Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: f16 - too soft?  (Read 8440 times)

erpman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 61
Re: f16 - too soft?
« Reply #20 on: August 02, 2014, 03:28:12 pm »

My testing shows that diffraction on my d800e, which I believe have the same sensor, starts to get visible at around f/9. From there you have up to about f/13 where you can recover most of it with deconvolution, but at f/16 some detail is lost.

Unless you want to do focus stacking, I recommend setting the sharpen radius in camera raw to about 1.1, and the strength/amount to about 40-50. Keep the detail slider low maybe 10. Maybe pull the clarity slider up to 10-20. 

Then do another round of sharpening in PS using the smart sharpen filter set to "lens blur", with "more accurate" checked. Use a radius around 0.9-1.2 and adjust the amount to taste. The smart sharpen filter uses deconvolution so it might be able to recover some more detail.

I highly recommend helicon focus, itīs very precise, and if you get the helicon remote app you can use a tablet as a remote control for your camera, which then does the stacking for you, and you get reproducible and predictable results.

I would not go below f8 when focus stacking, as you risk have problems with uneven sharpness. You donīt lose detail at f8-13, and if itīs a little soft you fix that with the procedure described above.
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8901
Re: f16 - too soft?
« Reply #21 on: August 02, 2014, 05:38:37 pm »

Also, is there a chart or something?

Hi,

Yes there is a chart for the plane of focus, the DoF is relatively vertical (more perpendicular to the plane of focus).

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

erpman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 61
Re: f16 - too soft?
« Reply #22 on: August 02, 2014, 05:51:19 pm »

There is also an app called simple DOF that lets you specify the CoC that the calculations are based on. I use 0.20 to be on the safe side. Lens markings are usually based on 0.30 which is too big for the d800 sensor.
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8901
Re: f16 - too soft?
« Reply #23 on: August 02, 2014, 06:28:04 pm »

There is also an app called simple DOF that lets you specify the CoC that the calculations are based on. I use 0.20 to be on the safe side. Lens markings are usually based on 0.30 which is too big for the d800 sensor.

Hi,

Indeed, 0.030 mm (!) is way too large for the CoC. My DOF output quality tool puts it all in perspective, for the specific focusing distances (perpendicular to the focus plane). Of course, the D810 is selectable from the predefined list of brands/models since it was announced.

Cheers,
Barr
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13880
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: f16 - too soft?
« Reply #24 on: August 02, 2014, 07:01:42 pm »

I've been playing with my 24mm PC-e and the d810 live view today, using my dining room table as a subject. Yeah, split screen only works for portrait orientation because the split is locked on the horizontal axis. Stupid limitation, IMO. I hope they fix that in a firmware update.

I really, REALLY miss live view zoom with wheel functionality from my D3s. Pushing the zoom in and out buttons repeatedly is way slower.

Are you aware that it is possible to customize the behavior of the central button the rear joystick so that one activations jumps to either 100% or 200% zoom in live view?

Cheers,
Bernard

trevarthan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 136
Re: f16 - too soft?
« Reply #25 on: August 02, 2014, 09:54:06 pm »

Are you aware that it is possible to customize the behavior of the central button the rear joystick so that one activations jumps to either 100% or 200% zoom in live view?

Cheers,
Bernard

Well I am now! You just saved me nine clicks each way, man! Thanks!
Logged

trevarthan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 136
Re: f16 - too soft?
« Reply #26 on: August 03, 2014, 12:29:22 am »

Hi,

Yes there is a chart for the plane of focus, the DoF is relatively vertical (more perpendicular to the plane of focus).

Cheers,
Bart


I read this, and I'm really really excited to see the math behind the tilt effect (well, charts and diagrams anyway - they suggest the math at least). This really clears a lot up for me and I think with a tape measure I can now quickly set my tilt focus, which is GREAT news.

However, it looks like this chart is for Canon lenses, as it has 90mm. Is there one for my 85mm Nikon?
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8901
Re: f16 - too soft?
« Reply #27 on: August 03, 2014, 03:55:22 am »

Is there one for my 85mm Nikon?

Hi,

It's easy to calculate and make a table for your lens and for the distances relevant to your type of subjects.
Tilt angle in degrees = arcsin( (focal length / 1000) / Jdistance ), with focal length in millimetres, and J distance in meters.
So for an 85mm it becomes: Tilt angle = arcsin( 0.085 / Jdistance )

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

trevarthan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 136
Re: f16 - too soft?
« Reply #28 on: August 05, 2014, 09:02:36 am »

Hi,

It's easy to calculate and make a table for your lens and for the distances relevant to your type of subjects.
Tilt angle in degrees = arcsin( (focal length / 1000) / Jdistance ), with focal length in millimetres, and J distance in meters.
So for an 85mm it becomes: Tilt angle = arcsin( 0.085 / Jdistance )

Cheers,
Bart

Thank you. Given that information, I took an hour and a half this morning and created this sweet Google Spreadsheet of Nikon Tilt in Degrees for Distance: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kIL55Bet0PQnXhW5gHYf2BPyV0vG-XlLEL9E8ujUyFY/edit?usp=sharing

I've also attached an image version.

Logged

John MacLean

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 169
    • John MacLean Photography
Re: f16 - too soft?
« Reply #29 on: August 11, 2014, 01:52:36 am »

So how many actual filters did you have in front of the lens? A polarizer and 1 ND? f8 would surely be better and tilting your lens about 1° down from the top would be about perfect. You don't have any real serious DOF needs in your shot since the FG isn't right in your face.

