Lightnings taking a ride

by ceinmart

submit your photo


Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

8

Then why don't we set the focus distance to be the nearest as possible, as this will achieve the maximum depth of field? Because it won't. If you focus on a point closer than the hyperfocal point, then the depth of field gets shorter. Infinity is no longer in focus. So the best would be to focus on the object at 0.4m, as it will cover 0.2m to ...


7

Your options are limited; the fog is an opaque item and post processing can only do so much. You can enhance or reduce the impact of the fog by adjusting contrast. It may or may not help much, it may impact other parts of your image. but effectively, the fog is turning the image into a very low contrast image, so increasing contrast can reduce it's impact. ...


7

You didn't explain where you read this, or what the meaning of "big aperture" means to you - so I'll explain. Certainly you can shoot landscape photography at whatever aperture you wish. Shooting with a wide open aperture is not the most common aperture selection for most landscape photography though. By wide open, I of course mean a wide aperture such as ...


6

To put it in old-school terms, you have a good negative here. It just needs to be printed properly. That means local manipulation of brightness and contrast. I can give you some suggestions that will allow to to create my picture, but it would be best for all concerned if I gave you some suggestions that will allow you to create your picture. First off, the ...


6

Focusing at a point closer than the hyperfocal point loses the depth of field at infinity. For example, if the hyperfocal point is 1.2m, and you focus at 1.2m, then your depth of field is from .6m to infinity. HOWEVER, if you focus at a point closer than 1.2m, say 1.0m, your depth of fields drop to between .55m and ~6m. You can see the effects subject ...


4

As user32334 notes, there is a lot of personal preference in a photo. It may be easier to change friends or ignore opinions than to try to please everyone :-). I won't start to try to give general advice as '32334 has done. I looked at that and decided that my chances of improving on it were small. Instead I'll take the opposite tack and just comment on ...


4

You can either use a flash to expose the subject (you won't be able to see them walking into or out of the frame), or you can, as you suggest, take two shots and blend them in Photoshop - a matter of a few minutes work. Making an exposure blended shot would require the subject to stand preternaturally still between shots for a decent effect.


4

The first thing to know about fog is that its effect is more pronounced with distance. The best is to get as close as possible. Do not zoom in, get closer instead. Don't fall into the cliff though! Second is that fog reflects light. Do not flash it. Shoot it from an angle where the fog receives the least light from other sources, such as street lamps. ...


3

Step 1: Duplicate layer As we don't want to do any destructive editing, make sure you duplicate your layer (Layer>Duplicate Layer) and rename it. Quick Selection ToolStep 2: Selection If your foreground detail is out of the fog and it's the background you want to clear up you'll need to do a simple selection so the foreground stays as is. The Quick ...


3

I want to corroborate what chuqui said above and add a bit more detail. Fog works like adding white to all pixels, and it reduces both your sharpness and contrast. Any algorithm that tackles one of these two can be helpful to you. The classics are overall contrast, unsharp mask (try a large radius then a small one) and smart sharpen. But there are also more ...


3

If your objective is to get as much as possible of your subject in focus and you know in advance that most of your subject is beyond the half-hyperfocal distance then this may be helpful advice that simplifies the focusing process in setting up your shot. However, there are at least a couple complicating factors: The hyperfocal distance changes with the ...


3

I wouldn't change the image at all. You could lift the shadows slightly with the shadows slider or even increase the exposure(which would require compensation of highlights to save the sky), but I don't think this image needs either. If you did lift the shadows it would all start to look pretty mute which to me is not desirable. You have more options if ...


3

Without the 70D, you cannot print that image that little bit larger. Without the 10-18mm, you cannot get that image at all. Remember: This does not hold true in general. The 70D might as well be the key equipment required to get a certain shot, but that shot will not be a landscape shot.


3

Sure. Framing is a technique in composition where objects in the photo direct the viewers attention by covering (usually) one or more edges, creating a sort of frame-within-the-frame. In landscape photography, this is usually foreground trees or rocks — but it doesn't have to be. It could be a building, or even people. In Raphael's Sistine Madonna, the ...


3

You don't need waterfalls, beaches, or volcanos to test what exposure length your camera can handle without excessive noise, ISO settings, tripod issues, sunlight versus cloudy, etc. You can test all that in your back yard. The only thing you can't test that way is optimal length of exposure for the effect you are trying to achieve. However, that is ...


