R.G. Loc: Scotland

I returned to this area a few years after I'd visited it and found some new shots and new perspectives on old shots. This is a quick summary of what I got this time.
.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

photophile Loc: Lakewood, Ohio, USA

1 is my favorite R.G.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Thank you Karin. My original capture from a few years ago is HERE.

treadwl Loc: South Florida

Love #1, lots of good lines.

Heather Iles Loc: UK, Somerset

I really liked the original ones.

CPR Loc: Nature Coast of Florida

I much prefer the third for the simplicity. The first is very busy. All are good.

tommyII Loc: Northern Illinois

I love your photos. What camera and lenses, and settings did you use?

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Thanks for your comments, Larry. If nature presents us with nicely lined up rocks and mountains, why not take advantage?

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Thank you Heather. I like to think of them as different rather than better or worse.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Thank you CPR. #3 has a gentler feel thanks to the reeds, but if I wanted "rugged" I'd choose #1.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Thank you Tommy. I use a D5200 with a 16-85 (my only lens). If there's any kind of foreground I usually have my aperture up quite high - f/14 or higher, depending on how close the foreground comes. Even shooting into the distance from the side of a hill where there's no immediate foreground I'll keep the aperture at f/8 or thereabouts. I've managed to get perfectly good shots at f/18 (and that with a 24MP DX camera), which leaves me thinking that concerns about softness due to diffraction are overstated.

I usually use a tripod, which means that shutter speed is a concern only if there's movement in the frame, like branches or grass being blown by the wind. If there was such movement I'd keep the shutter speed above 1/200 (how high would depend on how extreme the movement was). Motion blur has more potential to spoil a shot than ISO noise.

I've found that waves on water can be quite tolerant of slow shutter speeds (1/30 or slower), and while I like to capture flowing water with the frozen look, I'm not too worried if there's a bit of motion blur. It would have to be excessive to spoil a shot IMO. The only time I've gone for a silky look is with a small waterfall that didn't have much of a flow of water. Long exposures are good at bulking out streams with meager amounts of water.

When it comes to choosing a focus point I'll have a rough idea what the hyperfocal distance would be for that aperture and that angle of view, and typically I'll lock focus on something just a bit farther than the hyperfocal distance. Usually I don't need the DOF to come within one or two feet of me so I can give more sharpness to the distant view at the expense of the near field. It's all very imprecise but it seems to be working for me so far. One of the advantages of keeping the f-stop high is that it gives a generous amount of DOF to work with so there are large safety margins.

tommystrat Loc: Bigfork, Montana

The composition on #1 is just great! Appealing and somber all at the same time!

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Thank you Tommy. If you mean the scenery's appealing and the weather's sombre, I'd agree. That's a common mixture in Scotland.

Heather Iles Loc: UK, Somerset

Thank you R.G. for that information as it really helps members like me who have a lot to learn. I am surprised that your lens is not up to 200mm. It just shows what can be achieved if you know what you are doing.

Much obliged,

H

R.G. Loc: Scotland

You're welcome. Landscape is mostly wide angle so I don't miss that level of zoom. Having said that, 85mm on a DX camera gives the FX equivalent of ~125mm, which is a fair amount of zoom.

If you (or anybody else reading this) haven't checked out hyperfocal distance, I suggest that you do. It appears a bit complicated at first because it changes with both aperture and focal length (angle of view), but it has the potential to clarify your understanding of focus and DOF. To simplify the learning curve, just concentrate on a small range of apertures - e.g. f/14 to f/18 for a DX camera (include f/22 if you think you might be using extreme DOF for very close objects). You can also concentrate on a narrow range of focal lengths - e.g. 16mm to 35mm DX values (24mm - 50mm FX equivalent). If you were trying to get DOF from infinity to close objects you wouldn't want to use a lot of zoom anyway.

Narrowing it down like that makes it easier to get a feel for the sort of values that you're most likely to be working with. And once you get a handle on those, everything else can become an extension of that (except maybe macro or telephoto work, which are another ball game).