I've had the Canon TS-E 17mm since it was introduced, and last month I got the 24mm II. Luckily they have easy user rotation in the field, so I don't need a Phillips screwdriver to swap directions!

Here's a good video to use your live view for nailing focus. https://www.joshuacripps.com/2014/06/focus-depth-of-field-landscape-photos/ And here's an article I wrote about the dreaded diffraction! https://www.facebook.com/notes/john-maclean-photography/pay-it-forward-photo-tip-1-dont-shoot-your-lens-at-f22/10151671520967312
Logged

Glenn NK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 313
Re: f16 - too soft?
« Reply #30 on: August 11, 2014, 02:24:21 am »

I've been using the following method for a couple of years (I learned on Naturescapes.net from Royce Howland):

Tilt/Shift Without Tables - by Royce Howland

1.   Using LV dialed up to 10X, adjust focus to nail infinity focus first, with the lens centered out (no tilt, no shift).  Get your baseline exposure and focus first.

2.   Shift to compose (if required).

3.   Tilt for DOF.  Use LV at 10X to determine how much tilt is needed to bring the FG into focus.

4.   Repeat procedure until no further adjustment are required.


I threw out my tables shortly after learning this method.  Seems to work just fine.

Glenn
Logged
Economics:  the study of achieving infinite growth with finite resources

John MacLean

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 169
    • John MacLean Photography
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8901
Re: f16 - too soft?
« Reply #32 on: August 11, 2014, 04:35:12 am »

1.   Using LV dialed up to 10X, adjust focus to nail infinity focus first, with the lens centered out (no tilt, no shift).  Get your baseline exposure and focus first.

Hi Glenn,

I still do not think that initial focusing on the infinity point is the most efficient starting point. It depends on lens design, but e.g. for the T/S-E 24mm II, I can achieve results faster by starting at a focus distance that's a bit shorter, and with the T/S-E 90mm a focus distance closer to 1/3rd of the distance is even a better starting point to get there faster.

Starting at half the distance may be a more useful rule of thumb, if one doesn't know the lens more intimately already (like my 90mm example).

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13880
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: f16 - too soft?
« Reply #33 on: August 11, 2014, 05:55:05 am »

Too bad we don't have in DSLR lenses assymetrical tilt as on the Sinar/Ebony, that removes mostly the need to iterate to achieve focus.

Cheers,
Bernard

Herbc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 387
Re: f16 - too soft?
« Reply #34 on: August 11, 2014, 11:42:18 am »

I'm not very good at links and such, but if you go to b&h and type in Sony 5 inch screen, that should do it.
They are about $500.
Logged

trevarthan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 136
Re: f16 - too soft?
« Reply #35 on: August 11, 2014, 02:01:03 pm »

I don't mind carrying a tape measure. I've found that 90% of the time the tape measure and chart method gets my near focus point fairly sharp and all I have to do is focus to bring the far point in focus. I'm loving this method. Takes all the frustration out of the process. I'm making sharp images with tilt in a tenth of the time. I make them as quickly as I can perform a measurement and turn the focus ring. I don't know why anyone would do it any other way.


Glass Pedestrian Bridge and Hunter Museum at Sunset by Trevarthan, on Flickr


Glass Pedestrian Bridge and Aquarium at Sunset 24mm by Trevarthan, on Flickr


Glass Pedestrian Bridge (person merged out) by Trevarthan, on Flickr


Latest Iteration *Explored* by Trevarthan, on Flickr
Logged

Glenn NK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 313
Re: f16 - too soft?
« Reply #36 on: August 11, 2014, 03:45:34 pm »

Hi Glenn,

I still do not think that initial focusing on the infinity point is the most efficient starting point. It depends on lens design, but e.g. for the T/S-E 24mm II, I can achieve results faster by starting at a focus distance that's a bit shorter, and with the T/S-E 90mm a focus distance closer to 1/3rd of the distance is even a better starting point to get there faster.

Starting at half the distance may be a more useful rule of thumb, if one doesn't know the lens more intimately already (like my 90mm example).

Cheers,
Bart

I don't disagree with this at all - in reality, I often focus on a "distant" object that is a hundred metres away - as we know, the difference between infinity and one hundred meters is negligible.

Glenn
Logged
Economics:  the study of achieving infinite growth with finite resources

Ann JS

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 59
Re: f16 - too soft?
« Reply #37 on: August 11, 2014, 05:41:43 pm »

I like Zerene Stacker for stacking – particularly because of the way that its non-destructive retouching has been designed and implemented.
Logged

Glenn NK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 313
Re: f16 - too soft?
« Reply #38 on: August 11, 2014, 06:14:19 pm »

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/focusing-ts.shtml

More tables?  Not necessary using the method I described (I didn't come up with it, so can't take credit for it).

I'd love to stack landscapes (have Zerene which I use for flowers when the wind isn't blowing), but when the wind is blowing on the water, the waves don't stack too well.  :)

Glenn
« Last Edit: August 11, 2014, 06:19:25 pm by Glenn NK »
Logged
Economics:  the study of achieving infinite growth with finite resources

trevarthan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 136
Re: f16 - too soft?
« Reply #39 on: August 11, 2014, 08:00:43 pm »

More tables?  Not necessary using the method I described (I didn't come up with it, so can't take credit for it).

I'd love to stack landscapes (have Zerene which I use for flowers when the wind isn't blowing), but when the wind is blowing on the water, the waves don't stack too well.  :)

Glenn

You list tables in that article, and you don't list a table for the 85mm focal length. So, yeah. More tables. No big deal. It's just math.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up