Posted by Steve Makin on November 23, 2007 at 4:41 PM
and I just had to get out of work, at first I was going to go for a bike ride but changed my mind and headed over to Martin Mere to put some of the recent advice from here into practice, decided to concentrate on the swans and try to get something a little different, any thoughts :-)
Techs were -
D2Xs, Sigma 300-800 - 200asa - 1/320 at F13 and minus 2/3 stop compensation - no post processing
a few more from today here -
Posted by writepic on November 23, 2007 at 5:23 PM
hi steve,
its a nice idea that's got some potential, i hope you don't mind but i've taken the liberty of posting a quick edit that took about 5 minutes in PS. there are about three key points that i think your image is slightly lacking. (sorry i haven't had time to look on your flikr account so forgive me if you posted similar to my edit on there).
firstly the swan looks a bit yellow, which is possibly from sunlight bouncing off the water. i've corrected this to make it look a bit more white, though with more time, my effort could be improved markedly.
secondly, there is no highlight in the eye and the shadows contrast too much with the higlights, ok thats two things, but they can be corrected by one thing.....fill flash. i've penned a false highlight in (badly! :rolleyes)
thirdly, composition...i've cropped in a bit tighter to show you what i think it should be, you original leaves too much for they eye to look around leaving me confused, try to find a simple form within the subject to focus the viewers attention.
hope this isn't oversimplfying things? it's meant to be constructive...not destructive
hope this helps, looking forward to seeing more.
best regards,
mark
Posted by Graeme Lee on November 23, 2007 at 5:55 PM
Doesn't work for me I'm afraid Steve. Sorry. The FG is distracting and the composition isn't for me. can't offer any advice as it's just not a shot I'd try. Bit of a purist and lack creativity etc. I'm sure there's people that will like it
Posted by Andy Astbury on November 23, 2007 at 6:06 PM
Wow Steve - good size post at last matey
Comp-wise I can see where you were going - I think a bit off the RHS and some extra canvass on the LHS would make this comp work really well
Exposure-wise the sun was doing you no favours was it you're on a 3/4 angle to it here which will always lead to tears, especially on water, and at this time of the year when the sun is at a low angle in the sky.
I'm sure it'll look a lot nicer with some shadow/highlight adjustment and perhaps a bit of sharpening but I wouldn't touch the contrast and I'd leave the lovely warm look to it too.
Can't understand why you've not done any PP work, and a D2Xs tip for you - with big glass try not to use f numbers bigger than 11 as the sensor suffers with diffraction limitation beyond that, when you are running with such low DoF as the 800 gives you need all the sharpness you can get
Posted by Steve Makin on November 24, 2007 at 5:35 AM
thanks all, thats the stuff I'm after, keep it comin chaps :-)
Posted by Steve Makin on November 24, 2007 at 5:44 AM
Andy, can you explain what you mean about diffraction on the sensor ?, I closed down quite consciously to increase the DoF, is there something extra about digital I need to know ?
and yes, I think I finally cracked the size thing, one step at a time :-)
I like both the original composition and Marks crop. I also dont understand why you've not any PP. It just needs a couple of minor tweeks such as contract and saturation. Something like this perhaps. Tristan
The idea is good... Tristans repost looks a lot better...
Diffraction is the bane of my life... I work in the macro/high macro field.... Simply it is the softening of the image due the light being diffracted (bent) by the blades of the aperture.. It does get very complicated and takes into account circles of confusion and loads of other gubbins...
Diffraction softening will come into play at f11 on 1.5/1.6 crop cameras, around f13/14 on 1.3 crop, and f16 on full frame, these figures can only be generalisations and of course may vary, thickness of the blades optical construction etc....
Gosh hope this makes sense.
Phil
Posted by Andy Astbury on November 24, 2007 at 10:18 AM
Okay Steve - you'll perhaps wish you never asked but here goes
Now Phil has only told you half the story really - the bit you should know about the D2Xs is this; the sensor is APS-c format as opposed to Canons APS-h, and so is smaller; but is packed with more pixels/photon sensors per square millimeter than Canons APS-h sensor.
You have to visualise your cameras sensor as a honeycomb with a pixel/photon sensor at the bottom of each tube - the 'honeycomb' is required so that each 'pixel' sees only the image projected by the lens and no scattered or reflected light from its neighbours - the pixels are 'in isolation'.
Because Nikons 'pixels' are small then the tubes in the honeycomb are narrower than Canon, and this causes Phils defracted rays to get to the stage where their angle of incidence at the top of a 'Nikon tube' is great enough to stop the 'ray' from getting to the bottom of the tube and reaching the 'pixel' - it hits the inside of the top and bounces around and the 'pixel' at the bottom of the tube begins to see a fuzzy image instead of a sharp one.
Canon APS-h sensors are physically bigger and are packed with fewer pixels - lower Mb count - but the 'tubes' are wider, the result is, simply put, you can get away with using f11,16, 22 a lot more readily with an EOS pro body than you can with a D2Xs.
