Fall is at the door

[bnnrcn]

You are right about the DOF issue Grahame. The thing is, I wasn't able to focus at 1.4 mt ( my Canon 1100D doesn't have as many AF points and I had to focus a bit further in order to get the composition I wanted) and if you focus at a further distance than 1.4 mt, then max sharpness starts from a distance between 0,67 mt and 1,4 mt. The tree trunk and the rock on the left are a bit soft (but not too much) in the original raw file because I was really close to them while shooting , they were at about 1 mt on the same focus plane( Some strange place to shoot indeed) . You may not have noticed the softness because I applied 'sharpen tool' to them in PS and may be I'm a bit too picky about the little softness anyway. I'm glad that it is not very noticeable

I have had the idea of focus stacking landscape shots while reading a book about Landscape Photography . It seems to be good not only for foreground rocks but also for some flowers and foliage in the foreground. I will share my images in CinC when I make my trials. But first I need to find nice landscapes to shoot

It does not look soft in the foreground to me at this size in the Lytebox Binnur?

At 17mm focal length f/11 focussing at 1.4 mtrs into the scene will give a DoF from 0.67 mtrs to infinity. Then it's a matter of ensuring that nothing prominent is closer than 0.67 mtrs within the frame.



I look forward to seeing the attempts at focus stacking landscapes, I could see this being useful when using longer focal lengths to ensure a prominent foreground subject, perhaps a rock is as sharp as the distant subject.

Ideal if there's no movement in the scene.

Grahame

[John 2]

That's really nice Binnur. Feels like a place where you could sit and watch the sun go down.

[bnnrcn]

Thank's for looking and commenting John. I'm glad that the image causes to arise some feelings

That's really nice Binnur. Feels like a place where you could sit and watch the sun go down.

[kdoc856]

Very nice shot. A polarizing filter can even out the reflected luminance from the water and leaves and give a nice saturation and depth of colour. I default to a polarizer as the starting point for all my water shots.

[bnnrcn]

Thank you Kevin for looking and commenting This is a back lit photo and main goal of it was to emphasize the light on the leaves , that's why I didn't use a polarizing filter. But there is an historical aqueduct in that place and I actually went there to shoot the aqueduct that day. For the aqueduct shots I stood opposite side of the water and the aqueduct was in front of me. I did use a polarizing filter to even out the reflections in the water for a better look in those shots and I think it worked fine as far as I can see from the raw files, but I haven't edited them yet. I will upload them soon

Very nice shot. A polarizing filter can even out the reflected luminance from the water and leaves and give a nice saturation and depth of colour. I default to a polarizer as the starting point for all my water shots.

[joebranko]

I think this shot is superb! I love the colour and composition!

[Mike Buckley]

This is a back lit photo and main goal of it was to emphasize the light on the leaves , that's why I didn't use a polarizing filter.

A polarizer will not affect light shining directly toward or away from you. If you had wanted to control the spectral highlights on the water without affecting the backlit leaves, using the polarizer would have been the way to go.

[bnnrcn]

Ooh really? Mike, do you mean although the sun was in front of me , the polarizer would have worked for the reflections on the water without effecting the leaves ? If so, it is splendid, no need to hesitate to use a polarizer then

PS. Mike when I thought about your comment for a moment, I think I realized why the leaves wouldn't have been effected by the polarizer . It is because the light is coming from the opposite direction and my viewfinder and polarizer can't see that light on the leaves anyway, is it right?

A polarizer will not affect light shining directly toward or away from you. If you had wanted to control the spectral highlights on the water without affecting the backlit leaves, using the polarizer would have been the way to go.

[bnnrcn]

Thank you Joe , I'm glad that you liked the image

I think this shot is superb! I love the colour and composition!

[Mike Buckley]

You're probably aware that the more the sun is low and 90 degrees to the lens, the more affect the polarizer will have on the reflected light. The corollary is that the more the sun is facing or behind the lens, the less effect it will have. Considering that the leaves were back lit, the sun was relatively facing the lens.

