Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Sussex Landscapes on February 11, 2012, 04:35:32 pm
-
having read many of the d800 threads regarding this and that, `e` or not, one thing i havent seen discussed is about focusing. with the abilty to produce massive images, even without upscaling focusing needs to be spot on.
given that live view will help to a degree of fine tuneability, dof will become a problem surely given that an increase in f stop to get prefered dof will increase diffraction and result in softer images.
so as i see it, wouldnt you be better of stacking images at a smaller f8, but again that in its own right will cause additional pp time and problems. or forget your dof and just focus on infinity or the main subjetc itself. ( i am talking landscapes here)
as i dont have or use of ultra high rez cam`s what will be the best method, trial and error, carry on as normal?
s
-
having read many of the d800 threads regarding this and that, `e` or not, one thing i havent seen discussed is about focusing. with the abilty to produce massive images, even without upscaling focusing needs to be spot on.
given that live view will help to a degree of fine tuneability, dof will become a problem surely given that an increase in f stop to get prefered dof will increase diffraction and result in softer images.
so as i see it, wouldnt you be better of stacking images at a smaller f8, but again that in its own right will cause additional pp time and problems. or forget your dof and just focus on infinity or the main subjetc itself. ( i am talking landscapes here)
as i dont have or use of ultra high rez cam`s what will be the best method, trial and error, carry on as normal?
The options remain what they have always been:
- use Tilt Shift lenses if allowed,
- use DoF stacking using software like Helicon Focus, keeping in mind that this is pretty demanding at the time of capture,
- accept the fact that not everything will be sharp in your image.
The problem is in fact exactly the same with MF bodies like the IQ160, only worse if you are in need of DoF.
All other stuff also needs to be improved if you intend to tap into the resolution potential, starting with tripod, shooting technique,...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Just to add to Bernard's comments,
the abilty to produce massive images
needs to bring with it the realization that this employs a greater geometrical enlargement of the image from its original size. The issues he raises all stem from that - all blurs and imperfections will also be enlarged.
-
Hi Bernard - Regarding Helicon Focus, you mentioned that route being demanding at the time of capture. As I am considering this option (I don't have any Nikkor T/S lenses) do you feel it's viable? If so, what are the considerations to keep in mind?
Thanks!
Phil
-
Hi Bernard - Regarding Helicon Focus, you mentioned that route being demanding at the time of capture. As I am considering this option (I don't have any Nikkor T/S lenses) do you feel it's viable? If so, what are the considerations to keep in mind?
Hi Phil,
It depends on the subject matter that you are shooting. Stationary subjects are easiest (subject motion can be a nightmare), subjects without occlusions are easier than the ones with occlusions, constant lighting make life easier, overlapping (or at least joining) DOF zones look more natural.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Bernard - Regarding Helicon Focus, you mentioned that route being demanding at the time of capture. As I am considering this option (I don't have any Nikkor T/S lenses) do you feel it's viable? If so, what are the considerations to keep in mind?
Hi Phil,
Two examples shot using this technique combined with panoramic stitching. The first must contain about 100 images, the second one several hundreds.
http://m.flickr.com/#/photos/bernardlanguillier/4130622362/in/set-72157624049687264/
http://m.flickr.com/#/photos/bernardlanguillier/4130622362/in/set-72157624049687264/
The first could have been achieved with a 5x7 or 8x10 camera, the second not.
The main challenge is the time it can take, the second one is the risk of not capturing enough frames to achieve the expected result.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Thanks Bernard! I'm primarily looking at the new camera (I've pre-ordered the D800) for landscape. I was hoping 3-5 shots at f/8 or thereabouts would probably do the job on most scenes...anymore and the file size would be huge!
I suppose I really ought to spring for the 45 and 85mm T/S glass but that's another 4k! >:(
I guess I'll just have to play with it and see what delivers the best results.
I appreciate your input,
Phil
-
Thanks Bernard! I'm primarily looking at the new camera (I've pre-ordered the D800) for landscape. I was hoping 3-5 shots at f/8 or thereabouts would probably do the job on most scenes...anymore and the file size would be huge!
I suppose I really ought to spring for the 45 and 85mm T/S glass but that's another 4k! >:(
I guess I'll just have to play with it and see what delivers the best results.
