wire and glass

[cristen]

Taken one rainy afternoon top of my fence using zoom lens EF 75-300mm with the ff EXIF;
Canon EOS 500D
F-stop: f/6.3
Exposure: 1/40 sec
ISO 100
Focal length 300 m
Manual, no flash
White balance: Auto

No editing done here. Please critique on composition, the settings I used, the presence/absence of a focal point and the focus itself. I am afraid I have this problem in focusing. Thanks in advance.

[chicagojohn]

Originally Posted by cristen

Taken one rainy afternoon top of my fence using zoom lens EF 75-300mm with the ff EXIF;
Canon EOS 500D
F-stop: f/6.3
Exposure: 1/40 sec
ISO 100
Focal length 300 m
Manual, no flash
White balance: Auto

No editing done here. Please critique on composition, the settings I used, the presence/absence of a focal point and the focus itself. I am afraid I have this problem in focusing. Thanks in advance.

I like the barbed wire in tack-sharp focus (pun intended) with the water drop ready to fall, and I like the creamy bokeh you created in the background. At 1/40 second with 300 mm focal length, I would be very surprised if you were not using a tripod or some other means of stabilizing the camera, so I will make the assumption you were using a tripod.

I'd like to hear what you think, but I would have much preferred that the glass also be in sharp focus. That would have added another element of a different kind of "sharp". While many experienced photographers think that depth of field is dependent upon the lens focal length, I think that is sort of an illusion due to the magnifying effect. I think that aperture is the main thing you have to control depth of field.

So in this case, you might have tried to see if you could stop down from f/6.3; the smaller aperture, the wider the depth of field. So if you had gone up three stops in ISO to 800, (you might be worried about noise, but I don't think it would be anything you could not deal with very effectively with a noiseware type program, some are free), if you had that three stops, you could have an aperture of maybe f/16 or f/22, and just maybe the glass would have come into focus.

I find that a tripod is almost essential for macro photography, and if you were using one and didn't want to go all the way to ISO 800, you could have picked up a stop or two by going to longer exposure since you didn't have any motion happening in the image.

So I like the image overall, for the reasons I mentioned, but hope these suggestions are something you can experiment with in the future and see if they might work for you.

[tlpphoto]

I like the image as well, especially the way the U shaped out of focus light area in the background rhymes the shape of the barbed wire. It would be nice if the glass was in focus as well, but not essential. chicagojohn gave you some good advice to try stopping down the aperture (the noise performance on the new cameras is amazing, even at higher ISO's), one bit of caution is that the more you stop down, the softer your image will be due to diffraction. Each lens is different and the impact of diffraction is somewhat depended on your sensor size. I think for the Canon 500D, anything smaller than F/11 will start showing the effects. Luminous Landscape has some good background tutorials on diffraction -- not sure about DPS.

Well done on your image.
Tim

[chicagojohn]

Originally Posted by tlpphoto

I like the image as well, especially the way the U shaped out of focus light area in the background rhymes the shape of the barbed wire. It would be nice if the glass was in focus as well, but not essential. chicagojohn gave you some good advice to try stopping down the aperture (the noise performance on the new cameras is amazing, even at higher ISO's), one bit of caution is that the more you stop down, the softer your image will be due to diffraction. Each lens is different and the impact of diffraction is somewhat depended on your sensor size. I think for the Canon 500D, anything smaller than F/11 will start showing the effects. Luminous Landscape has some good background tutorials on diffraction -- not sure about DPS.

Well done on your image.
Tim

I agree with everything you have said, Tim. Except that the glass is almost in focus, tantalizingly close; and if it were, that would have taken the image to another level, IMO. To state the obvious, digital allows one to experiment virtually without cost in these situations, and in this case we will never now know the balance between the softening effects of diffraction and sharpness of wire with out-of-focus, and perhaps to some, distracting bluriness of glass shards.

I think it's best to know the alternatives and then to try as many as possible so as to have the widest range of selections after the shoot. That is, try it so you can see the potential adverse effects of diffractive softing and balance it off against the alternatives as opposed to being afraid it might happen based upon a tutorial. Would you agree, Tim?

[cristen]

hi there, chicagojohn and tlpphoto...

no. i don't have a tripod. i've always thought it would limit my movements. i just leaned against a wall and tucked my elbows in to prevent camera shake. i was also aiming for the glass shards to appear sharp but i was afraid my inability to focus well would show if i widened my depth of field.

a higher ISO would surely help but well, my skills in photo editing is still limited to cropping. i really need to learn a lot more.

thanks for your inputs. will keep them in mind and i hope to come up with better shots.

[chicagojohn]

Originally Posted by cristen

hi there, chicagojohn and tlpphoto...

no. i don't have a tripod. i've always thought it would limit my movements. i just leaned against a wall and tucked my elbows in to prevent camera shake. i was also aiming for the glass shards to appear sharp but i was afraid my inability to focus well would show if i widened my depth of field.

a higher ISO would surely help but well, my skills in photo editing is still limited to cropping. i really need to learn a lot more.

thanks for your inputs. will keep them in mind and i hope to come up with better shots.

As Tim said, you did a great job on this. Amazingly sharp without a tripod. We both thank you for sharing your image and the opportunity for analysis and discussion it provided, in addition to our simple enjoyment in viewing it.

We all need to learn a lot more. That's what makes it fun

[tlpphoto]

Originally Posted by chicagojohn

I think it's best to know the alternatives and then to try as many as possible so as to have the widest range of selections after the shoot. That is, try it so you can see the potential adverse effects of diffractive softing and balance it off against the alternatives as opposed to being afraid it might happen based upon a tutorial. Would you agree, Tim?

I agree that you shouldn't be afraid to try something in photography just because "the rules" say you should -- like always placing your subject on a third line for example. I have learned a lot from tutorial, but often times I then go beyond them just to see how it would look for myself.

Good discussion.

Tim

[cristen]

tim and john, hi again..

i really appreciate your kind words and the tips you shared with me. they are truly invaluable. i have to digest everything, the technical discussion, most especially. thanks and i hope you get to comment on some of my other shots posted here, as well...