Late summer - before the rain C&C welcomed

[KimC]

ISO 400; 16mm; f10; 1/500 Taken at the farm where my friend keeps her horse -- could't resist getting out my favorite lens to capture this - Nikkor 10-24mm. It is a little dark, but I personally like the feeling of it - I guess I prefer darker images :-)

[bnnrcn]

Hi Kim I like the calmness in the image . May I ask why you increased ISO so much? There are no moving objects in the frame and it doesn't seem windy at all.So,it seems that ISO 100 with SS 1/125 would be enough.

[KimC]

Hi Kim I like the calmness in the image . May I ask why you increased ISO so much? There are no moving objects in the frame and it doesn't seem windy at all.So,it seems that ISO 100 with SS 1/125 would be enough.

Hi Binnur -- truthfully it's because I still am having a hard time figuring out the ISO when it's rather dark. I was relying on the light meter in the camera today and that's what got me to the center on the meter (o) .. Hopefully the classes I am taking this fall will help me with this :-)

[davidedric]

Hi Kim,

It is a pleasing image, but for me it lacks a focal point - my eyes do wander around. I think it needs something to lead my eye into the scene.

Dave

[Kodiak]

ISO 400; 16mm; f10; 1/500

Well done Kim! …very peaceful. Wait for the bangs! ;-)

All parameters are ok for this take. Nothing to fear from ISO 400.

For more DoF: ƒ16, ISO 800, and SS 1/60-125 would have rendered
a sharper foreground

[Mike Buckley]

I like everything about this. Though I could use complete sharpness in the foreground, the subtle softness doesn't bother me.

Kim,

Determine whether your camera has an Auto ISO function that allows you to determine the minimum shutter speed and get back to me.

[mknittle]

Hi Kim,
I like this image to me it looks good on the dark side. It has been hot here and that looks like a nice place to be.

Mark,

[Shadowman]

Nice capture.

[Stagecoach]

I very much like that you have not overdone the sharpening in PP with this which can be so easily done with foliage losing that softness that this one retains.

If it were mine I would consider cropping a bit of foreground and some very local extra sharpening of some of the ducks to make them more prominent to see what it looks like.

As for the darkness, perhaps it was not that bright so the question is do we want to make it brighter

Grahame

[TonyW]

I like this just as it is - I don't feel the need to change anything. It's a good picture of a lovely scene. It is one of those pictures that makes me want to be there.

[NorthernFocus]

Hi, Kim. I take it this is a local spot that you can visit frequently? If so, it will be interesting if you visit periodically and shoot the same area as you learn.

By the way, you may have mentioned before but if so I've forgotten. What camera body do you shoot? It may be helpful to me to "converse" if I know what options you have at your disposal.

[bnnrcn]

Hi Mike . I have a question and I will be happy if you clear my confusion

When I shoot landscapes with wide angles, I usually use sweet f points of lenses between f/8 and f/11 unless something else is necessary. According to the tutorials in CinC and also according to the some landscape photography books higher f points cause diffraction and the image gets softer.

Kim shot this photo f/10 and 16 mm and hyperfocal distance was really very short in her case. She could even have framed her shot considering the hyperfocal distance and cropped the foreground later (if necessary). I also know that some landscape photography books suggest that one should do focus stacking for maximum sharpness in the image instead of increasing f point , because diffraction can be avoided this way.

For the shot above, I wouldn't increase f number. So, could you please tell me my way of thinking is reasonable? Thanks for your answer in advance . I have asked you because your answers always broaden my vision

Kim, you may not understand what I have asked Mike , because you are in the beginning of your learning curve. But if you read the tutorials about diffraction, hyperfocal distance and dept of field, I'm sure you will get it very quickly. There is also a depth of field calculator in the tutorials, you can play with it to see how the hyperfocal distance changes according to the aperture and focal length. The search engine is very helpful to find the tutorial you want

I like everything about this. Though I could use complete sharpness in the foreground, the subtle softness doesn't bother me.

