Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 29 Jan 2014 (Wednesday) 18:16
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Can someone explain using a larger aperture in lower light landscapes

 
eddie3dfx
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
486 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Sep 2009
     
Jan 30, 2014 07:13 |  #16

I was looking at this example http://www.lonelyspeck​.com …or-milky-way-photography/ (external link)

It looks like a longer exposure at 1.4 at night can produce a nice effect with the stars and fairly sharp (given the correct exposure)

http://www.lonelyspeck​.com …013/09/star-trailing1.gif (external link)

I understand the concept of a narrow depth of a field to a degree. You take a picture of a dogs face from 5 feet and you get his nose.. you back up and refocus, you get his eyes, then back up, you get his face and slowly the background.. but I guess what I wasn't getting is that it's really not a narrow depth of field anymore when you fully back up. The sharpness and picture that was focused on the eyes is now the same sharpness and focus that is applied to entire portion of the landscape (given how far you have backed up)
So, if that is correct and given the lens is equally as sharp at 1.4 as it is in f8 in center/border/extreme corner (wishful thinking i know) wouldn't a landscape picture at 1.4 look exactly like a landscape picture at f8? (in terms of sharpness and clarity, not exposure)

I should have explained that better in my initial post.


Canon 6D, Canon L 24-105, Zeiss Distagon 28mm 2.8, Planar 50mm 1.4, Planar 85mm 1.4, Sonnar 135mm 2.8 & Zeiss Mutar 2x, Canon 50mm 1.8
http://www.edwinraffph​otography.com/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 85
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
Jan 30, 2014 08:24 |  #17

eddie3dfx wrote in post #16649500 (external link)
I was looking at this example http://www.lonelyspeck​.com …or-milky-way-photography/ (external link)

It looks like a longer exposure at 1.4 at night can produce a nice effect with the stars and fairly sharp (given the correct exposure)

You also need dark skies and, preferably, to be in the Southern Hemisphere.


Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll complain about the withdrawal of his free fish entitlement.
Gear Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scatterbrained
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,422 posts
Gallery: 217 photos
Best ofs: 11
Likes: 4118
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Chula Vista, CA
     
Jan 30, 2014 09:30 |  #18

hollis_f wrote in post #16649619 (external link)
You also need dark skies and, preferably, to be in the Southern Hemisphere.

What does being in the southern hemisphere have to do with it?:confused:
I see an awful lot of Milky Way shots coming out of the west/southwest here. Granted where I'm at on the east coast you can't see $#!+. :mad:


VanillaImaging.com (external link)"Vacuous images for the Vapid consumer"
500px (external link)
flickr (external link)
1x (external link)
instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 85
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
Jan 30, 2014 11:58 |  #19

Scatterbrained wrote in post #16649761 (external link)
What does being in the southern hemisphere have to do with it?

The centre of the galaxy, which is the thickest, brightest region, lies in he constellation Saggitarius. In my part of the northern hemisphere Saggitarius is barely visible on the southern horizon in the middle of summer.

As you move further south Saggitarius moves higher in the sky, so it is, indeed, possible to get decent shots of it in the more southerly US states.

But to really get good views of it you need to be in the Southern Hemisphere, where Saggitarius gets high in the sky. And, if that weren't enough, they also have the Coal Sack and the Magellanic Clouds. For some amazing examples check out the work of Nchant (external link).


Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll complain about the withdrawal of his free fish entitlement.
Gear Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,567 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Jan 30, 2014 12:11 |  #20

eddie3dfx wrote in post #16649500 (external link)
So, if that is correct and given the lens is equally as sharp at 1.4 as it is in f8 in center/border/extreme corner (wishful thinking i know) wouldn't a landscape picture at 1.4 look exactly like a landscape picture at f8? (in terms of sharpness and clarity, not exposure)

I should have explained that better in my initial post.

No, you'll never have as much of the foreground in focus.

