MRHooker2u Loc: Kingston, WA

First of all I would like to thank everyone for the advice given for previous questions regarding non-AI lenses and a Nikon D750 purchase. I would like to also thank fellow member, Dennis Shaffer, for the incredible offer and sale to me of the D750. It is a wonderful camera. That said, I photographed one of the many arches near Moab, Utah with a non-AI 105mm, Auto ISO, 1/3200 sec. I shot these photographs hand held rather than using a tripod, thus the fast shutter speed. I also did some PP to enhance the white balance and mask in a more interesting sky. I have cropped the photographs three different ways and am asking about the clarity and quality of photos using the non-AI lens as well as aesthetics of the crop (which photo has the better crop). This is a down-and-dirty PP just for this post. Any input is greatly appreciated. Thanks!

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Each of the crops has its pluses and minuses. Personally I think #2 has the most going for it. Composition-wise it would have been nice to see the whole of the inside curve of the arch without anything obscuring it. The archway is the focus of attention so it should be unobstructed.

djtravels Loc: Georgia boy now

Nice set. I didn't see as much texture as I thought I might, considering the subjects. Liked the last 2 because of the positioning in the background, through the arch. What time of day did you shoot? djt

WayneRobinson Loc: Atlanta, GA

They seem a little soft, not tack sharp. I suggest a tripod and shoot aperture preferred at f.8 or 11 with 100 (or lowest ISO setting). focus a third of the way into the scene. See if that doesn't help.

Cany143 Loc: SE Utah

Generally speaking, many Nikon users consider (even the older NAi and Ai versions of) the 105mm Nikkor a 'classic,' and one of Nikon's very finest lenses. Given the amount of light evident (looks like you were at Wilson Arch some time between noon and 2pm?), and given your high shutter speed --and not knowing where Auto ISO had placed the setting--, were you were shooting wide open at f2.5? While not the 105's sharpest aperture, they're ordinarily still plenty sharp at that setting, so I'd suspect a slight (manual, obviously) focus error coupled with relatively flat lighting conditions contribute to the seeming lack of texture. Processing-wise, and assuming you were going for as 'realistic' a look as possible, #2 is the better of your series. #2 is --for me, at any rate-- the better of the lot compositionally, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is not the arch per se, but for the protrusion of the shadowed sandstone fin on the left side of the frame. Its always difficult to critique another's shot, but we do it just the same. Personally, had I been there with you, I'd have said walk across the road and use either a 28mm or a 35mm lens in order to get a lower, more upward-looking vantage point to eliminate the ridge of stone seen through and beyond the arch, and include more of the right hand side of the fin in which the arch has formed. You could've gotten the distant Abajo Mountains in the frame as well, and produced more of a landscape image in the process.

SpyderJan Loc: New Smyrna Beach. FL

What Cany said. I also like #2 the best, but not necessary for the same reasons. It has much better detail, and composition. The other two look too flat.

MRHooker2u Loc: Kingston, WA

Thank you! Yours is the type of critique I was hoping for. I'm still a novice when it comes to photography with a lot still to learn, especially with regard to adjusting ISO, Aperture and shutter speed. We had a lot of driving left before settling in for the night so a lengthy setup with a tripod and time to frame a better shot was not an option at the time. I also realize the times you mentioned are about the time we were passing by when we came across the arch. I know that time of day is not ideal for landscape photography but it was what I had to work with. I will take your suggestions and see if I can improve on my next set up photos.