Well, if you remove stitching from the equation it becomes much more manageable.
I use the 24 pce and it is for sure an excellent lens also.
-
If you haven't checked the HeliconFocus site I suggest you do so. They have quite a bit of excellent information and technique suggestions. The main problem I have found in using it outdoors is movement caused by wind or even a slight breeze. I think it was originally designed for lab use where conditions can be controlled, and outdoor photographers were able to use it also in some conditions. When conditions are right it is amazing.
-
Hi,
This may be of interest: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/29-handling-the-dof-trap
Best regards
Erik
Hi Bernard - Regarding Helicon Focus, you mentioned that route being demanding at the time of capture. As I am considering this option (I don't have any Nikkor T/S lenses) do you feel it's viable? If so, what are the considerations to keep in mind?
Thanks!
Phil
-
Reading these posts, and I don't mean just this thread, here, I wonder to myself whatever became of the pleasure associated with photography? Rather than of the thrill of capturing something beautiful, I read about the chores, the complex mechanics associated with doing it. Even at my advanced age I couldn't find/create the mindset within myself to spend the time and effort doing all of this stuff in order to turn something as simple as taking a photograph into a gigantic production worthy of Hollywood. Or Pinewood, for that matter; but then, I'm still in the bloody woods of one kind or another wherever I happen to find myself.
I suspect that this is really part of a different thing: that folks who once were drawn to photography might have vanished like the friendly local dino, to be replaced by others who are attracted by the science rather than the art of the thing. I've said before that were digital all that existed when I was young, I wouldn't have dreamed of becoming a photographer, never mind a professional one; I'd have hated the whole idea of it! It used to be the attraction, that visceral kick of touchy-feely that was photography, that drew me in and wouldn't let go. That first wet print coming to life in the dish... the first time I did it knowing I was getting paid for doing it, nope, my first digital print sliding out of a printer was no match for that, bears no living fond memory at all; nada, zilch, just mechanical inevitability. So friggin' sad that it's come to this, that so much, well, goodness, has been lost.
;-(
Rob C
-
Reading these posts, and I don't mean just this thread, here, I wonder to myself whatever became of the pleasure associated with photography? Rather than of the thrill of capturing something beautiful, I read about the chores, the complex mechanics associated with doing it. Even at my advanced age I couldn't find/create the mindset within myself to spend the time and effort doing all of this stuff in order to turn something as simple as taking a photograph into a gigantic production worthy of Hollywood. Or Pinewood, for that matter; but then, I'm still in the bloody woods of one kind or another wherever I happen to find myself.
I suspect that this is really part of a different thing: that folks who once were drawn to photography might have vanished like the friendly local dino, to be replaced by others who are attracted by the science rather than the art of the thing. I've said before that were digital all that existed when I was young, I wouldn't have dreamed of becoming a photographer, never mind a professional one; I'd have hated the whole idea of it! It used to be the attraction, that visceral kick of touchy-feely that was photography, that drew me in and wouldn't let go. That first wet print coming to life in the dish... the first time I did it knowing I was getting paid for doing it, nope, my first digital print sliding out of a printer was no match for that, bears no living fond memory at all; nada, zilch, just mechanical inevitability. So friggin' sad that it's come to this, that so much, well, goodness, has been lost.
Well, you can use a Nikon J1, press the shutter and have a sharp image 0.2 sec later that has the same level of quality as a Canon 1Ds, somewhere between 35mm and MF film quality...
Photography has never been this easy.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
You think?
You think cameras create images and set them apart?
I'm not in Rob's school, but neither am I with those who believe that the differences between cameras have much if anything to do with creating images.
I know photographers who are earning their living, who are at the top of their profession, who are creating stunning images and who are using what many here would consider outdated and inadequate equipment.
Reading these pages you'd be forgiven for thinking if you're not using the latest and greatest or endlessly cobbling images together then you ain't in the game.
I agree 100%, the J1 is widely perceived on this forum as a non camera which is why I used as an exemple of how recent cameras can make shooting very non technical for those who would want that.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
How would you take photographs of a seascape using focus stacking ? ? ? ?
:P
-
I've done some focus stacking in landscape photography. It is very unlike macro focus stacking.