Try a DOF calculator

As an example, I put in using a 50mm f1.2 on my 60D. If you focus to infinity with a 1.2 aperture, everything is in focus from 100m out. That's going to leave a LOT of foreground blurry. If I do f8, everything from 15m out is in focus.


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
60D | ELPH 330 | iPhone 5s

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tzalman
Fatal attraction.
Avatar
13,482 posts
Likes: 199
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Gesher Haziv, Israel
     
Jan 30, 2014 13:09 |  #21

S35, f1.4

IMAGE: http://photos.imageevent.com/elied/night/_UAL1653.jpg


IMAGE: http://photos.imageevent.com/elied/night/_UAL1658.jpg

Elie / אלי

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
37,556 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 6187
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Jan 31, 2014 03:14 |  #22

Don't forget that the wider the lens, the more that will be in focus, so 11mm at f2.8 has alot in focus, like everything. :)


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jt354
Senior Member
401 posts
Joined Oct 2010
Location: Michigan
     
Jan 31, 2014 15:13 |  #23

Though I completely agree with the prevailing sentiment that f/8 (or so) is ideal for most landscape work, in some cases a wider aperture could be useful. Sometimes the conditions are such that a long exposure is undesirable and high ISO yields a subpar result. For example, low light with strong winds and trees, or flowing water and you're not going for the "silky smooth" effect. In those cases and others, it might make sense to shoot at f/2.8 with a wide angle lens.


Zenfolio (external link)
flickr (external link)
Gear: Canon 60D / Canon G12 / Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 / Canon 35mm f/2 IS / Canon 85mm f/1.8 / Tamron SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 / Speedlite 430 EXII / Slik 700DX legs / Cullmann MB6 head

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
maverick75
Cream of the Crop
5,712 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 620
Joined May 2012
Location: Riverside,California
     
Jan 31, 2014 15:22 |  #24

I shoot at 2.2-2.5 all the time, mostly because I want to stop motion and I need 1/200-1/400.
I hate dragging along a tripod. With a wide angle at infinity you still can get big DOF.


- Alex Corona Sony A7, Canon 7DM2/EOS M, Mamiya 645/67
Flickr (external link) - 500px (external link) - Website (external link)- Feedback -Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
14,518 posts
Gallery: 154 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 4566
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Jan 31, 2014 16:41 |  #25

eddie3dfx wrote in post #16648271 (external link)
I guess what I'm getting at is, what is the useful effect of 1.4-f2 for landscape shots? In infinity.
What is the user trying to get out of it...

I have never heard an accomplished landscape photographer ever suggest using a large, wide open aperture for typical landscape work. As far as I know, there is not useful effect of using f2, f2.8, etc for landscape work due to low light. "Real" landscape photographers use an excellent, sturdy tripod, long exposures, and small apertures when shooting landscapes in lower levels of light. Of course, such photographers are quite picky about the conditions thy will shoot in, and wait for days for the best opportunity. There are some specialty situations in which a wider aperture may help to give an unusual effect, but that is hardly "normal" or "typical" landscape photography.

I suspect that anyone suggesting a "fast" lens with a large aperture for typical landscape work is not really an accomplished, successful landscape photographer. In fact, it is hard to imagine that anyone would suggest such a thing. Even a "mom with a camera" should know better than that!


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scatterbrained
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,422 posts
Gallery: 217 photos
Best ofs: 11
Likes: 4118
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Chula Vista, CA
     
Jan 31, 2014 17:16 |  #26

Tom Reichner wrote in post #16653534 (external link)
I have never heard an accomplished landscape photographer ever suggest using a large, wide open aperture for typical landscape work. As far as I know, there is not useful effect of using f2, f2.8, etc for landscape work due to low light. "Real" landscape photographers use an excellent, sturdy tripod, long exposures, and small apertures when shooting landscapes in lower levels of light. Of course, such photographers are quite picky about the conditions thy will shoot in, and wait for days for the best opportunity. There are some specialty situations in which a wider aperture may help to give an unusual effect, but that is hardly "normal" or "typical" landscape photography.

