D3s / D3x / 18-55 f3.5 - 5.6 / 55-200 f3.5-5.6 / 50 f1.8
Just goes to show how a little more understanding of your camera and light can do for your phototaking... well done!
To see more of the result of sunchasers newbie outing see here:
We share tips and techniques at our outings, and after pictures are posted up, we critique each other's shots so as to improve. So if anyone here is experiencing difficulty understanding concepts or getting satisfactory landscape shots, this is an avenue you can try. It's free too, but you have to sacrifice some sleep for it.
Last edited by daredevil123; 1st December 2010 at 07:27 AM.
From my experience, stopping down to a smaller aperture increases the depth of field which generally equates to a larger portion of your photo being in focus but that in no way means the details are sharper, not always.
We cannot discount taking landscapes at wide apertures altogether because it really depends on what was the original intention. Anything is possible provided you know what you are doing but using f/2.8 just because the lens allows you to isn't exactly what I'd call having the slightest idea of how photography works. The act of making an photograph is governed by intentions and techniques. You tell the equipment how they should be used, not the other way round.
as long as the photographer is happy with his shots, i think that's the most impt.
400D(RIP) | 50D | Sigma 12-24 F4.5-5.6 | Sigma 24-70 F2.8 HSM | Sigma 70-200 F2.8 HSM | NEX 5N+18-55
I've come across a friend of mine who also has very high ego on his own camera setup and photos. Tried to explain some facts or knowledge I learned from books and websites to him because I saw the photos he took using Canon 7D and L lenses are blur, grainy and underexposed, but always ended up with quarrels. One of the reason he told me is that he is an engineer but I'm in banking so has better knowledge in physics than me
So I think as long as he is happy and enjoy the hobby, just let it be.
Sometimes the appreciation of each photo comes with a little bit of subjective taste. Of course while there are broad strokes of photography that appeal to masses, intentional overexposure/underexposure/noise or grain can be a tool for emphasis of a certain subject or instilling a certain mood. If not can always blame/call it art.
Yeah, everyone has different taste. Ugly or beautiful has no definite answer, but there should be a minimum level right? Otherwise one can say a sh*t is very delicious to eat, is there such a person? I'm not saying those people with mental illness.
But for my friend's case, he claimed he is pro and refuse to listen to friend's advices when he just bought his DSLR in less than 1 month
We can intentionally make the effect of blur/noise/overexpose/underexpose to the photo, but if we don't know why the photo has such effect from the camera, then we should go to learn and find out why rather than calling it art because of ego.
Last edited by kentwong81; 3rd December 2010 at 06:39 PM.
Last edited by kentwong81; 3rd December 2010 at 11:18 PM.
First, there is something known as hyperfocal. At any apertures, there is a distance from camera to the object that will achieve hyperfocal, this is the Maximum depth of field of the aperture used. F2.8 max dof may not be as deep as F8 or smaller, but it might be just sufficient for some situations, say, photographing something after a big river bank, or an isle away from coast line.
It is down to preference, but F8 onwards is usually the sweet spot as some mentioned, and has a large amount of dof which usually covers the landscape. Maybe your friend has never tried F8.