|
 Rainier National Park
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2010 06:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 12:11 |
|
|
torgeaux posted:
 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2010 07:30
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:
Newton rings 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2010 13:02
|
|
|
Finally got my rear end up a hill: 
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2010 00:59
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2010 06:15
|
|
|
Noob questions ahead: What kind of lens is preferred for landscape photography? A wide angle or a telephoto? Similar question for picture specs: For overall clarity, should I crank the f-stop to the highest it can go (f22, f36, f.etc)? On both my gf's nifty fifty and my kit lens (  ), I cannot *focus to infinity, which makes it almost impossible to get a lot of sharpness across a distant picture. I was actually curious to know how to get rid of this problem, is there some trick to figuring it out? Also, and I know this depends on the situation, but what metering mode is typically used for landscapes? *edit 'cause I was stoopid Pastry Mistakes fucked around with this message at 15:40 on Aug 22, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2010 07:09
|
|
|
Both wide and long lenses can be used successfully for landscapes. I'd say the majority of people prefer wider angles. Using the smallest aperture (highest f/#) will give you the greatest depth of field, so both the foreground and background will be in focus, generally a desired characteristic of a landscape photo. The problem is that most lenses are sharpest around f/8 or f/11. Most lenses are significantly less sharp at their narrowest aperture so I wouldn't recommend always going to f/22+. This is another reason why people like wide angle lenses: due to the nature of the wide field of view, the depth of field (the distance in front of you that is in focus) is much bigger on wider angle lenses than on telephotos. This allows you to use an aperture closer to the lens' sweet spot (f/11 for example) and still have the foreground and background be in focus. I'm not sure what you mean by not being able to zoom to infinity. Do you mean can't focus to infinity? If so, are you focusing manually or using autofocus? If focusing manually, usually turning the focus ring all the way in one direction will actually allow you to focus just past infinity meaning nothing will be in focus. Usually infinity focus is just a smidge short of the farthest the ring will go. I don't remember exactly why they do this but someone here knows.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2010 07:34
|
|
|
Crossposting from SAD: 
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2010 06:16
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2010 07:01
|
|
|
DH, Nice, you caught anti-crepuscular rays along the Belt of Venus. Very cool. H Dread Head posted:
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2010 11:35
|
|
|
spf3million posted:I'm not sure what you mean by not being able to zoom to infinity. Do you mean can't focus to infinity? If so, are you focusing manually or using autofocus? If focusing manually, usually turning the focus ring all the way in one direction will actually allow you to focus just past infinity meaning nothing will be in focus. Usually infinity focus is just a smidge short of the farthest the ring will go. I don't remember exactly why they do this but someone here knows. I was talking to my best friend's wife and she said that apparently most lenses are not calibrated properly (because they are interchangable lenses, they do not set it to a specific body type). You can calibrate them yourself, but it is a pain in the rear end (you could also just have Canon calibrate it for you).
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2010 20:14
|
|
|
spf3million posted:Usually infinity focus is just a smidge short of the farthest the ring will go. I don't remember exactly why they do this but someone here knows. I've read there are two reasons for this. One, focus can vary depending on temperature. So focus to infinity can be in different locations (it doesn't vary that much, but it does vary). The other reason there is extra room at the end is so that the focusing mechanism doesn't slam into the end of the focus range when it reaches infinity.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2010 20:28
|
|
|
MOUNTAINS <3 Taken this summer at Big Sur (sp?), California .JPG) This place called Flåm in norway .JPG) Close to some town (forgot the name of it though :/) in New Zealand .jpg)
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2010 20:32
|
|
|
Some stuff I've been lazy about posting. Longs Peak:   Wasatch Range:  
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2010 23:15
|
|
|
Far too much great stuff in here to comment on all of them. Looks like it's been a good summer for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2010 01:16
|
|
|
Imaginary Friend posted:Close to some town (forgot the name of it though :/) in New Zealand Do you remember the general area of this, if not the town name? I'm in New Zealand for the semester and I must stand on that peak. That is breathtaking! Great shots btw.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2010 13:27
|
|
|
Looks like Lake Wakatipu, near Queenstown. Different angle: 
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2010 14:20
|
|
|
Yep that was it. Asked friend who travelled with me and he thought it was Queenstown as well. Remember to bring peanuts to illegally(?) feed the kea birds at the top so you can take awesome pics of them  for content, another pic of the eerie ship: .JPG)
Imaginary Friend fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Aug 24, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2010 21:46
|
|
|
This is near Queenstown too, you just see Lake Wakatipu centre right  
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2010 22:13
|
|
|
Talimena Scenic Drive in Oklahoma/Arkansas (map):  
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2010 21:47
|
|
|
Beautiful shots, quazi. Are those blended or single exposures?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2010 22:18
|
|
|
They're all single exposures, but I had to use a 3-stop GND filter to keep the sky from going completely white. Also edit: Nope! It was from an increase in color temperature in Lightroom! (that's good, because those filters are getting harder to find.) quazi fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Aug 31, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2010 22:35
|
|
|
Some snapshot/landscapes I took in PEI Not sure how I feel about the upper clouds in this one - they were grey like that out of the camera so what can you do.  
