
Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
It's obviously out of focus. That's all.
The bush on the left and the rock in the left foreground are both out of focus, too, although they aren't as close as the fishing rod.
Focus appears to be on the distant trees or on the other side of the pond. Something a few feet in front of the lens can't be expected to be in focus. They don't make f-stops small enough to handle that!
Read up on using a hyperfocal focusing distance... Or try "focus stacking" techniques. Those are the only way's you'll be able to get that wide a range of distances in focus.
It's not "camera shake blur". Everything other than the foreground objects is sharp. It all would be blurred to some extent, too... if camera shake were the problem.
ISO 1250... should be able to use a bit higher than that, if you want to increase the shutter speed (rather than opening up the lens aperture, which would further reduce depth of field).
That pond has an interesting tilt to it, too. It's amazing all the water doesn't run out!
The bush on the left and the rock in the left foreground are both out of focus, too, although they aren't as close as the fishing rod.
Focus appears to be on the distant trees or on the other side of the pond. Something a few feet in front of the lens can't be expected to be in focus. They don't make f-stops small enough to handle that!
Read up on using a hyperfocal focusing distance... Or try "focus stacking" techniques. Those are the only way's you'll be able to get that wide a range of distances in focus.
It's not "camera shake blur". Everything other than the foreground objects is sharp. It all would be blurred to some extent, too... if camera shake were the problem.
ISO 1250... should be able to use a bit higher than that, if you want to increase the shutter speed (rather than opening up the lens aperture, which would further reduce depth of field).
That pond has an interesting tilt to it, too. It's amazing all the water doesn't run out!
Sep 24, 2019 22:07:50 #
amfoto1 wrote:
It's obviously out of focus. That's all. br br T... (show quote)
I'll go with this explanation although I'd hope that if the line were out of focus it would simply disappear from the shot. And the pond level? I never said it was close to being a decent photo, I was too busy catching trout.
Sep 24, 2019 22:11:52 #
Markag wrote:
Z7 Nikon. 80-400mm lens at 80mm. ISO1250, f11, 1/200s. Morning light.
A portion of the fishing rod and especially the fluorocarbon line, enlarged and translucent.
Can someone explain?
A portion of the fishing rod and especially the fluorocarbon line, enlarged and translucent.
Can someone explain?
Fairly low shutter speed and the line was probably vibrating like fishing line often does. If it wasn't stretched tightly it could also be vibrating in the wind or just not being held totally still. Then too it seems to be a bit out of focus which exaggerates any movement.
Sep 24, 2019 22:15:22 #
Sep 24, 2019 22:40:24 #
The rod & line were obviously too close to be in focus, but I think what made the line show up so much was the backlighting through the line.
Sep 24, 2019 22:48:10 #
amfoto1 wrote:
It's obviously out of focus. That's all. br br T... (show quote)
Darn good answer. But I'd open up the aperture a several stops and make the rod and line probably disappear altogether. The trees and opposite shore are the intended subject, focus on them (only). Why do you think some photographers buy super fast prime lenses. I have a f/2.8 135mm lens. On a APS-C body I can shoot "right thru" fences and the likes of narrow solid objects, including a rod and line. With proper equipment and technique I know a wildlife photographer who shoots thru all sorts of stuff with a Zoom or Prime at 400mm.
Sep 25, 2019 05:43:28 #
johngault007 wrote:
The line is going to bend light in all sorts of crazy directions to begin with as sunlight hits it coupled with the comments mentioned above.
When out kayaking on the River Thames (U.K.) I usually see the anglers line long before the rod. Looks like a tow rope with the sun going shining through it. But I think there is a small movement there, just a nibble maybe?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.