Project 52 - Q2 - David (Rufus)

That looks good now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoff F

That looks good now.

---

Thank you Geoff for your help.

BTW I have now cloned out the electric fan, but won't upload that minor amendment.

Week 24 – Romsey Old Canal

The canal was opened in 1794 and ran for 22 miles but was never a commercial success. The only dividend paid to shareholders was in 1859 :eek:, using the proceeds from the sale of the canal to the London and South Western Railway, who bought it to lay a railway line along much of its course. As result only a few stretches of the canal remain. The railway line is now also defunct and is a footpath and cycle track.

There is still a feed of water into the canal which in the Romsey area borders a nature reserve. In places it is more like a pond with acquatic plants.

This week’s images reflect some of what I came across as I wandered along the tow path and around the nature reserve ready to shoot with my 135mm lens. The camera was mainly set on auto ISO as I wanted to be able use smallish apertures for greater depth of field while maintaining a shutter speed of at least 1/250 to mitigate any camera shake.

The third image (#58) is a bit of fun – you might see an animal on one of the tree branches!:)

C&C always welcome.

Image #56 – The Romsey Old Canal (1/250 sec at f/16 and ISO 1000):
http://i66.tinypic.com/2s8fc0k.jpg

Image #57 – Gate Without A Track (1/250 sec at f/16 and ISO 640):
https://i64.tinypic.com/2pt9nk2.jpg

Image #58 – Petrified Cat In A Dead Tree? (1/250 sec at f/16 and ISO 125):
https://i68.tinypic.com/2w32b9d.jpg

Image #59 – The Pathway By Two Trees (1/250 sec at f/11 and ISO 160):
http://i65.tinypic.com/r8z0rc.jpg

Image #60 – Fungus On a Tree Growing Round Its Twigs (1/250 sec at f/11 and ISO 640):
http://i66.tinypic.com/34fmhyv.jpg

With the first image I wonder about cropping a bit from the top and going to something like 4 x 5 ratio in order to concentrate the view on your main subjects without too much distracting background?

The second is sort of OK but there are out of focus flowers and leaves in the foreground. You can usually get away with this on wildlife images such as the last photo but landscapes really need to be focused from the foreground to look natural. It is a potential problem which I regularly encounter and often have to try several angles before achieving my desired result.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoff F

With the first image I wonder about cropping a bit from the top and going to something like 4 x 5 ratio in order to concentrate the view on your main subjects without too much distracting background?

The second is sort of OK but there are out of focus flowers and leaves in the foreground. You can usually get away with this on wildlife images such as the last photo but landscapes really need to be focused from the foreground to look natural. It is a potential problem which I regularly encounter and often have to try several angles before achieving my desired result.

---

Thank you for your comments, Geoff, and I take your point on the first one. I have now cropped it a bit more.

I will bear in mind your advice regarding the need to keep the foreground in focus when taking landcapes in future, as I did not consider this at the time. I also need to make more use of the LCD screen to check for these things. I think the non-green colours in parts of the foreground accentuate the problem. I was paying attention to getting the gate at an interesting angle and I was sub-consciously hoping f/16 would give a reasonable depth of field. Had I focused a little closer I might have had both the gate and foreground crisp (subject to blur from the breeze).

Image #57 - The gate was probably around 7 metres away. At f/16 the near focus would have been around 6 metres and the far focus approximately 9 metres. No wonder the foreground and background are out of focus! This is an aspect of the telephoto lens that I am having difficulty getting used to; and selecting an aperture such as f/16 or even f/22 is not going overcome the issue.

Had I taken the picture again focused on the gate with my 50mm lens at f/16 everything from 3 metres to infinity would have been "in focus". But of course it would have been quite a different picture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rufus

Had I taken the picture again focused on the gate with my 50mm lens at f/16 everything from 3 metres to infinity would have been "in focus". But of course it would have been quite a different picture.

---

You might want to read the CiC article on DoF; the section labelled "CLARIFICATION: FOCAL LENGTH AND DEPTH OF FIELD". Focal length does not affect DoF and yes that is a common misconception.

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tu...h-of-field.htm

If you want things sharp throughout the frame, it might be time to learn how to focus stack...

In spite of not having a particular point of interest, the first one pleases the onlooker. Liked the other images too....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manfred M

You might want to read the CiC article on DoF; the section labelled "CLARIFICATION: FOCAL LENGTH AND DEPTH OF FIELD". Focal length does not affect DoF and yes that is a common misconception.

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tu...h-of-field.htm

If you want things sharp throughout the frame, it might be time to learn how to focus stack...

---

I took another look at the tutorial. It says

“If the subject occupies the same fraction of the image (constant magnification) for both a telephoto and a wide angle lens, the total depth of field is virtually constant with focal length! This would of course require you to either get much closer with a wide angle lens or much farther with a telephoto lens...”

...“On the other hand, when standing in the same place and focusing on a subject at the same distance, a longer focal length lens will have a shallower depth of field (even though the pictures will frame the subject entirely differently). This is more representative of everyday use, but is an effect due to higher magnification, not focal length.”

When I wrote post #66 I used an app and input the focusing distance and focal length to find out the DOF for a 135mm and 50mm lens. I was assuming I would shoot from the same distance, and appreciated that the resultant images would have been quite different due the differing angles of view and therefore framing. So the second quote is particularly pertinent. I had not understood that the effect is due to differing magnification rather than DOF characteristics.