Now aren't you real glad you asked
Posted by Steve Makin on November 24, 2007 at 11:04 AM
Ah, I can understand that analogy okay, does it ony happen with long lenses ? the reason I ask is that when shooting landscapes I've always used the smllest aperture, doing the same with digital and I've definately noticed that the expected sharpness wasnt there, I had previously put this down to the fact that digital specific "SLR" lenses just couldnt hold a light to my large format Nikons etc, thanks for the heads up on this, something else to consider
Tristan, thats exactly the idea I was after, you post has made me start play with my Aperture software (especially as its a bloody awful day here), being a computer numpty its all a bit intimidating
I could do with getting myself on a course to learn this stuff, in fact I'll try and see if I can do just that thing
Posted by Andy Astbury on November 24, 2007 at 12:19 PM
Steve - in theory it applies more to shorter focal lengths, but for me at any rate, I've found the opposite in practice - the DoF on big glass is paper thin, so detail is diffuse enough to begin with and small apertures on the Sigmonster do tend to give the effect of your DoF being reduced, not increased.
Do what I do with this lens Steve, keep it below f11 - 10.5 is fine, at 30 feet this should give you 2"+ DoF at 800mm - and dropping to f16 at the same distance would only give you an extra inch so you are not losing out that much if you think about it.
Posted by Steve Makin on November 24, 2007 at 12:26 PM
I'll be out tomorrow putting that into practice, more by default though judging by todays weather :-)
Focal length will make little practical difference although on wider angle shots the effects of diffraction may be less noticable, as Andy says on a 1.5/1.6 crop camera at todays pixel densities, f11 is approaching the limit..... As pixel densities rise then the smallest usable aperture will get larger.... hence the move to larger sensor sizes...
Discussion
12 repliesTechs were -
D2Xs, Sigma 300-800 - 200asa - 1/320 at F13 and minus 2/3 stop compensation - no post processing
a few more from today here -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/45689323@N00/sets/72157603277521363/
hi steve,
its a nice idea that's got some potential, i hope you don't mind but i've taken the liberty of posting a quick edit that took about 5 minutes in PS. there are about three key points that i think your image is slightly lacking. (sorry i haven't had time to look on your flikr account so forgive me if you posted similar to my edit on there).
firstly the swan looks a bit yellow, which is possibly from sunlight bouncing off the water. i've corrected this to make it look a bit more white, though with more time, my effort could be improved markedly.
secondly, there is no highlight in the eye and the shadows contrast too much with the higlights, ok thats two things, but they can be corrected by one thing.....fill flash. i've penned a false highlight in (badly! :rolleyes)
thirdly, composition...i've cropped in a bit tighter to show you what i think it should be, you original leaves too much for they eye to look around leaving me confused, try to find a simple form within the subject to focus the viewers attention.
hope this isn't oversimplfying things? it's meant to be constructive...not destructive
hope this helps, looking forward to seeing more.
best regards,
mark
Comp-wise I can see where you were going - I think a bit off the RHS and some extra canvass on the LHS would make this comp work really well
Exposure-wise the sun was doing you no favours was it
I'm sure it'll look a lot nicer with some shadow/highlight adjustment and perhaps a bit of sharpening but I wouldn't touch the contrast and I'd leave the lovely warm look to it too.
Can't understand why you've not done any PP work, and a D2Xs tip for you - with big glass try not to use f numbers bigger than 11 as the sensor suffers with diffraction limitation beyond that, when you are running with such low DoF as the 800 gives you need all the sharpness you can get
and yes, I think I finally cracked the size thing, one step at a time :-)
Diffraction is the bane of my life... I work in the macro/high macro field.... Simply it is the softening of the image due the light being diffracted (bent) by the blades of the aperture.. It does get very complicated and takes into account circles of confusion and loads of other gubbins...
Diffraction softening will come into play at f11 on 1.5/1.6 crop cameras, around f13/14 on 1.3 crop, and f16 on full frame, these figures can only be generalisations and of course may vary, thickness of the blades optical construction etc....
Gosh hope this makes sense.
Phil
Now Phil has only told you half the story really - the bit you should know about the D2Xs is this; the sensor is APS-c format as opposed to Canons APS-h, and so is smaller; but is packed with more pixels/photon sensors per square millimeter than Canons APS-h sensor.
You have to visualise your cameras sensor as a honeycomb with a pixel/photon sensor at the bottom of each tube - the 'honeycomb' is required so that each 'pixel' sees only the image projected by the lens and no scattered or reflected light from its neighbours - the pixels are 'in isolation'.
Because Nikons 'pixels' are small then the tubes in the honeycomb are narrower than Canon, and this causes Phils defracted rays to get to the stage where their angle of incidence at the top of a 'Nikon tube' is great enough to stop the 'ray' from getting to the bottom of the tube and reaching the 'pixel' - it hits the inside of the top and bounces around and the 'pixel' at the bottom of the tube begins to see a fuzzy image instead of a sharp one.
Canon APS-h sensors are physically bigger and are packed with fewer pixels - lower Mb count - but the 'tubes' are wider, the result is, simply put, you can get away with using f11,16, 22 a lot more readily with an EOS pro body than you can with a D2Xs.
Now aren't you real glad you asked
Tristan, thats exactly the idea I was after, you post has made me start play with my Aperture software (especially as its a bloody awful day here), being a computer numpty its all a bit intimidating
I could do with getting myself on a course to learn this stuff, in fact I'll try and see if I can do just that thing
Do what I do with this lens Steve, keep it below f11 - 10.5 is fine, at 30 feet this should give you 2"+ DoF at 800mm - and dropping to f16 at the same distance would only give you an extra inch so you are not losing out that much if you think about it.
Focal length will make little practical difference although on wider angle shots the effects of diffraction may be less noticable, as Andy says on a 1.5/1.6 crop camera at todays pixel densities, f11 is approaching the limit..... As pixel densities rise then the smallest usable aperture will get larger.... hence the move to larger sensor sizes...