Walking in a Winter Wonderland

[musicman99]

I took this photo from my back deck. This tree is a really goo subject in winter.

Walking in a Winter Wonderland | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

EXIF Info. on the site

Also in B&W because I thought it gave the photo a better voice.

[navcom]

Hi! Do you have a specific question that you want answered about your image? Might want to take a look at the critique forum rules for what to include in your post so we can help you better. Most folks will just pass over a thread when they realize they have to work in order to help you....i.e. go to another site (can be dangerous) and also hunt down the EXIF information when the rules say to include it in the thread.

If you just want to share your shot, check out the Landscape SYS section. Not picking on you in the least! Just trying to help so we can help you better. That's what the critique forum is all about! Thanks!

[musicman99]

Thanks for that advice

[musicman99]

Now that you mention it, I do have a question: Is there any way to separate the tree in the foreground from the trees in the background?



EXIF Info:
Camera Sony DSC-HX1
Exposure 0.001 sec (1/1000)
Aperture f/4.5
Focal Length 13.4 mm
ISO Speed 125
Exposure Bias 0 EV
Flash Off, Did not fire

[SwissJon]

Yes, use your legs. move so that the background isn't so promenent.

You need to change the aperture to a lower number, your camera opens up to f/2.8, which would help, unfortunately my experience of defocussing subjects with cameras such as yours is disappointing.. You're unlikely to be able to get the pleasing results you would with a DSLR because of the incredibley short focal lengths.. Your 13.4mm is the equivalent of 50mm on a 35mm camera, but the depth of field is closer to the 13mm one, which means if you focus on anything further than 7.5m away, EVERYTHING will be in focus. (7.5m is the hyperfocal length for these settings)

[navcom]

Jon is right...you need to decrease your depth of field. A larger aperture (smaller number) is the way to do it. But f/4.5 is already pretty wide and should isolate things fairly well. Which leads to the other half of the DOF equation...focal length.

The wider your focal length, the more depth of field you will get. So an aperture of f/4.5 at 10mm will show objects off the focal plane as just barely out of focus wile f/4.5 at 200mm will show them as a complete blur.

The answer? A combination of a couple things. As Jon says, beat feet to find a better location. I would recommend moving back from the tree and then zooming in. This will get your same field of view while using a longer focal length to make the background more "blurry"...or bokeh is it's referred to.

Hope that helps!

BTW, I have friends down in Janesville, WI! I live in southeast MN. You are practically next door!

[SwissJon]

Just to comment on you comment Navcom.

F-Stop is the ratio of the diameter of the aperture and the focal length.

So, because of the size of the sensor, the size of the lens and the VERY short focal lengths on the camera (this camera goes down to a focal length of 4mm, which gives an equivalent focal length of 28mm) mean that f/4.5 is actually 4.5 multiplied by the square root of 7 (28/4) because areas are calculated using pi r squared.

So the actual equivalent f Stop of this camera (for calculating depth of field only.. The f/stop will have been calculated using the amount of light needed to create ISO 100 on the sensor, and is a marketing ploy to make the lens seem much better than it really is) goes something like this: when it's marked f/4.5 is really 4.5 x 2.64 which gives an f/stop number of f/12, so the DoF will be the same as the depth of field on a full frame camera set to f/12, which is quite closed down, and you get the hyperfocal distance I indicated below.

FYI, The f/stop on my point and shoot, which has a larger sensor than this one has a range of f/3.3 to f/6.3, which gives an equivalent f/stop of f/8 to f/15.. Pretty crap really, but the maketing makes you think it's excellent, because you can get the equivalent amount of light in your lens, and I can focus down to 5cm.. I may have squared where I meant to square root, or vice versa, but you get the idea.. The f/stop on a point and shoot is calculated using the focal length of the camera, to make the camera look better than it actually is, rather than using the 35mm equivalents.

Because on your DSLR, your focal lengths are marked in true 35mm focal lengths, the F/stops are accurate.

[navcom]

I didn't realize he was shooting with a fixed lens intermediate. I saw Sony and assumed DSLR. Not that familiar with Sony models.

Jon's right...sensor size matters to DOF. I guess there is something to the saying that "he's as good as a Swiss mathematician".

[musicman99]

Thanks for the great advice, guys. This will really help me to be a better photographer in the future. I have only been shooting for about 8 months now and this really helps me learn everything there is to know about photography. Again, Thank you!

[SwissJon]

Originally Posted by navcom

I guess there is something to the saying that "he's as good as a Swiss mathematician".

Never heard of that saying.. But I'm English anyway! Oh, and my maths is rubbish.. I covered about a page of A4 with all sorts of squiggles and crossing outs before I came up with the drivel below, and I'm still not sure it's correct, but I can't be bothered to go back and check.. I think you put it a lot better.. Sensor size matters when it comes to DoF..

Oh.. And I had no idea about the camera, I just asked uncle google, 13.4mm in DoF seemed very short, and the picture didn't look distorted enough for a DSLR with a super-wide on it.