Reflections

[SwissJon]

Ok, it's been a while..

Now this is one of the few close to focus pictures I had taken with this camera.. I set the camera at f/25 deliberately to extend the field of focus as long as I could.. The rocks are at about 3m and I set the camera to focus on them..At f/25 the hyperfocal distance is 1m so I'm a bit upset that the background Mountains appear out of focus. (The rocks do too at 100%) Anyway, the camera is back with Nikon for adjustments to make it take sharp pictures.

So there's my first question.. I like this photo a lot, but the focus disturbs me.. Am I being picky because I know how sharp this picture could have been, or do you find it disturbing too.

I didn't put a polarising filter on, and I feel like maybe I should have, but that would have meant stacking it with the ND6, so I'm wondering if this picture isn't a little desaturated or whether the colours are ok? What about exposure? It's quite light, does it need toning down?

Ok, final question, there were two electricity pilons in this photo, they also showed up in the reflections.. Can you see where they were? Did I do a good enough job?

Any comments about crop and composition are more than welcome.. I've cropped very slightly, but not a lot.

Exif:
Camera: NIKON D7000
Focal length: 22*mm*(equiv. 33*mm)
Aperture: F25
Exposure time: 8"
ISO speed rating: 100/21°
Program: Manual
Metering Mode: Center-weighted average
White Balance: Auto
Flash: Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode

Used ND6 filter.

[benchdog]

Hi SwissJon

Love the view, to bad for the focus issue, nice work though. How has the camera worked other wise?

The color looks fine but the exposure may be a little off. This is a tough exposure to get right with all the range in this image. I might recommend using a ND Grad versus a polarizing filter but your horizon line will give you a problem. I think bracketing your exposure would work better and over laying them in PS.

Nice job removing the pylons, I do see something off a third of the way in from the left side but it may be me looking to hard for where the pylons were.

For me I find the rocks in the fore ground a bit distracting. They don't create enough interest or a leading line into the image.

Great work as usual

[EOBeav]

The glassy-water area just in front of the rock seems more in focus, but that could be just me. You're right, though, in that it is a little soft. You mentioned you had sent it back to Nikon. Are you sure there wasn't a little bump or something causing a slight camera shake? I'm sure you've thought about that...not sure what else to go on. Unfortunately, a filter will cause a little degradation also, but that's probably not what's going on here.

My only other comment is that, while the sky is well exposed, the trees along the waters edge seem too dark. I wouldn't mind having the original RAW file and messing around with it in Lightroom.

[autofocus]

Jon, at f/25, can you be experiencing this:
Diffraction is a loss of sharpness or resolution caused by photographing with small f/stops.

[sk66]

As for the focus, you did a couple things wrong...By using f/25 you are inside the circle of "confusion" for your camera and you didn't focus at the hyperfocal distance but beyond.
By focusing beyond you lost some DOF at the front. The other causes everything to soften (although slightly). You would have been much better off at f/16 and focusing at 3 ft.

Although there wasn't much wind at all there was some. The light wind and the 8" exposure probably significantly contributes to the blur in the trees and reflection (although clouds seem sharper). The exposure time would have been around 4" had you used f/16.

I don't think the CPL benefits would outweigh the longer exposure required for using it. But I would have used the CPL and not the ND if possible. I assume you used it to get to f/25? Really not necessary especially since the exposure time wound up being so long....was there something you were trying to get motion blur on?

Crop wise I probably would take the empty blue off the top, and maybe a little off the bottom....I tend to prefer 4:5 in portrait.

Honestly though, it's not bad and most would be quite happy with it.

[SwissJon]

Thanks all.

For your information, the pylons were on the right hand side taking up around 1/3 and 1/6 of the frame, so I'm pretty pleased with my work there mind you, with the background blurred, it's fairly easy to do, just takes a bit of concentration and patience.

I agree with you about the trees, I will have a play with them in LR and see if I can make them a bit brighter.