While you in macro focus stacking have extremely short DOF and need to do say 20 - 100 shots, in landscape settings you can do often do with only 2, one near, one far. The close one could be at a smaller aperture, since close details are generally larger and do not require same resolution as far details. Say combine a f/11 near and f/8 far.
Since lenses generally have some focus breathing, the stackers need to resample the images to match them in size. This means that due to scaling the highest level of sharpness is lost, in other words it is generally meaningless to do f/4 or f/5.6 (which may be the sharpest) instead of taking a bit of diffraction hit at f/8.
For "print quality" stacked landscapes I prefer doing the masking manually. I use software to line up and compensate for the focus breathing (using Hugin, which is a panotools based panorama stitcher actually, but can be used for this type of stuff too) and mask manually. For quick results a dedicated focus stacker is preferable though.
-
How would you take photographs of a seascape using focus stacking ? ? ? ?
:P
Moving water is a problem of course. However, if it is relatively calm, stitching/stacking often work very well if wide blends are employed. However, as a photographer it does feel much better to put a seam over a static area than moving water, even if the resulting seam is undetectable.
In a seascape scene the water is rarely calm, and in that case focus stacking technique is not very suitable. But using tilt often work well. I certainly use tilt more often than I use focus stacking, if I can "solve" the DoF problem well enough with tilt I prefer using that. With higher res cameras it seems I'm moving towards a style where I accept that not everything is perfect focus too.
-
Concerning complexity of modern digital photography, I do now and then think of moving to large format film, but turned off by how difficult it is to work with (and the relatively high investment cost). There are just so many things that can go wrong, without having a chance to correct it. I have not totally scrapped the idea though, there's something beautiful with shooting on film, capturing everything in a single exposure.
High resolution photography has always been a bit messy technically. But I find it also extremely satisfying succeeding to capture a beautiful scene in very high technical quality.
-
I remember the darkroom. Loading in the dark, waiting for film to dry, spotting, trying to get dust off everything. Trying to not get chemicals on myself. The smell. Trial and error with enlarging times, dodging and burning. Not my cup of tea.
There was nothing inherently better about the mechanics of developing pictures in analog fashion versus digital in my book. And digital created control over color film that analog photographers never dreamed of.
Reading these posts, and I don't mean just this thread, here, I wonder to myself whatever became of the pleasure associated with photography? Rather than of the thrill of capturing something beautiful, I read about the chores, the complex mechanics associated with doing it. Even at my advanced age I couldn't find/create the mindset within myself to spend the time and effort doing all of this stuff in order to turn something as simple as taking a photograph into a gigantic production worthy of Hollywood. Or Pinewood, for that matter; but then, I'm still in the bloody woods of one kind or another wherever I happen to find myself.
I suspect that this is really part of a different thing: that folks who once were drawn to photography might have vanished like the friendly local dino, to be replaced by others who are attracted by the science rather than the art of the thing. I've said before that were digital all that existed when I was young, I wouldn't have dreamed of becoming a photographer, never mind a professional one; I'd have hated the whole idea of it! It used to be the attraction, that visceral kick of touchy-feely that was photography, that drew me in and wouldn't let go. That first wet print coming to life in the dish... the first time I did it knowing I was getting paid for doing it, nope, my first digital print sliding out of a printer was no match for that, bears no living fond memory at all; nada, zilch, just mechanical inevitability. So friggin' sad that it's come to this, that so much, well, goodness, has been lost.
;-(
Rob C
-
dof will become a problem surely given that an increase in f stop to get prefered dof will increase diffraction and result in softer images.
DoF is proportional to format, not pixel pitch. Your images will not look softer compared to a lower resolution Nikon 35mm sensor--if your image is sharp, why is dividing the image into smaller pixels going to change that?
This idea of linking DoF and pixel pitch comes from pixel peeping. 100% monitor views are in no way a real world condition for viewing images and gives a exaggerated view of DoF and sharpness.
-
If your image is sharp, why is dividing the image into smaller pixels going to change that?
"Bookmarked": a nice one line refutation of multiple fallacies and marketing smoke-screens about alleged disadvantages of improving sensor resolution.
-
DoF is proportional to format, not pixel pitch. Your images will not look softer compared to a lower resolution Nikon 35mm sensor--if your image is sharp, why is dividing the image into smaller pixels going to change that?
