Several of us enjoyed a nice hike along the Middle Fork, Snoqualmie River: Rick and Nancy Lamb, Michelle Linafelter, Bryan Swan and yours truly. What a gorgeous day. I noted 66º on an outdoor thermometer sign in Issaquah, not too far from where we hiked. Unbelievable! Just a great day to be out.
Here's my first shot of the day along the Snoqualmie River, where there was a small cove and beach. I couldn't quite get the comp I wanted with the huge boulder on the right, so I extended the canvas just a wee bit along the top edge. The sound of the river was to die for-- so peaceful.
D700, 24-70, tripod, circ.pol.; f 22, 1/6, ISO 400.
Catherine,
Nice shot with a colorful reflection and composition. Maybe that rock on the right top needs a little more space above it. I'm curious on your thoughts on the exposure. My thinking is the 400 ISO wasn't necessary because you could have stopped down a few f stops and still maintained a good DOF. Using the lens at say f11, which is around the sweet spot for most zoom lens's (and most primes) would make a subtle difference in image quality. None the less, a nice shot!!
Catherine, I like the comp a lot. I can see that it would be hard to get the perfect comp, but you did quite nicely. I agree with Erik on the technicals, f/11 @ ISO 100 would allow for just a bit more sharpness, clarity and less noise. I can see the desire to have more room above the right upper rock, but I also like the image cropped down to to eliminate the far bank so that it cuts the rock off. I think that works nicely too. It really is an engaging image.
Thank you both for your thoughtful critique. Thinking about what you both said, I'm not looking for pats on the back; I wanna learn from this.
So first of all, the D700 does not have ISO 100 as "native" selection, although you can put into that mode. 200 is the lowest ISO. It's rated as one of the least noisy cameras and can be shot at ISO 3200 with minimally detectable grain. This is my first outing where I used the 24-70 for the majority of shots, as I am more used to making very intimate scenes. My intention was to try for a really large dof and to show that the water was part of a little cove/beach area on the river. Past the little strip of the opposite bank visible in the comp there was a lot of stuff I didn't want in the shot.
Obviously my ss ended up being slow at 1/6. There was a little water motion in the cove. I didn't use mirror-up. (Something I learned from Rick that i should be doing more often.) So I think maybe that's what led to the grainy appearance, at least in part? Also, the jpeg compression was more than I wanted. I set my pof on the foreground rocks and recomposed the shot. This was because I usually end up with part of the fg oof, that I want in focus! And I was trying for a bit of interpretation rather than a strictly documentary shot. I had hoped that the water would soften, but perhaps I ended up with a "tweener" ss, so that it didn't soften as much as I thought it did when I looked at the camera's lcd?
Having said all that, would you give the same or different advice? What else would you suggest to make this better. What thoughts do other PNWNP'ers have?? Particularly interested in hearing what D700 users have to say (no offense at all to my Canon-using colleagues!) but all comments gratefully accepted. Thanks!
I really do like the shot, Catherine. It draws me into the scene and that's always a good sign of success.
You mentioned that you were hoping for softer water and I think dropping ISO down to 200 would have allowed for a longer shutter, 1/3 second instead of 1/6. Other ways to get longer shutter speeds is to close down the aperture, like you did at f/22, add a polarizer, like you had. The only other way is to add a neutral density filter--not a graduated one. This would have allowed an additional three stops of exposure, increasing the time the shutter is open.
I agree that mirror lock is always a good idea, particularly for long exposures and tripod shooting.
Finally a comment on f/22. I've done quite a few tests and have found that with most digital cameras, diffraction starts to become an issue above f/16. Even at f/16 it can be a problem, but usually managed with a bit of additional sharpening. Even though f/22 gives more depth of field, diffraction causes an overall softening of the image. So while more is in focus, all of it is softer than at, say, f/11. Now in situation like yours, I regularly try shooting at f/11, f/16, f/22, and even f/32. I then pick the most pleasing shot of the bunch. As long as we're aware and willing to live with an overall softer image, there's nothing wrong with going to f/22.
