Just trying something different

[stevefizz]

Hi, just trying something new for me.

I think it works.

Appreciate any feedback
Thanks

Steve

Exposure 0.033 sec (1/30)
Aperture f/29.0
Focal Length 110 mm
ISO Speed 3200


Bradgate-Park by SteveFizz, on Flickr

[Weird Girl]

You are supposed to ask a specific question here but I just wanted to say that I really like this photo

[digirebelva]

I actually kind of like the composition in this, and the b&w treatment works well

[stevefizz]

Hi
Thanks for the feedback

I started using manual settings a few months ago and bokeh effects


I guess I was just asking what you thought about the effect I got with the sharp focus on the foreground and the blurred background

I did some post processing removed some noise, b/w and some extra contrast

[shruggy63]

It's a cracking b/w shot but F29! Is that right? Or is the blur pp?

[stevefizz]

LOL I know, i started at f20 but the background was completely blown out

[Krusty79]

ISO 3200? Why? No tripod?

I don't see why the background would be blown out at f/20. Can't you use a faster shutter speed to compensate? Most lenses are sharpest around f/8 and diffraction can kick in if you go smaller than around f/13. I think a good starting point for landscapes is ISO 100 and f/11. Let the shutter speed vary because you have a tripod, right?.

I think it's a pretty good shot, but there was something that seemed a little out of place. I think I know what is now. Usually, when I see rocks in the foreground, the rocks are at ground level and I'm looking up at the subject. Your shot is almost the reverse. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, but it does give a different perspective.

[stevefizz]

Originally Posted by Krusty79

ISO 3200? Why? No tripod?

I don't see why the background would be blown out at f/20. Can't you use a faster shutter speed to compensate? Most lenses are sharpest around f/8 and diffraction can kick in if you go smaller than around f/13. I think a good starting point for landscapes is ISO 100 and f/11. Let the shutter speed vary because you have a tripod, right?.

I think it's a pretty good shot, but there was something that seemed a little out of place. I think I know what is now. Usually, when I see rocks in the foreground, the rocks are at ground level and I'm looking up at the subject. Your shot is almost the reverse. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, but it does give a different perspective.

Hi
Its the mist again. Not much light. Peering over a wall.
This was the effect i wanted though, i was using aperture priority and closed it up until i started getting some detail in the background and the camera did the rest.

Krusty, is fog still on your 'to do list'?

[Jay Elle Eff]

Quite nice, and I think you've achieved what you've set out to do (get the background out of focus) however, I think the background is more interesting that the rocks.
Keep up the good work.

[Krusty79]

Originally Posted by stevefizz

Hi
Its the mist again. Not much light. Peering over a wall.
This was the effect i wanted though, i was using aperture priority and closed it up until i started getting some detail in the background and the camera did the rest.

Krusty, is fog still on your 'to do list'?

It's hard to predict when we'll get fog around here. They get more fog on the San Francisco side of the Bay. If it is foggy on a weekend, I may try to get up early and take some shots. I'll make sure I shoot RAW and bracket my shots in case my meter gets fooled by the mist. Maybe I'll experiment with some very small apertures.