Kim,

Determine whether your camera has an Auto ISO function that allows you to determine the minimum shutter speed and get back to me.

[NorthernFocus]

...For more DoF: ƒ16, ISO 800, and SS 1/60-125 would have rendered
a sharper foreground

At f10 with 16mm hyperfocal distance is 4.2 ft . Judging by the composition I'm guessing that everything in the foreground was beyond 4.2 ft. For that matter, if she was standing upright and unless she is extremely short, everything in the photo was beyond 4.2 ft away. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that any perceived lack of sharpness in the foreground is more related to PP than to camera settings at time of capture.

[Kodiak]

At f10 with 16mm hyperfocal distance is 4.2 ft . Judging by the composition I'm guessing that everything in the foreground was beyond 4.2 ft. For that matter, if she was standing upright and unless she is extremely short, everything in the photo was beyond 4.2 ft away. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that any perceived lack of sharpness in the foreground is more related to PP than to camera settings at time of capture.

Very good argumentation Dan… up to your conclusion!

Which, IMO, should read:
"…any perceived lack of sharpness in the foreground is related to the critical PoF."

I, myself, will be "going to go out on a limb" (thanks, just learned a new one!)
and propose that the focus is at infinity as it should have been, say at the end of
the floating leaves or even at the base of the trees.

[Mike Buckley]

Binnur,

I also use the aperture sweet spot of my lenses when I have that luxury but it's because my lenses are prosumer lenses (in between consumer- and pro-quality), not because of anything having to do with diffraction. The sharpness and contrast of consumer and prosumer lenses tend to be softer for other reasons at the extreme apertures than in pro lenses.

I think the entire stuff about diffraction, while true, has little if any practical application. (There are a lot of things written about photography that fit into that category.) If you would notice the diffraction, you would be viewing the printed image from such a much closer distance than it is designed to be viewed from. Colin wrote repeatedly and extensively about this; when I first began participating at CiC it was refreshing to see his practical approach to this and other matters.

I am very confident the softness in Kim's photograph is not due to diffraction. I doubt that you will ever see the effects of diffraction when viewing an image displayed at a size that is so small that it fits on our computer monitors.

EDIT: The following is from the CiC tutorial explaining diffraction: "Even when a camera system is near or just past its diffraction limit, other factors such as focus accuracy, motion blur and imperfect lenses are likely to be more significant. Diffraction therefore limits total sharpness only when using a sturdy tripod, mirror lock-up and a very high quality lens."

[NorthernFocus]

I, myself, will ... and propose that the focus is at infinity as it should have been say at the end of
the floating leaves or even at the base of the trees.

In other words, you don't accept the concept of hyperfocal distance?

[Kodiak]

In other words, you don't accept the concept of hyperfocal distance?

Never said anything like that… I was trying to express in simple word a simple
idea so that it could be understood.

To take full advantage of the DoF, one should refer, for one, to the Dof scale
on the barrel of the lens.

As you said, at 16mm/ƒ10, one may expect great DoF given that the PoF is with
an acceptable distance to achieve the expected DoF.

[KimC]

Hi Kim,

It is a pleasing image, but for me it lacks a focal point - my eyes do wander around. I think it needs something to lead my eye into the scene.

Dave

Yes, I agree Dave. Perhaps if I got a better up front focus that would have changed that a bit.

[KimC]

For more DoF: ƒ16, ISO 800, and SS 1/60-125 would have rendered
a sharper foreground

Thank you Daniel. Very helpful info. I need to experiment more... so I can see what the variation brings.

[KimC]

I like everything about this. Though I could use complete sharpness in the foreground, the subtle softness doesn't bother me.

Kim,

Determine whether your camera has an Auto ISO function that allows you to determine the minimum shutter speed and get back to me.

Thank you Mike. My camera is a Nikon D3300 -- an auto ISO function is not available. It's the one thing I need to select from the menu.