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2010 16:08
|
|
|
quazi posted:My god that is stunning 
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2010 16:27
|
|
|
A couple more from my trip to Utah. Spotted Wolf Canyon in central Utah.  20100817-IMG_4566 Pano (flickr export).jpg by beastofexmoor, on Flickr From the other side.  20100817-IMG_4586 Pano.jpg by beastofexmoor, on Flickr And one more from the Olympic Peninsula over the weekend. Who needs a ND filter when it's 20 minutes past sundown and your in forest?  20100828-IMG_4758.jpg by beastofexmoor, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2010 19:10
|
|
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:And one more from the Olympic Peninsula over the weekend. Who needs a ND filter when it's 20 minutes past sundown and your in forest? Is it windy or are your trees in the back out of focus?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2010 19:25
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:Is it windy or are your trees in the back out of focus? Well it was F11 @ 10mm (My lens needs to be repaired and always reports) so the DOF should be enough. My guess is that there was a slight breeze. I know the bushes to the right of the falls were moving like crazy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2010 19:54
|
|
|
I like how this picture turned out. My cousin taking a nap on a mountaintop at a grouse hunt in 2008.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2010 08:04
|
|
|
I've gotten into photography over the last month or so, im very, very new to this, but I had a chance to go down to the local fields with my little PAS and take a few shots and here's what I managed;  
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2010 18:10
|
|
|
Heintron posted:I like how this picture turned out. My cousin taking a nap on a mountaintop at a grouse hunt in 2008. I like this a lot. The post looks a little tone-mapped to me (is it?), but it totally works for me. Thirteenth Step posted:I've gotten into photography over the last month or so, im very, very new to this, but I had a chance to go down to the local fields with my little PAS and take a few shots and here's what I managed; Assuming these are HDR as well? I like the composition of the first one the best. The second one has a nice sky, but nothing from the lower third grabs me. The third has promise but I think it'd be better if you'd gotten rid of the empty space in the bottom 1/4 of the frame, either by cropping or moving closer the hay.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2010 19:34
|
|
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:Assuming these are HDR as well?  
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2010 07:43
|
|
|
Yeah sorry, I was experimenting with HDR. I tried to pick a day where there were some nicer clouds around but i've found over the last few weeks its either completely gray or no clouds at all 
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2010 19:19
|
|
|
Some photos taken on holiday:   I only took a handful of digital shots, Kodachrome to follow
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2010 20:13
|
|
|
Thirteenth Step posted:Yeah sorry, I was experimenting with HDR. I tried to pick a day where there were some nicer clouds around but i've found over the last few weeks its either completely gray or no clouds at all Sorry, wasn't meaning to call you out or anything. It's pretty difficult to get the non blown out sky and properly exposed ground with a P&S (especially if it only shoots JPG). I was mostly just curious.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2010 21:17
|
|
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:I think it'd be better if you'd gotten rid of the empty space in the bottom 1/4 of the frame, either by cropping or moving closer the hay. Just did a quick edit based on your advice, i think it looks better now. I also gave it a touch more exposure to match the other hay shot, although without any real clouds it does still look very plain and boring.  BeastOfExmoor posted:Sorry, wasn't meaning to call you out or anything. It's pretty difficult to get the non blown out sky and properly exposed ground with a P&S (especially if it only shoots JPG). I was mostly just curious. No worries.
Thirteenth Step fucked around with this message at 12:36 on Sep 6, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 12:29
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2010 05:51
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2010 10:07
|
|
|
  Dumb question directed at the community in general: In a lot of your guys' photos, the sky and atmosphere look incredibly clear. Are you reducing haze in post? Or is that just from the conditions when you took the shot? If you're doing it in post, how? If it's the conditions at the time, any advice on how to predict haze-free atmosphere? Is it just humidity?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2010 14:23
|
|
|
thefreshmaker posted:Dumb question directed at the community in general: In a lot of your guys' photos, the sky and atmosphere look incredibly clear. Are you reducing haze in post? Or is that just from the conditions when you took the shot? If you're doing it in post, how? If it's the conditions at the time, any advice on how to predict haze-free atmosphere? Is it just humidity?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2010 14:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 12:11 |
|
|
You can somewhat compensate for haze with exposure and contrast comp, but it's never going to be ideal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2010 15:55
|
|