Sometimes I will try focus stacking on this sort of scene, David, but that will produce other worries. Handheld shots for stacking are tricky. Manual focus seems to help but it is difficult to keep your camera sufficiently still to obtain an acceptable merge. Even on a tripod, wind movement can produce alignment problems for your stack. Where there is a clear division between different elements of your scene you stand a much better chance of obtaining a good merge.

Even then, I often find that I get better results by doing a manual merge with selections instead of the auto merge option.

So, if you have suitable software, focus stacking is always worth a try and if it doesn't work you haven't lost anything.

On occasions, where it is possible, I have overcome this focus issue by shooting from a higher angle over the top of problem foregrounds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoff F

Sometimes I will try focus stacking on this sort of scene, David, but that will produce other worries. Handheld shots for stacking are tricky. Manual focus seems to help but it is difficult to keep your camera sufficiently still to obtain an acceptable merge. Even on a tripod, wind movement can produce alignment problems for your stack. Where there is a clear division between different elements of your scene you stand a much better chance of obtaining a good merge.

Even then, I often find that I get better results by doing a manual merge with selections instead of the auto merge option.

---

I did not anticipate focus stacking being suggested for a landscape :), largely because of the issues you mention, Geoff. I understand the concept and application of hyperfocal distance to achieve good focus throughout a landscape image but that was impossible here. I think I have managed to demonstrate why a long lens is seldom the landscape photographer's first choice!

Having spent Q1 2019 with my 35mm lens and Q2 with the 135mm I have started to think about topics for the second half of the year. My intention for 2019 was to become more familiar with the hardware side and gain processing knowledge along the way (which I certainly have).

Then next year I planned to concentrate more on the post processing. I had in the back of my mind both focus stacking and exposure bracketing as possible candidates for next year. I have only made couple of attempts at these in the past so I need a lot more practice; but they would be useful to have in my toolkit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rufus

Image #57 - The gate was probably around 7 metres away. At f/16 the near focus would have been around 6 metres and the far focus approximately 9 metres. No wonder the foreground and background are out of focus! This is an aspect of the telephoto lens that I am having difficulty getting used to; and selecting an aperture such as f/16 or even f/22 is not going overcome the issue.

Had I taken the picture again focused on the gate with my 50mm lens at f/16 everything from 3 metres to infinity would have been "in focus". But of course it would have been quite a different picture.

---

One can get into an awful tangle with the various DOF articles/calculators out there.

I would suggest an "out of the box" approach as easier on the mind:

http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/TIAOOFe.pdf

Well worth a read, and then another read followed by as many reads as are needed to "get it".

I've tried it ... it works. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xpatUSA

One can get into an awful tangle with the various DOF articles/calculators out there.

I would suggest an "out of the box" approach as easier on the mind:

http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/TIAOOFe.pdf

Well worth a read, and then another read followed by as many reads as are needed to "get it".

I've tried it ... it works. :D

---

Thank you for the link Ted. I have taken a brief look at the Summary and Rules of Thumb and I look forward to reading the whole paper in detail later today. And that will be the first step taken along the road to "getting it". :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rufus

Thank you for the link Ted. I have taken a brief look at the Summary and Rules of Thumb and I look forward to reading the whole paper in detail later today. And that will be the first step taken along the road to "getting it". :D

---

Glad to hear it, David. Merklinger also posted a follow-up which is perhaps easier to "get" and has an example image up front:

http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/DOFR.html

HTH

Week 25 was a non productive week as far new images are concerned, so I have deviated from the Q2 plan.:eek: Instead I am including an earlier image I have been working on and welcome your thoughts.

I have used it to practice post processing - in particular selections, layers and dodging and burning using curves - and using my tablet. I lightened the fence post in the foreground a little and the shaded wall with the entrance, and I further brightened the doorway. I darkened the other wall as the natural sunlight had left it too light. I also attempted to bring out some texture in the walls and pathway, and I experimented with blending modes to add some "punch" to the image.

When I printed it, it came out much darker than I expected, despite setting Lightroom to adjust print brightness by +25, so I wonder if I should be increasing the luminance somehow instead.

Image#61 - Private Chapel at Cothele (before):
https://i64.tinypic.com/ogexkw.jpg

Image#61 - Private Chapel at Cothele (after):
http://i68.tinypic.com/2jfabd4.jpg

C&C are always welcome.

Fantastic place and an excellent perspective.But the human figures not being prominent, just help to distract, i feel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wavelength

...the human figures not being prominent, just help to distract, i feel

---

I totally agree with you. I thought about editing them out but did not relish that challenge!

Just a thought, crop a little closer and lose a bit from the right side and top (remove those stems coming from the bottom right corner)? That will give more prominence to those figures. If you can't hide them, make them more important to the scene?

Week 25, nice capture and edit, regarding the darkness, because the obvious question of monitor calibration, under what lighting conditions are you viewing the image? Are you backlighting or viewing under daylight lamp? If not, try either method and see if you still feel image is too dark.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoff F

Just a thought, crop a little closer and lose a bit from the right side and top (remove those stems coming from the bottom right corner)? That will give more prominence to those figures. If you can't hide them, make them more important to the scene?

---

I have taken your suggestion on board Geoff to arrive at Image #62 (Revised):

http://i66.tinypic.com/hu3jew.jpg

Maybe I should experiment with colour substitution on the dark coat now the figures are a more significant element of the image.

Thank you for commenting.:)