Mist

by Jakub

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

13

f/16 will give you sharper image than f/1.4. Yes, diffraction does kick-in at f/16, but it's still not as bad as the optical flaws that are pronounced at f/1.4 in pretty much every f/1.4 lens out there. (see: tests of your particular lens, resolution charts) Also lens coma and astigmatism are worse when lens is wide open than when it's stopped-down. That's ...


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

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 ...


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

If so, which would be more advisable? Assuming you don't have stability or motion issues and depth of field is not a concern then f/16 would be more advisable than f/1.4 as ultra-fast lenses show several image degrading aberrations when the aperture is wide open. However f/5.6 would probably be better still, as diffraction starts to kick in past this ...


6

There are a few different ways to emphasize crepuscular rays in post production. 1) One of the ways those crepuscular rays can be enhanced is with any tool that can provide volumetric lighting effects. The one I use is a tool called Rays from Digital Film Tools. As you mentioned, this type of tool may be the type to add fake rays to a photo. However, I ...


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

Assuming you are using a tripod, the shutter speed will make little difference in itself. If you are hand-holding, a faster shutter speed will help to eliminate shake. You also have the consideration of any moving objects in the scene, like trees, water, or clouds - a slower shutter speed will blur them. However, image quality is rarely at its best at ...


3

The distance of the objects is not a factor on your decision on the shutter speed. Their relative movement velocity related to the camera as well as your composition intentions and the available light is what really matters. The fact that you ask the question hints that you don't know about the artistic differences between a large aperture and a small one ...


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

If the question is meant literally f/1.4 vs f/16, then I would say 16, because there are only handful of lenses that are good enough at f/1.4 to shoot landscape type of photography in great technical quality. But my mindset about setting aperture (for these types of shots or others) is different. In this kind of photography you should set your aperture to: ...


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

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

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 ...



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