The other factor has to do with the difference between direct light and reflected light. The polarizer generally affects reflected light, not direct light. (Most areas of the sky are reflected light even when it is cloudless due to the particles in the sky reflecting the light.) Considering that the leaves were back lit, you were photographing at least a certain amount of direct light. Contrast that with the water, which was a source only of reflected light. So, the polarizer could have controlled that reflected light without affecting the direct light shining through the leaves.

Yet another aspect is that the polarizer will have greater effect on direct reflections than diffuse reflections. The little bit of reflected light on the back lit leaves would have been on the side of the leaves facing you, which would have been diffuse light even though the surface of the leaves would have produced a generally direct reflection.

A trick I have learned to use: when a particular scene makes it difficult to determine how much affect a polarizer has for whatever reason, I point the camera upward to a blue area of the sky near the horizon though without moving the lens to the right or left. Once I adjust the polarizer filter, the affect on the lowest part of the sky will be about the same as the effect on the lower area of the scene.

The moral to the story: When in doubt, put the polarizer filter on and see if it produces a desired effect. If not, remove it.

[bnnrcn]

Thank you so much for the further explanation Mike. I edited my post replying to your previous post above ,before you posted this one. I think I got the point already but your detailed answer made everything much clearer. Thanks also for the tip to adjust the polarizer properly. I watched some videos about adjusting it to 90 degree to the sun but not every shooting condition is proper for 90 degree. What I understand from your comments and from some of my experiences with the polarizer is that , I think it is better to keep it attached to the lens during the day regardless of the angle of the sun if there are some reflections in the composition or it is a very sunny day with harsh light, because more or less it helps anyway. And if I doubt I can always take it off and shoot the same scene again to be on the safe side Thanks for your help again

You're probably aware that the more the sun is low and 90 degrees to the lens, the more affect the polarizer will have on the reflected light. The corollary is that the more the sun is facing or behind the lens, the less effect it will have. Considering that the leaves were back lit, the sun was relatively facing the lens.

The other factor has to do with the difference between direct light and reflected light. The polarizer generally affects reflected light, not direct light. (Most areas of the sky are reflected light even when it is cloudless due to the particles in the sky reflecting the light.) Considering that the leaves were back lit, you were photographing at least a certain amount of direct light. Contrast that with the water, which was a source only of reflected light. So, the polarizer could have controlled that reflected light without affecting the direct light shining through the leaves.

Yet another aspect is that the polarizer will have greater effect on direct reflections than diffuse reflections. The little bit of reflected light on the back lit leaves would have been on the side of the leaves facing you, which would have been diffuse light even though the surface of the leaves would have produced a generally direct reflection.

A trick I have learned to use: when a particular scene makes it difficult to determine how much affect a polarizer has for whatever reason, I point the camera upward to a blue area of the sky near the horizon though without moving the lens to the right or left. Once I adjust the polarizer filter, the affect on the lowest part of the sky will be about the same as the effect on the lower area of the scene.

The moral to the story: When in doubt, put the polarizer filter on and see if it produces a desired effect. If not, remove it.

[Mike Buckley]

I watched some videos about adjusting it to 90 degree to the sun but not every shooting condition is proper for 90 degree.

Hopefully the tutorials explained that the most effect is possible when the lens is 90 degrees to the sun. Even when it's possible to make that happen, the most effect is not necessarily the best effect, depending on how you envision the scene.

I think it is better to keep it attached to the lens during the day regardless of the angle of the sun if there are some reflections in the composition or it is a very sunny day with harsh light, because more or less it helps anyway.

That's what I do. I do it so much that I accidentally forget that it is attached. I realize later that I have been shooting with the polarizer mounted in a situation when the only effect it has is to reduce the amount of light entering the lens, requiring an increase in the ISO value. I'm sure you won't make that mistake.

[bnnrcn]

I will keep this in mind

That's what I do. I do it so much that I accidentally forget that it is attached. I realize later that I have been shooting with the polarizer mounted in a situation when the only effect it has is to reduce the amount of light entering the lens, requiring an increase in the ISO value. I'm sure you won't make that mistake.