Longer Tv times in bright daylight

[hammmerhead]

First of all, my manual setting skills are limited, so show me a little mercy please:D I was trying to shoot a rolling creek yesterday in a very bright day and trying to get that rolling effect. Anyway, I couldnt get my camera to stop down enough to add some time to the shutter with the lens at its widest which is 18mm. If I backed up and zoomed in of course the lens would allow to be stopped down and add some time. My problem was space to work with and not being able to back up. Im "now" guessing I could have lowered the exposure compensation in my camera settings without changing the F stop maybe?

F32 1/10th of a sec. ISO 100
http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g152/JMC_711/-1225.jpg

F22 1/5th of a sec. ISO 100
http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g152/JMC_711/-1183.jpg

[DennisW1]

First of all, my manual setting skills are limited, so show me a little mercy please:D I was trying to shoot a rolling creek yesterday in a very bright day and trying to get that rolling effect. Anyway, I couldnt get my camera to stop down enough to add some time to the shutter with the lens at its widest which is 18mm. If I backed up and zoomed in of course the lens would allow to be stopped down and add some time. My problem was space to work with and not being able to back up. Im "now" guessing I could have lowered the exposure compensation in my camera settings without changing the F stop maybe?

F32 1/10th of a sec.
http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g152/JMC_711/-1225.jpg

F22 1/5th of a sec.
http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g152/JMC_711/-1183.jpg


Drop the ISO setting if you can, you didn't specify what ISO you were shooting at. If that's not possible then consider a ND filter to cut down on light entering the lens.

Other options would be to wait for a more overcast day or later in the afternoon when the light is starting to fall off.

[LBaldwin]

The answer is a ND filter in 1 2 or 3 stops. that way you can choose the DOF you want and slwo the shutter as low as it can get for the scene.

[Ook]

Drop the ISO setting if you can, you didn't specify what ISO you were shooting at.

EXIF reveals ISO 100. You'll need a two-stop ND filter just to bring you back to f/16, so a 3-stop ND (a popular choice) will give you 1/5sec for the first shot.

The cheapest option is to get out earlier :)

[Bob_A]

Purchase a neutral density filter (or two). ND .3 for 1 stop, ND .6 for 2 stops and ND .9 for 3 stops. You can get them all the way up to ND 6.0 (20 stops!).

[Gentleman Villain]

F32 1/10th of a sec. @80mm


F22 1/5th of a sec. @ 18mm


Try not to shoot at F22 or F32 with a canon...Try and stay at about F8 for landscapes to avoid diffraction. Right now, the posted images are lacking acutance ( because of diffraction) Just wanted to give ya a heads up because it could mean adding an extra 3 stops or so of ND if you're thinking of purchasing a filter.

[hammmerhead]

Thanks to everyone for chiming in! Wow it looks like a good ND filter doesnt come cheap either. 80-150 bucks for a B&H or Hoya would be a good chunk to save for an L lens instead of an accessory for a fuzzy superzoom image. Timing and lighting and starting to ring a little clearer to me now!


Try not to shoot at F22 or F32 with a canon...Try and stay at about F8 for landscapes to avoid diffraction. Right now, the posted images are lacking acutance ( because of diffraction) Just wanted to give ya a heads up because it could mean adding an extra 3 stops or so of ND if you're thinking of purchasing a filter.

I see what you mean after looking at the pictures I took without the lens stopped way down. Here are two more that I took. The first is at F3.5 and the second at F22 and its strange, but they look pretty similar to me. Having said that, my eyes are getting worse each year with my age and I sometimes over PP and it takes my wifes eyes to pull the reigns back on me! Can you elaborate on diffraction or what is missing in the higher stop photo? Please be frank on all accounts, I would really like to improve the IQ. Thanks again guys!

F3.5 ISO 100 1/320th
http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g152/JMC_711/-1237.jpg

F22 ISO 100 1/15th
http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g152/JMC_711/-1261.jpg

[Gentleman Villain]

I see what you mean after looking at the pictures I took without the lens stopped way down. Here are two more that I took. The first is at F3.5 and the second at F22 and its strange, but they look pretty similar to me. Having said that, my eyes are getting worse each year with my age and I sometimes over PP and it takes my wifes eyes to pull the reigns back on me! Can you elaborate on diffraction or what is missing in the higher stop photo? Please be frank on all accounts, I would really like to improve the IQ. Thanks again guys!