This idea of linking DoF and pixel pitch comes from pixel peeping. 100% monitor views are in no way a real world condition for viewing images and gives a exaggerated view of DoF and sharpness.
Agreed. However, someone who likes to make large , e.g. landscape, prints will be tempted to use the extra MP to make bigger prints by keeping the ppi the same - why "throw away that expensive detail by keeping the size the same?" Sort of like "printing at 100%", based on the printer display, not monitor pixel pitch. This is the print version of keeping the monitor viewing at a fixed percent to compare low and high MP sensors. That's when the relationship arises in the print world. Is that to be called "print peeping" when we fix ppi ? ;D
-
DoF is proportional to format, not pixel pitch. Your images will not look softer compared to a lower resolution Nikon 35mm sensor--if your image is sharp, why is dividing the image into smaller pixels going to change that?
This idea of linking DoF and pixel pitch comes from pixel peeping. 100% monitor views are in no way a real world condition for viewing images and gives a exaggerated view of DoF and sharpness.
Phew!! I was beginning to think I was going mad! Surely the DOF is what it is. A D800 just allows you to see how shallow the DOF is, whereas a D700 covers it up with low resolution!
Also - much as I love my PCE lenses, I seriously doubt that they are a solution to this "problem". You would need to spend hours adjusting tilt and focus to improve the image, and with the help of live view on a screen the size of a cinema. On top of which, they change the plane of focus, so things off that plane are still out of focus, so you could get the tree trunks from here to infinity in focus, but the branches would still be blurred.
-
I remember the darkroom. Loading in the dark, waiting for film to dry, spotting, trying to get dust off everything. Trying to not get chemicals on myself. The smell. Trial and error with enlarging times, dodging and burning. Not my cup of tea.
There was nothing inherently better about the mechanics of developing pictures in analog fashion versus digital in my book. And digital created control over color film that analog photographers never dreamed of.
I'm sure that in many ways what you say is accurate; however, that's not my point: my point is that the mindset of the two cultures is different. I know as much as anyone here about professional darkrooms, both b/W and colour; I spent years of my life working in both media, thank you very much, and understand the problems that arise.
But as I said, that's not the point. The point is the feeling that the old one gives that's absolutely missing in the modern version of printing. It has pretty much nothing to do with which will give you the closest version to a hypothetical truth, whatever that might be; photography has always been about interpretation and it still is. I have yet to see or make the first digital b/w glossy print that comes near a WSG 2D one.
Rob C
-
Phew!! I was beginning to think I was going mad! Surely the DOF is what it is. A D800 just allows you to see how shallow the DOF is, whereas a D700 covers it up with low resolution!
Also - much as I love my PCE lenses, I seriously doubt that they are a solution to this "problem". You would need to spend hours adjusting tilt and focus to improve the image, and with the help of live view on a screen the size of a cinema. On top of which, they change the plane of focus, so things off that plane are still out of focus, so you could get the tree trunks from here to infinity in focus, but the branches would still be blurred.
DoF is only what it is after you decide on the enlargement and viewing distance. Change either of those and the DoF will change.
With PCE/tilt-shift lenses, you can benefit when shooting planar surfaces - and 10x live view, especially with DoF preview button and exposure simulation on engaged, gives you an experience/control something akin to LF ground glass with a loupe - near/far/tweak rinse and repeat!. The example you cite for trees and leaves is nothing new because the subject does not conform to a planar surface. Even film camera movements suffer that.
-
Using film definition of DOF (on sensor fixed size CoC, regardless of the system's resolving power) is just confusing in the digital era. In the film days the format size (=film size) kind of set the limit of resolution. This is no longer true. With very sharp lenses and small pixels one can get a lot of resolution out of smaller formats. For maximum DOF applications the smaller formats will use shorter focal lengths and can thus have larger apertures (less diffraction, allows smaller pixel size) for the same DOF, so they behave exactly the same as larger formats with the same resolving power except that the focal length and f-number is different.
-
that's not my point
We get it, Rob. You suffer from a serious case of 'good old days' bias. Comes through crystal clear.
-
We get it, Rob. You suffer from a serious case of 'good old days' bias. Comes through crystal clear.
Well that's a relief; for a moment there I thought I'd been having difficulties with making myself understood! But hell, you were able to get it...
;-)
Rob C