How does one get such crisp landscape photographs?

artographywales said:
I find manual focusing a bit of a problem when its dark, it looks ok on the live view but when i get home its fuzzy see example below, any tips?
Click to expand...

1. Make sure manual focus is selected on your lens.
2. Use a tripod on a firm base. beware on beaches, the legs will sink in to sand and allow the camera to move. I take 3 pieces of wood with a routed recess for the tripod feet to sit in with me.
3. Lowest ISO to reduce noise.
4. Know the hyperfocal distance and the minimum sharp distance for the aperture you intend to shoot at. For example, with the 7D at 67mm in the above image, the hyperfocal distance is just over 11 metres at f16 anything over 5.5 metres should be in focus if you set the focus distance to 11 metres.
5. Have a torch and a contrasty target with you. Pace out the hyperfocal distance from your tripod and set the target down on the floor. illuminate it with the torch. or alternatively, if you have a window on the side of your lens showing focal distance, check how accurate it is in daylight, then you can set it just beyond the hyperfocal distance using a torch. This will ensure you image is sharp from infinity back to ~ half the distance you set on the lens.
6. Manually (live view if you want) focus on the target and leave the focus set at that. compose your shot and release th trigger.
 
artographywales said:
I find manual focusing a bit of a problem when its dark, it looks ok on the live view but when i get home its fuzzy see example below, any tips?
Click to expand...

It wasn't very dark. Your shutter speed was 1/2000s.
The 7D is capable of auto focussing down to light levels dark enough you can barely see the camera controls.

If you want to focus in live view....
Check it is sharp by zooming live view in to x5 or x10 (button on the top right); but I suspect this isn't your problem.
Once you have found focus...
1) MANUAL FOCUS - Set the lens to MF to make sure that half pressing the shutter doesn't accidentally change the focus.
2) DON'T CHANGE THE FOCAL LENGTH - changing the focal length usually needs re-focus. some lenses are worse than others, but they all do it. If you zoom the lens, then you must re-check focus.
My guess would be that you zoomed the lens :)
 
Last edited:
The clarity of the air, light and weather conditions are a huge factor. Once you get all the other technical stuff under your belt - and it is easy to take several shots at multiple apertures - you need to pay attention to the weather.

Landscape photography involves lots of waiting, revisiting and short intense excitement as conditions become perfect for a moment and then pass.

I have read lots of articles and books by landscapers and they all talk about it being a solo occupation, occasionally something to be done with one other person if you are very lucky. You need flexibility in your holiday plans to be able to change and move when conditions are right.
 
Last edited:
The best and easiest way i have found is to get maximum quality in a straight foreword way IE sharpness and DOF is to use a T/S lens at around f@8 on a tripod
 
IMHO, it's worth the effort (and more rewarding) to take the time to get it right "in camera" rather than rely on processing.

As already mentioned DOF, small aperture and Hyperfocal distance are the important things to consider for sharp front to back shots. NDgrad filters are very useful for balancing contrasting light (sky vs land for example) but the most important thing of all if you want good landscape shots is LIGHT...get up early/stay out late and catch the "golden hours". Enjoy your trip, it's a stunning place

Simon
 
andy_fozzy said:
But surely difraction starts to creep in @ f/11 - making shots less sharper.....

And if we're talking landscapes here, then do you really need a greater DOF?
Hence why I said f/11 MAX.

IMO, if you need to stop light coming in, get some filters (other than the ones Lynton suggested).
Click to expand...


Shoot 5x4 :) Diffraction? What is this diffraction you speak of :) f64.. job done.

With such a small sensor though... yeah, F22 can really soften things down. If deep DOF is needed, I'd shoot 2 versions and stack. All depends on lens as well. At 14 for e.g, f8 is probably fine.
 
essexash said:
hyperfocal focusing is your chum

http://www.dofmaster.com/doftable.html

I printed off all the charts for my lens focal lengths, laminated them and keep them in my bag. Very useful although you get used to the common settings in the end and dont use the charts much.

The one downside is that modern lenses have crap distance markings on them so people tend to stick to the focus 1/3 up the frame system and go from there.
Click to expand...

The right answer

And additionally knowing when diffraction rears it's head on your lens/camera format
 
Les McLean said:
I would add a bit of caution when considering focus stacking in landscapes. it can be a hit and miss affair. Used in more controlled environments like macros and still life, I've seen some wonderful results. Landscapes less so, you have to get it spot on, and any variation (like a bit of wind moving your tripod ever so slightly ) can make things go wrong. Don't forget if you stack images (or blend) any faults are magnified. Consequently I've seen lots of poor landscapes because of stacking, notably very soft images, significant chromatic aberration, increased noise and unsightly halos, not as bad as HDR processing, but bad enough to significantly reduce the impact of a landscape image.