So with all that, and your comments, I would have tried to shoot the scene at ISO 200, with polarizer, with and without a neutral density filter, and at all of the above f/stop settings. And it's very possible that your shot and settings would be the best of the bunch. But it would be a lot of fun trying.
Good stuff, David! Many, many thanks for all the info and encouragement.
Posted by Scott Smorra on March 9, 2010 at 8:40 PM
Very nice reflected light on the water. I really like the foreground rocks which form a nice "C" shape. I really enjoyed reading the discussion about this photo.
Discussion
6 repliesHere's my first shot of the day along the Snoqualmie River, where there was a small cove and beach. I couldn't quite get the comp I wanted with the huge boulder on the right, so I extended the canvas just a wee bit along the top edge. The sound of the river was to die for-- so peaceful.
D700, 24-70, tripod, circ.pol.; f 22, 1/6, ISO 400.
Hope the Oregon group had a good time as well.
Nice shot with a colorful reflection and composition. Maybe that rock on the right top needs a little more space above it. I'm curious on your thoughts on the exposure. My thinking is the 400 ISO wasn't necessary because you could have stopped down a few f stops and still maintained a good DOF. Using the lens at say f11, which is around the sweet spot for most zoom lens's (and most primes) would make a subtle difference in image quality. None the less, a nice shot!!
So first of all, the D700 does not have ISO 100 as "native" selection, although you can put into that mode. 200 is the lowest ISO. It's rated as one of the least noisy cameras and can be shot at ISO 3200 with minimally detectable grain. This is my first outing where I used the 24-70 for the majority of shots, as I am more used to making very intimate scenes. My intention was to try for a really large dof and to show that the water was part of a little cove/beach area on the river. Past the little strip of the opposite bank visible in the comp there was a lot of stuff I didn't want in the shot.
Obviously my ss ended up being slow at 1/6. There was a little water motion in the cove. I didn't use mirror-up. (Something I learned from Rick that i should be doing more often.) So I think maybe that's what led to the grainy appearance, at least in part? Also, the jpeg compression was more than I wanted. I set my pof on the foreground rocks and recomposed the shot. This was because I usually end up with part of the fg oof, that I want in focus! And I was trying for a bit of interpretation rather than a strictly documentary shot. I had hoped that the water would soften, but perhaps I ended up with a "tweener" ss, so that it didn't soften as much as I thought it did when I looked at the camera's lcd?
Having said all that, would you give the same or different advice? What else would you suggest to make this better. What thoughts do other PNWNP'ers have?? Particularly interested in hearing what D700 users have to say (no offense at all to my Canon-using colleagues!) but all comments gratefully accepted. Thanks!
You mentioned that you were hoping for softer water and I think dropping ISO down to 200 would have allowed for a longer shutter, 1/3 second instead of 1/6. Other ways to get longer shutter speeds is to close down the aperture, like you did at f/22, add a polarizer, like you had. The only other way is to add a neutral density filter--not a graduated one. This would have allowed an additional three stops of exposure, increasing the time the shutter is open.
I agree that mirror lock is always a good idea, particularly for long exposures and tripod shooting.
Finally a comment on f/22. I've done quite a few tests and have found that with most digital cameras, diffraction starts to become an issue above f/16. Even at f/16 it can be a problem, but usually managed with a bit of additional sharpening. Even though f/22 gives more depth of field, diffraction causes an overall softening of the image. So while more is in focus, all of it is softer than at, say, f/11. Now in situation like yours, I regularly try shooting at f/11, f/16, f/22, and even f/32. I then pick the most pleasing shot of the bunch. As long as we're aware and willing to live with an overall softer image, there's nothing wrong with going to f/22.
So with all that, and your comments, I would have tried to shoot the scene at ISO 200, with polarizer, with and without a neutral density filter, and at all of the above f/stop settings. And it's very possible that your shot and settings would be the best of the bunch. But it would be a lot of fun trying.