Towering Tree

[psykon99]

The third in my series of posts...

[BCP]

Great perspective!

[clockdoc]

Excellent sharpness and depth of field! I see you shot this at f/16. Do you recall if you focused at any particular point when composing the shot? Any post processing to affect sharpness? Which lens did you use: 18-200mm Sigma or the 18-55mm Canon lens?

[psykon99]

Originally Posted by clockdoc

Excellent sharpness and depth of field! I see you shot this at f/16. Do you recall if you focused at any particular point when composing the shot? Any post processing to affect sharpness? Which lens did you use: 18-200mm Sigma or the 18-55mm Canon lens?

Thanks!

If I remember correctly, I leaned against the tree (no tripod or monopod for this one) and aimed several of my focus points accross the tree. So, I guess I focused in several spots. The f16 helped keep most of the tree in focus - which is what I was going for.

Post processing included slight adjustments for levels, brightness/contrast, sharpness, and a wee bit of individual color saturation.

I actually used the previous version of the kit lens EF-S 18-55mm f3.5. Normally I would have used my Sigma since it's been a great lens for me, but I was trying to stay lightweight around my neck. Also, I was trying to stretch myself by limiting how much I could zoom.

[clockdoc]

Thanks for the update. I assumed you knew about the depth-of-field '1/3 - 2/3' rule and how to use hyperfocal distance focusing. Sounds like your experience with the Sigma lens has been a good one. I have no hands-on experience with their line of lenses but they seem to be quite popular.

[psykon99]

Originally Posted by clockdoc

Thanks for the update. I assumed you knew about the depth-of-field '1/3 - 2/3' rule and how to use hyperfocal distance focusing. Sounds like your experience with the Sigma lens has been a good one. I have no hands-on experience with their line of lenses but they seem to be quite popular.

Actually, I'm not sure I am familiar with the rule you mentioned. Please do enlighten me!

I have enjoyed my Sigma lens. It's fairly sharp and does a good job on contrast and color. It's just HEAVY.

I just recently added an older Sigma 28-80mm Macro to my collection. So far so good with this one too.

[clockdoc]

As you stop down a lens, depth-of-field extends forward 1/3 and 2/3 away from the point of focus. Hence the 1/3 to 2/3 ratio rule. Think of your scene as a series of "planes" like the slices in a loaf of bread with the end piece as the planes you want to be "in focus" in your composition. As you stop the lens down, depth-of-field would be affected in that 1/3 - 2/3 manner.
Here is a good link that explains hyperfocal distance focusing and depth-of-field:
http://www.barbeephoto.com/articles/...hyperfocal.htm

[psykon99]

Originally Posted by clockdoc

As you stop down a lens, depth-of-field extends forward 1/3 and 2/3 away from the point of focus. Hence the 1/3 to 2/3 ratio rule. Think of your scene as a series of "planes" like the slices in a loaf of bread with the end piece as the planes you want to be "in focus" in your composition. As you stop the lens down, depth-of-field would be affected in that 1/3 - 2/3 manner.
Here is a good link that explains hyperfocal distance focusing and depth-of-field:
http://www.barbeephoto.com/articles/...hyperfocal.htm

Thanks! I just knew that a smaller aperture created a longer depth of field. I wasn't aware of the 1/3 2/3 rule.

[clockdoc]

Yep. The key is knowing where to focus within your scene. That's why it is always good to switch to manual focus every now and then if you are used to using the autofocus feature a lot. For example, I just shot some puddle reflections and with autofocus, the camera never quite got what I was looking for. Here is one example:


ISO 100, 1/80 sec. at f/6.3, 18-55mm Nikkor kit lens, WB set to Cloudy.