3

You could practice getting long exposures of roadways with moving cars, assuming you have some of those available... that's probably my most common reason for messing with an ND filter, since I don't really like the look of moving cars frozen in place. Image below is a 1-second exposure of the Arroyo Seco Parkway. Something that I just thought of to add ...


3

Here's the text from the proposal that's causing the stir, and it's indeed troublesome to say the least: Considers that the commercial use of photographs, video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in physical public places should always be subject to prior authorisation from the authors or any ...


2

Most of the time, a "big" f-number is recommended for landscape photography. But a high f-number such as f/16 or f/22, when dealing with APS-C or FF cameras, means a very narrow or small aperture. The large aperture is at the other end of the scale at f/1.4 or f/2. See What is aperture, and how does it affect my photographs?


2

Another disadvantage not mentioned before is: Focus stacking takes a lot of time, in particular in the postprocessing phase. This is a multi-step process, (comprising at least align+stack). You need to get familiar with special-purpose software, and there are countless ways to try different parameter settings at the PC. Tiniest erros add up and must be ...


2

You can use a camera or lens that offers tilt capability. The zone of sharp focus doesn't get any wider, but it tilts. Example: the bottom of the frame is focused a foot away, the top of the frame is focused slightly past infinity. If that matches the way your scene is laid out it can appear you have insanely deep DoF even though the DoF at any given point ...


2

Zoom lenses have more versatility since they can, well, zoom. If you want to get a picture of a specific portion of the landscape, or if you spot a wild animal, you may consider a zoom. The main disadvantage is that zoom lenses usually have a smaller maximum aperture when compared to prime lenses, and are more susceptible to geometric distortion when you ...


2

There's no sharp limit between in and out of focus. Everything but the focal plane at some exact distance is out of focus, it is just so slightly so that we don't notice it. There are two reasons why somebody would choose focusing further than the hyperfocal distance - the first being that when you focus exactly on something further than hyperfocal distance ...


2

The article you cite is not very good advice if you want great sharpness for landscape photography: it’s based on the concepts of depth of field and hyperfocal distance. These concepts are intended to help the photographer find the required aperture for getting barely acceptable sharpness across the relevant parts of the picture. What the author (like many ...


2

So thinking logically about your question, both the Canon T3i and the 70D are both APS-C cameras and 18mp against the 20mp of the 70D means there's nothing in it, 5472 x 3648 70D against 5184 x 3456 T3i(aka 600D) image resolution. Both cameras are equally capable of taking an excellent quality photograph! After all it's the person behind the camera that ...


2

If you need to have as much as possible including infinity sharp, it's better to focus at the hyperfocal distance instead of infinity. Then everything from half the hyperfocal distance to infinity is acceptably sharp. There are websites and smartphone apps to calculate that distance. I'm not sure what you mean by "It is my understanding that with manual ...


2

This might sound lame but you could use a hose or tap to make your own "waterfalls". Even putting objects in the way to change the path of the water and see what it does to the water trails. Try it at different times of day or different light to see how it affects the outcome. All my long exposures have always been a very digital age way of doing it. Try ...


2

Your case is typical problem with high contrast/dynamic range situation. As no sensor can reproduce the dynamic range of the human eye, you can use several ways to create image which somehow represent your view of the light. The first way is to expose based on the metering of sky. This will help you not to lose details in bright areas and still have some ...


2

You could experiment with a graduated neutral-density filter which can partially "block" the light from the sky to bring the entire scene within the dynamic range capabilities of the camera sensor / film.


2

I think the question is mainly about performance of various lenses. Set at 18mm your 18-105 will shoot the same field of view as the 18-55 set at 18mm. However that does not mean the pictures will come out the same. Generally speaking the 18-55 is a sharp lens across the range it servers (I dont own an 18-105 so I cant really comment). A lot of people really ...


1

I don't think your camera settings can do much about it. Changing the way to take this photograph will influence both the foggy area, but also the much clearer area you see closer to you. Make sure not to zoom as posted by Itai is good advice, every meter between you and the subject contains fog, zooming will not fix that. In Lightroom I use a Graduated ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible