what am i doing wrong

[iddycourt]

This weekend just gone, went out with my camera, kit lens, and polariser filter.
I am finally happy with the sky not being washed out, I have a thing for clouds you see.
I am happy with the clouds, colours are amazing, but everything else is blah
What could i have done to make this a better photo?
I think what bothers me, is the people, i think theres a slight hint of blur.
i am still learning about aperture, always confused on what setting is best. (Have purchased understanding exposure, but i learn more by visuals, not words)

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j115/iddycourt/DPP_0002-1.jpg

AV mode
1/1000 shutter speed
3.5 aperture
no flash

[TomMessenger:Photo]

If you increase the F#, you will increase the depth of focus. At F3.5 as you used, you will have a very narrow depth of focus.

Tom

[iddycourt]

so, say i had used f8, the motion of the people would have decreased?
Is there a general aperture to use on a sunny outdoor day?
i am learning as i travel, and would like half decent photos while im still learning

[Robert_Lay]

so, say i had used f8, the motion of the people would have decreased?
Is there a general aperture to use on a sunny outdoor day?
i am learning as i travel, and would like half decent photos while im still learning

No - do not ever try to relate the aperture to the movement of either the camera or the subjects - they are not related.

By stopping down from your f/3.5 to a hypothetical f/8, you would increase your depth of field - i.e., the range over which everything will be in focus.

In order to "freeze" motion due to camera movement or subject movement you want a faster and faster shutter speed. For objects further away, you can use a more moderate shutter speed, while close at hand objects that are moving fast require higher shutter speeds.
[1/2000" = a high shutter speed; 1/2" is an extremely slow shutter speed]

In general, shutter speeds will range from 1/60" to 1/1000".

In your picture the sun is behind you and the lighting is very contrasty.

I cannot tell whether there are any focus or shutter speed issues, but at 1/1000" shutter speed, I would doubt that there will be any shutter speed issues with the people at this distance. If there is anything wrong with your picture, it is probably related to depth of field or focusing issues.

[iddycourt]

No - do not ever try to relate the aperture to the movement of either the camera or the subjects - they are not related.

By stopping down from your f/3.5 to a hypothetical f/8, you would increase your depth of field - i.e., the range over which everything will be in focus.

In order to "freeze" motion due to camera movement or subject movement you want a faster and faster shutter speed. For objects further away, you can use a more moderate shutter speed, while close at hand objects that are moving fast require higher shutter speeds.
[1/2000" = a high shutter speed; 1/2" is an extremely slow shutter speed]

In general, shutter speeds will range from 1/60" to 1/1000".

In your picture the sun is behind you and the lighting is very contrasty.

I cannot tell whether there are any focus or shutter speed issues, but at 1/1000" shutter speed, I would doubt that there will be any shutter speed issues with the people at this distance. If there is anything wrong with your picture, it is probably related to depth of field or focusing issues.

I really like this photo, the colours stand out to me, but the people bug me.
If i was to put my camera into TV mode, with a shutter speed of 1/1000, or 1/2000 i would freeze the movement? Have i got this right?

if this photo had just been taken and you saw it on your computer for the first time, would you be happy?

[Walkingmanblues]

so, say i had used f8, the motion of the people would have decreased?


You froze those people dead in their tracks at that shutter speed. It's just that they aren't in focus. If you stopped down your aperature opening (make the f-stop # bigger) to say f9 or f11 then they would all have been as sharp and clear as your building. You'll notice that the people walking just below the building are much sharper than those in the foreground. The bigger that f-stop number, the more "depth of field" you have, or in other words, more of the picture in focus.

[iddycourt]

for some reason, i thought u had to have a small aperture such as f5.6 for a landscape photo. its all so confusing. i just went through alot of my landscape photos from that day, everyone in the pictures is blurred.. tad frustrating, but big learning curve i guess
i shall try f11 and alot of different apertures till i learn more about the correct aperture for the setting

[iddycourt]

other than the blurred people
what do you think of the photo?

[DunnoWhen]

i thought u had to have a small aperture ........... for a landscape photo

In simple terms...

You are partly correct, for large depths of field you do. Unfortunately the smaller the aperture (hole), the larger the F number.:)

Although apertures are written like F4 or F22, they are in fact ratios ie 1:4 or 1/4. So 1/(f)4 is a larger size aperture(hole) than 1/(f)22.

Easiest way to remember is
Small DOF small F#
Large DOF large F#

[SAB_Click]

iddy

For a beginner I would recommend you look at this guy's video tutorials (they're fee). They may make things clearer.

http://www.myphototutor.com/videotuts.htm

Particularly the ones on depth of field and reciprocity.

[Benji]

Good grief, at the distance this guy was from the building even at f/1.0 it would be in focus, give me a break. The fuzziness was caused by either poor focusing or (most likely) this lens is not very sharp at that aperture. Also digital images must be sharpened in post processing because they are not very sharp OOC. Most lenses are sharpest at two to three stops down from the maximum aperture.

Also a polarizer will not automatically make a dull white sky magically blue. Only the north sky is blue all day long. The east, south and west sky will be white most of the time and blue only at certain times. Also a polarizer cab absolutely ruin a sky if the sun is not at the correct angle what the polarizer is used. To determine maximum polarization, make a "gun" with your hand and point your thumb at the sun, wherever your finger is pointing will have maximum polarization.

Benji

[joe9047]

Good grief, at the distance this guy was from the building even at f/1.0 it would be in focus, give me a break. The fuzziness was caused by either poor focusing or (most likely) this lens is not very sharp at that aperture.

Benji

I agree. At a focal length of 18mm from this distance the depth of field is huge.

[Zoltan]

Try taking the same picture with and without the polarizer on the lens. You may find that the polarizer is causing some blurring. I have heard that some of the less expensive polarizers will ruin a shot even when attached to an excellent lens.

[Bob_A]

Can you provide a link to the original full sized image?

[Bob_A]

Good grief, at the distance this guy was from the building even at f/1.0 it would be in focus, give me a break. The fuzziness was caused by either poor focusing or (most likely) this lens is not very sharp at that aperture. Also digital images must be sharpened in post processing because they are not very sharp OOC. Most lenses are sharpest at two to three stops down from the maximum aperture.

Also a polarizer will not automatically make a dull white sky magically blue. Only the north sky is blue all day long. The east, south and west sky will be white most of the time and blue only at certain times. Also a polarizer cab absolutely ruin a sky if the sun is not at the correct angle what the polarizer is used. To determine maximum polarization, make a "gun" with your hand and point your thumb at the sun, wherever your finger is pointing will have maximum polarization.

Benji

+1

@18mm and f/3.4, if the OP was, say, 200 feet from the building (if that was what was focused on) the DOF would be everything from 15.4 feet from the camera (184.6 feet in front of the building) to infinity.

[paurong]

i am actually bothered with the slight tilt you have over that picture. beyond the technicality of the camera you are using, try to learn about the use of the horizon on such picture. the shot is great though. where is that?

[Robert_Lay]

I really like this photo, the colours stand out to me, but the people bug me.
If i was to put my camera into TV mode, with a shutter speed of 1/1000, or 1/2000 i would freeze the movement? Have i got this right?

if this photo had just been taken and you saw it on your computer for the first time, would you be happy?
I really do not understand what it is about the people that bug you.
Would I be happy with this picture? Yes, but the tilt downward at the right would bug me.

[musicman31]

I agree that some of the people are slightly distracting. I also think the building could be a bit brighter, and the sky a bit darker and more contrasty.

Something more like this perhaps?

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/5304/dpp00021edit.jpg

[scorpio_e]

+1

@18mm and f/3.4, if the OP was, say, 200 feet from the building (if that was what was focused on) the DOF would be everything from 15.4 feet from the camera (184.6 feet in front of the building) to infinity.


+2
This is really great advice. F 3.4 would have no impact on the DOF at this distance. The sharpness might be impacted. My lens is sharpest at F 5.6.

To me the people are distracting. I just think that there are to many and they block too much of the building. That's just my opinion though.

The slant can be corrected though. I would reshoot the building at a different time of day.


Hang in there ~~~~ All this this tech stuff can be as clear as mud *LOL*

[iddycourt]

In simple terms...

You are partly correct, for large depths of field you do. Unfortunately the smaller the aperture (hole), the larger the F number.:)

Although apertures are written like F4 or F22, they are in fact ratios ie 1:4 or 1/4. So 1/(f)4 is a larger size aperture(hole) than 1/(f)22.

Easiest way to remember is
Small DOF small F#
Large DOF large F#
that makes alot more sense thanks heaps, i have to remember that..might tattoo it on my hand!

iddy

For a beginner I would recommend you look at this guy's video tutorials (they're fee). They may make things clearer.

http://www.myphototutor.com/videotuts.htm

Particularly the ones on depth of field and reciprocity.

thanks for the suggestion, will take a look

Good grief, at the distance this guy was from the building even at f/1.0 it would be in focus, give me a break. The fuzziness was caused by either poor focusing or (most likely) this lens is not very sharp at that aperture. Also digital images must be sharpened in post processing because they are not very sharp OOC. Most lenses are sharpest at two to three stops down from the maximum aperture.

Also a polarizer will not automatically make a dull white sky magically blue. Only the north sky is blue all day long. The east, south and west sky will be white most of the time and blue only at certain times. Also a polarizer cab absolutely ruin a sky if the sun is not at the correct angle what the polarizer is used. To determine maximum polarization, make a "gun" with your hand and point your thumb at the sun, wherever your finger is pointing will have maximum polarization.

Benji
Girl, not guy hehe.
can you explain how to sharpen an image?
and what do you mean 3 stops down from maximum aperture?

Try taking the same picture with and without the polarizer on the lens. You may find that the polarizer is causing some blurring. I have heard that some of the less expensive polarizers will ruin a shot even when attached to an excellent lens.

will give it a go, havent taken it off since buying it. but i have noticed differences in shots i struggled iwth before

Can you provide a link to the original full sized image?

I will do that, but, i use photobucket, and it resizes images unless you have a paid account. where can i upload the large image for free?

i am actually bothered with the slight tilt you have over that picture. beyond the technicality of the camera you are using, try to learn about the use of the horizon on such picture. the shot is great though. where is that?

I have been playing around with different angles, I am quite tall for a girl (6ft 2), and was given a suggestion from another tall friend to try taking photos from the hip.
i have millions of photos that need PP done to it, this one too, but i have always said, i will edit them when i find enjoyment from doing so (at the moment i love taking the photos, and trying different things)
the building is the Calke Abbey in Derbyshire England, part of the national trust (joined the national trust, and its amazing some of these houses you have access to)

+2
This is really great advice. F 3.4 would have no impact on the DOF at this distance. The sharpness might be impacted. My lens is sharpest at F 5.6.

To me the people are distracting. I just think that there are to many and they block too much of the building. That's just my opinion though.

The slant can be corrected though. I would reshoot the building at a different time of day.


Hang in there ~~~~ All this this tech stuff can be as clear as mud *LOL*

i took the photo of the people as it represents a memory from visiting this place. we didnt actually go inside the building as you had to arrive early, to get yourself in a timeslot, to then cue at the front of the building

I really do not understand what it is about the people that bug you.
Would I be happy with this picture? Yes, but the tilt downward at the right would bug me.
i hadnt actually noticed the tilt since i was paying attention to the picture. I spose one is most critical of their own photos

I agree that some of the people are slightly distracting. I also think the building could be a bit brighter, and the sky a bit darker and more contrasty.

Something more like this perhaps?

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/5304/dpp00021edit.jpg
took me ages to realise there was some people missing.
that looks alot better though, now if only i took the photo like this in the first place!

[Lightworks Imaging]

I'm not any kind of expert, but the perspective distortion (skew of the building) indicates to me that the camera was not parallel to the facade of the structure. That's my only beef with this image.

[iddycourt]

i understand tinner18, i was experimenting with off the hip photos that day

[DunnoWhen]

Iddycourt.

As you know, there are three settings we use. ISO, Shutter Speed and Aperture.

You asked about "Stops".

In terms of Aperture going from f5.6 to f8 to f11 are successive "Stops"

In terms of shutter speed, going from 1/60 to 1/30 to 1/15 are successive "Stops".

In terms of ISO going from 100 to 200 to 400 are successive "stops".


So, "stopping down" 3 stops from max aperture means that, if the max aperture of your lens is F4, you would set the aperture to F11.

F5.6 = 1 stop
F8.0 = 2 stops
F11 = 3 stops

[iddycourt]

I took the advice and sharpened the photo, no idea whatsoever what i was doing, or if there is a point where you sharpen it too much. i put the sharpen all the way up
Ignore the tilt from the photo please, i dont know how to fix that yet, still learning
but, is this a better photo now it is sharpened.