I suspect that anyone suggesting a "fast" lens with a large aperture for typical landscape work is not really an accomplished, successful landscape photographer. In fact, it is hard to imagine that anyone would suggest such a thing. Even a "mom with a camera" should know better than that!

You might want to widen your horizons. ;)

It's not too uncommon for night starscapes or shots of the northern lights.


VanillaImaging.com (external link)"Vacuous images for the Vapid consumer"
500px (external link)
flickr (external link)
1x (external link)
instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
37,556 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 6187
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Jan 31, 2014 21:21 |  #27

Tom Reichner wrote in post #16653534 (external link)
I have never heard an accomplished landscape photographer ever suggest using a large, wide open aperture for typical landscape work. As far as I know, there is not useful effect of using f2, f2.8, etc for landscape work due to low light. "Real" landscape photographers use an excellent, sturdy tripod, long exposures, and small apertures when shooting landscapes in lower levels of light. Of course, such photographers are quite picky about the conditions thy will shoot in, and wait for days for the best opportunity. There are some specialty situations in which a wider aperture may help to give an unusual effect, but that is hardly "normal" or "typical" landscape photography.

I suspect that anyone suggesting a "fast" lens with a large aperture for typical landscape work is not really an accomplished, successful landscape photographer. In fact, it is hard to imagine that anyone would suggest such a thing. Even a "mom with a camera" should know better than that!

With a wide angle lens, there is no need to really shut down a lens. You can take an f2.8 lens, and maybe shut it down a stop or two just to put it into its sweet spot, but you don't need to go any more, because your DOF won't change.

At f2.8 at 11mm on a crop body, from 5' to infinity is considered to be in focus. Shut it down to maybe f5.6, and you are more than good, and the only reason to even do that is to just get the lens 1 to 2 stops past wide open to sharpen it up a bit.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
monkey44
Senior Member
Avatar
726 posts
Likes: 15
Joined Jul 2003
     
Jan 31, 2014 21:25 |  #28

QUOTE: "Your post is an excellent explanation of hyper focal and how to focus for that kind of stuff, and like I said, it is important to know these things, but I think it is more important to not follow rules as a general rule"

As writers, we have a similar saying ''Know the rules of grammar and sentence structure, then break them intentionally to entertain our readers."

I believe there's a place for 'sharp' ... and there's a place for 'soft' ... there's a lot of nice, soft and very beautiful 'brides' out there, for example. Who wants to see a sharp bride ... or a sharp sister, or mom ... Soft often brings out a pleasing emotion --- cats are soft, kids are soft - we need to show that without butchering the digital and technical aspects of the image.

It's the eye of the artist who presents the visual, the one who creates the image and hopes others will appreciate that unique expression in an image.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
14,518 posts
Gallery: 154 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 4566
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Jan 31, 2014 21:43 |  #29

Scatterbrained wrote in post #16653602 (external link)
You might want to widen your horizons. ;)

It's not too uncommon for night starscapes or shots of the northern lights.

Scatterbrained,

If you would note the wording of my post, you would see that I qualified my statements by saying "typical" or "normal" landscape photography. Night starscapes and northern lights aren't your typical landscape photography situations. Of course there can be less common, more specialized types of landscape photography that may benefit from wide apertures . . . that's why I specified that I was speaking only of typical landscape images. I thought that was clear by my inclusion of the qualifier words.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
1Tanker
Goldmember
Avatar
4,470 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Swaying to the Symphony of Destruction
     
Jan 31, 2014 21:59 as a reply to  @ Tom Reichner's post |  #30

Sorry Tom, it was far from clear. You said

"Real" landscape photographers use an excellent, sturdy tripod, long exposures, and small apertures when shooting landscapes in lower levels of light.

It comes across as elitist and/or Myopic.


Kel
Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

5,060 views & 0 likes for this thread
Can someone explain using a larger aperture in lower light landscapes
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is socrbob
940 guests, 313 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.