It's a little hard for me to explain on those images because there are other things going on besides diffraction. SO it's hard to show you exactly what is caused by diffraction and isolate it....

There are a lot of technical reasons why diffraction occurs...and people will try and come up with formulas ...but none of that matters...the only thing that matters is the final image and what it looks like

When diffraction occurs....it results in a loss of acutance in the image. Acutance is micro-contrast. It's a very subtle thing...many photographers can't actually see it....some people take awhile until they can see it.. I can see it right away.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

If you take a look at the posted link....scrolll down the page until you see a section entitled "What it Looks Like"....You will see a picture that is shot at F8-F22...Take a look at that sample picture and notice how the microcontrast disappears at the smaller apertures.

If you can't see it in your own images yet...That's OK...it takes awhile to build an eye for this. But it's very good to be aware of it now so that you will learn to do things the correct way. The best advice I could give....is to try to shoot most of your landscape shots at about F8 and that should avoid most diffraction. IF you're shooting an object that is closeup....you may be able to shoot at about F11 and be OK....But try and use F8 for infinity shots.

Over time if you get used to shooting at those apertures...and if your images are definitely focused correctly and exposed correctly with controlled hihglights...Then you will definitely be able to notice the loss of acutance that happens when stopping down to F22 or so. But first, you need to see things done the correct way for awhile before having a good reference point for seeing the incorrect way. Hope that makes sense

Just wanted to give some advice...Good luck with your shooting. There are so many things to worry about when it comes to taking pictures...it never ends :D

[LBaldwin]

I think you will find that the "Milky Water" shots get pretty boring, it has been done over and over. You can use a POL filter to block some light but they really aren't meant for that application.

Many lenses have a "Sweet spot where they are sharpest overall, and like the above poster indicated it is rarely at the smallest aperture. many are from f5.6 to f11 depending on the Fl of lens and if it is a zoom or not. Fixed focal length lenses are almost always sharper. I have always wanted to adapt my LF lenses to my Canon bodies, there are ways but it is usually more hassle than it is worth.

For this type of photography you really need to sink some serious cash into a good tripod. My LF friends almost always prefer a good wooden RIES tripod to anything "modern". Wood absorbs vibration better than carbon fibre and way better than aluminum or steel. If you start haunting old camera shops, yard sales or even on occasion craigslist you will find someone selling them for a song not knowing that there are very valuable.

go here http://www.riestripod.com/

[Gentleman Villain]

I think you will find that the "Milky Water" shots get pretty boring, it has been done over and over.


aw c'mon man....milky water never gets boring :D

Art nudes of good looking women never get boring either...Yeah it's all been done a million times...but for some reason...it never gets boring

[LBaldwin]

Nude women in milky water hmmmmm

sound really chilly lol

[tonylong]

Hey, c'mon guys, you're giving ideas for the other thread -- the "I'm frustrated with my photography" thread:)!

[Gentleman Villain]

Nude women in milky water hmmmmm


I like how you think :D

[hammmerhead]

HaHa! You guys are funny! Thanks for taking the time to explain and providing the link Gentleman Villian.

For this type of photography you really need to sink some serious cash into a good tripod. My LF friends almost always prefer a good wooden RIES tripod to anything "modern". Wood absorbs vibration better than carbon fibre and way better than aluminum or steel. If you start haunting old camera shops, yard sales or even on occasion craigslist you will find someone selling them for a song not knowing that there are very valuable.


I have a Tripod, but I didnt even break it out. We were on a 30 mile ATV ride through the Ozarks mtns. and it was rough as hell and slow going...30 miles in 9 hours. One thing I found out is that Im gonna have to get a Pelican box from all the dust! Kept my camera in a zip lock and in a tamrac back pack, but busting the deep creeks were scary toting my new Camera.

[tonylong]

Okay, a tripod is needed, with either the Bulb method or Mirror Lockup and either a cable release or at least a self-timer, together with either a Neutral Density filter or a Polarizer. Put them all together and you have the shot!

[400dabuser]

OK, they do seem a bit bright, either a color polarizer or ND filters will do