Photo at begining of the post
http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j115/iddycourt/DPP_0002-1.jpg

after sharpening
http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j115/iddycourt/edit.jpg

i do know if i had raised the aperature to a higher f number i wouldnt have to worry, and most people have suggested going back to retake the photo, but that isnt possible at the moment, i am trying to salvage the photos from that weekend..they are all memories

[iddycourt]

am i kidding myself there is a difference in the photos?

[Bob_A]

am i kidding myself there is a difference in the photos?

Well, I may be wrong but I believe these may be pretty compressed (maybe by Photobucket?), so the quality is a bit poor. It really would be helpful if you could provide a link to the original since I have a feeling that with some sharpening this image is probably pretty good.

[tsw910]

here .. played with it in LR

http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/240/dpp00021.jpg (http://img79.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dpp00021.jpg)

[iddycourt]

Well, I may be wrong but I believe these may be pretty compressed (maybe by Photobucket?), so the quality is a bit poor. It really would be helpful if you could provide a link to the original since I have a feeling that with some sharpening this image is probably pretty good.

how do you upload full sized photos? i will then provide the link, photobucket resizes all images.
and is there a point where you can sharpen it too much?

here .. played with it in LR

http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/240/dpp00021.jpg (http://img79.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dpp00021.jpg)
could u tell me what you did to the photo?

[tsw910]

well, just by looking at your photo without getting all technical .. its underexposed and the really lacked color .. so push your exposure and play with saturation and vividness .. i think you said you have aperture? play around ! if not, get one

when any friends of mine who starts shooting and Post processing .. this is what i always will tell them first ... recreate the scene as if your eyes caught it .. bring it back to how you saw that scene ..

[Bkolowski111]

At f/3.5 you were shooting your lens wide open. Shooting any lens wide open in bright sunlight is usually not the best idea. You had plenty of light so stopping down to say at least f/5 would have given you a sharper image, not because of increased DOF, but because all lenses are sharper when stopped down.

[iddycourt]

well, just by looking at your photo without getting all technical .. its underexposed and the really lacked color .. so push your exposure and play with saturation and vividness .. i think you said you have aperture? play around ! if not, get one

when any friends of mine who starts shooting and Post processing .. this is what i always will tell them first ... recreate the scene as if your eyes caught it .. bring it back to how you saw that scene ..

can see what you mean by the colour, i think i should sit down with photoshop soon, but i dont know where to start with it

At f/3.5 you were shooting your lens wide open. Shooting any lens wide open in bright sunlight is usually not the best idea. You had plenty of light so stopping down to say at least f/5 would have given you a sharper image, not because of increased DOF, but because all lenses are sharper when stopped down.

thanks for the advice!
its all begining to make more sense now

[tsw910]

can see what you mean by the colour, i think i should sit down with photoshop soon, but i dont know where to start with it

i wouldn't start with photoshop ...

i would get software like Light Rooom or Bridge or Aperture cuz its cheaper ... and the sliding bar is great to learn on, cuz all the settings for either one of these apps on are sliders ..

[Bkolowski111]

i wouldn't start with photoshop ...

i would get software like Light Rooom or Bridge or Aperture cuz its cheaper ... and the sliding bar is great to learn on, cuz all the settings for either one of these apps on are sliders ..

I use Aperture and its a great tool for the money. I used it as a beginner, and it was easy to use even though I didn't know anything. It would be a great editor to start with, then maybe go to photoshop later. Bridge and Lightroom are essentially the same thing.

[Bill Boehme]

for some reason, i thought u had to have a small aperture such as f5.6 for a landscape photo.

Actually, f/5.6 would be considered a moderately large aperture.

i shall try f11 and alot of different apertures till i learn more about the correct aperture for the setting

An aperture of f/11 would be a small aperture (or borderline between medium and small).

It is impossible to judge something like sharpness (in the pixel-peeping sense of the word) by looking at a much reduced version of the original. At the size shown, the sharpness seems adequate, but the image has a bit of a "soft" look that I think is probably due to lack of contrast. Also, the colors seem a bit unnatural, which might be due to the selected shooting style if you are shooting JPG or using DPP to process RAW images. Other than that, the only thing that I would suggest doing differently is to keep the camera aimed closer to level -- as it is, you had the camera tilted upwards towards the top of the building which is responsible for having the vertical lines converge towards the top.