As I said, this is the BEST of the photos i've had from this camera/lens.. I know about diffraction, but I've been getting much worse photos at 1/250th and f/8 with no filter for example, which is why I sent it back.. At the time I took this photo, the water was glassy, the tripod wasn't extended to it's full height so the camera was only about 3 ft up. There wasn't any wind, there is a chimney stack for a factory just out of shot on the RHS and the smoke was going straight up. I took the photo in mirror up mode and was about 6 foot away when the shutter went off.. I chose f/25 to extend the shutter time as far as possible, the water was full of ducks in the middle distance and people walking their dogs on the far shore which I wanted to lose, along with the tiny ripples, so I could get the glassy effect.. To be honest with you, at 8 second, a short lived vibration on the camera should have very little effect, in fact less than it would at 4 secs because it's a smaller percentage of the overall exposure length. When my 10 stopper arrives I'll be able to get the f/stop back up to a reasonable number for the same exposure time, but even so, long exposures are hit and miss affairs, and I tend to take about 10 of the same scene with different settings to take the best (maybe I'll post one of the other ones for comparison, if I haven't dumped it already)

You're right Rick, the water in front of the rock is better focussed, a theme common to all the photos I took, but at this f/stop I should have been able to focus even at that point and have the rest in focus.. Anyway, I sent the camera back on Friday, I'll see what they have to say, probably a few minor adjustments needed, it's difficult to mass produce equipment to the very high specs necessary for this camera. It's top of their range, so I expect better..

I'm glad it's not just me that's seeing the softness.

Back to the photo, I think was wondering about cropping top and bottom myself, so that I lose the foreground/empty blue sky, so that the clouds and their reflections provide a frame.. You mentioned the Rocks being a distraction.. I have another photo taken just to the left, so it's almost exactly the same only without the rocks, and it feels rather empty to me. I'd like to put something into this picture for foreground interest, but this was all there was.. It looks better in landscape orientation, but this focussing issue or whatever it is made those photos unusable.

Thanks everyone.. I'll stick this in my "keepers" folder for now, until I get my camera back and can retake it.

[lerabu]

Hi Jon,

It's a shame about the camera. I think everything's been said already. Wonderful composition at any rate

[milosh]

Hey Jon,

I think you have a very nice image here!

Regarding the focus, I noticed it only when I looked at the large size on your Flickr page. I think it's not very easily noticeable when viewed in smaller web resolutions.
I like the colours, they look very natural. I do find it a bit dark, especially the trees in the back and the rocks. You could try brightening it just a bit, while trying to keep the contrast. Also, I would like to see those two rocks a bit closer to the camera, I think they would add dynamics and enhance the feel of distance between foreground and the background.

[SwissJon]

Hi Milosh..

Thanks mate.. This is on the way home, funnily enough it's not nearly as peaceful as it makes out, it's half way between the motorway and a power station, so I'll have another play when my camera gets back..

I did try to brighten the trees, but they're washed out and there's not a huge amount of detail. It was difficult to get right, my camera was telling me I was over exposing the sky by about 1 stop, I had to in order to draw detail from the lower part of the picture, but I didn't want to blow the clouds out, so I didn't go further.. Next time I get the chance, I'll try one or two shots with my ND Grad over the ND filter.. I'll be able to brighten the foreground without blowing the sky..

One of these days I'll post a picture that nobody can find fault with (That's my aim anyway!)

[Preeb]

Originally Posted by SwissJon

Hi Milosh..

Thanks mate.. This is on the way home, funnily enough it's not nearly as peaceful as it makes out, it's half way between the motorway and a power station, so I'll have another play when my camera gets back..

I did try to brighten the trees, but they're washed out and there's not a huge amount of detail. It was difficult to get right, my camera was telling me I was over exposing the sky by about 1 stop, I had to in order to draw detail from the lower part of the picture, but I didn't want to blow the clouds out, so I didn't go further.. Next time I get the chance, I'll try one or two shots with my ND Grad over the ND filter.. I'll be able to brighten the foreground without blowing the sky..

One of these days I'll post a picture that nobody can find fault with (That's my aim anyway!)

It may also be a candidate for a very light HDR touch to balance the lights and darks without going all surreal with it.