a few more from my trip

here are a few more from my trip to colorado... now i have to get back to shooting texas!

#1

I like #3 (weird, b/c I hate clowns)

The rest are kind of run of the mill for me.

#1 seems to get soft in the furthest back foliage. I would prefer it to be very sharp there as that is where the primary subject (presumably) stands - viz., the waterfall. F/16 will do a much better job than this if you take advantage of hyperfocal distance.

#2 totally fails because of the softness of the background. I will never understand why anyone would think that it is appropriate to
focus on some non-descript foreground clutter and let a beautiful vista such as this go out of focus. Since you had a tripod for #1, there is no excuse for not using it here, as well.

In #3, even though there is some interesting texture there, Stephen King soured me on clowns forever.

I like #4 - the backlighting makes the shot, and the leaves and clouds are very interesting.

I like #3, it's a great crop. I also liked the dof on it.

#4 - it has a natural vignette around three sides of it, which pulls your eye in. Excellent shot.

nw85887- it's actually a giant wooden jack in the box, but it's still just as creepy

robert- i used f20 on that first shot! i guess the trees in the back look soft because i was focusing on the rocks up front, because they were all i could really see to focus on through a 0.9 nd filter and polarizer... what is hyperfocal distance?
i appreciate your critique on the second one.. the best way i know of to get better is to have someone say 'you suck' lol. how could you tell i didnt use a tripod, and what diffrence would a tripod make in that shot? i thought tripods were just for long exposures and panning.
yeah that third picture is the single most terrifying photo i ever want to take. "It" gave me nightmares for a week!
thanks for the last one! i loved the way the sun lit up the leaves too

colinh810- no crop on that one! the only pp i did was sharpen and contrast

aram535- thanks! i love colorado because there are just great shots everywere, sometimes even directly above you!

For any given f-stop setting on a lens, there are two extreme distances (one very close and one very far) that will be equally sharp (or unsharp). Everything in between those two distances will be sharper, and the actual focal point will be the sharpest point.

The task is to find that magic point, called the hyperfocal distance, in which everything from point X to infinity is in focus. The theory behind this concept allows you to determine exactly where to set your focus ring for the optimum point, and one place where you can find all that info is at www.dofmaster.com.

Regarding the tripod. Had you use the tripod, it is extremely unlikely that you would have used a shutter speed of 1/160" and f/5.6. It would be more likely that you would have used 1/4" at f/36 in order to keep everything sharp. I think Bryan Peterson calls this the "Creatively Correct Exposure" as opposed to the settings given by your camera's autoexposure system.