My advice (like others) is a good lens, a stable tripod, and set the aperture appropriate to cover the amount you want in focus.

More importantly, keep it simple, don't overcomplicate things, either in shooting or processing.

And if you have a good enough quality lens, I don't see any reason to not shoot at f16, most of my landscapes are shot between f16-f22, it works for me, if it doesn't work for yourself, fair enough, I don't think it's worth arguing about.
Click to expand...

Loving the Lambretta Pics on your website :clap:
 
Its incredible how good a badly-blurred or OOF photo can look good at web size after a proper resizing and sharpening. A lot of what goes into good web images is decent resizing and sharpening, so at smaller image sizes things can be misleading if you're comparing your own full res, unsharpened raws
 
AchimT said:
I wonder, in order to make the picture look clearer, less hazy, would anyone still recommend a UV filter?
Click to expand...

A UV filter will probably degrade the image a touch but whether or not the amount of damage is noticeable depends on what size you are printing at (if at all), what media you use and what distance you view it from. As a general rule, anything you put in front of the lens will degrade the image.
 
AchimT said:
I wonder, in order to make the picture look clearer, less hazy, would anyone still recommend a UV filter?
Click to expand...

Best thing to use is the LENS HOOD. That is designed to keep stray light out
 
Just my two penneth. I always use Mirror Lock Up, even if shooting hand held landscapes. I've seen an improvement in sharpness even on a tripod with a remote release.
 
Shooting handhelp with mirror lockup isn't really advised as you can't see what you're shooting (depends how important the framing is though).
 
EOS_JD said:
Shooting handhelp with mirror lockup isn't really advised as you can't see what you're shooting (depends how important the framing is though).
Click to expand...

Frame first as you would do normally, press shutter once to raise mirror, hold camera still -again, as you would do normally, then press the shutter button again. If you hold the camera still between shutter presses, you don't need to see what you're shooting as you've already framed the shot.
 
Unijak said:
Frame first as you would do normally, press shutter once to raise mirror, hold camera still -again, as you would do normally, then press the shutter button again. If you hold the camera still between shutter presses, you don't need to see what you're shooting as you've already framed the shot.
Click to expand...

We all move although granted not too much - it really just depends on how critical composition is (to be fair under most conditions it would work).

Mirror lock up though is generally used to reduce camera vibration in LONGER exposures than you can handhold. ML will have oretty much zero effect if you're holding the camera in your hand and shooting as your SS will already be fast enough to negate the need for ML.
 
Tripod, focus one third in, F11 to 16, shoot early and later for better light, good quality lens, iso 200 max. Best of luck have a great trip
 
EOS_JD said:
We all move although granted not too much - it really just depends on how critical composition is (to be fair under most conditions it would work).

Mirror lock up though is generally used to reduce camera vibration in LONGER exposures than you can handhold. ML will have oretty much zero effect if you're holding the camera in your hand and shooting as your SS will already be fast enough to negate the need for ML.
Click to expand...

Personally speaking, my landscapes shots tend to be taken in low light such as early morning/late evening, with a low ISO and at f/8 upward, (like I'm sure many do)

From my experience, shutter speeds don't tend to be too quick under these conditions, so if I don't have a tripod to hand, then I find Mirror Lock up does help.
 
The vibration is so minor that I doubt that. If you have issues it's unlikely to make any difference and more likely your hand moving! The hands absorb that vibration. On a stable platform like a tripod the vibration will travel more so more important to use when on a steady solid platform
 
Last edited:
I haven't read all of this thread. Has anyone mentioned quality of light yet? That's the most important thing.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
So if I go out in excellent light and set the camera up so that it over-exposes and blurs the shot that's a good, crisp landscape ? No. Thought not ;) Good light is a contributor but it's perfectly possible to take a good, crisp landscape in virtual darkness if you set the camera up correctly and give it long enough to make the exposure. Good, crisp landscapes is a combination of many factors, some of which are technique, light and equipment.
 
ChrisGilbert said:
So if I go out in excellent light and set the camera up so that it over-exposes and blurs the shot that's a good, crisp landscape ? No. Thought not ;) Good light is a contributor but it's perfectly possible to take a good, crisp landscape in virtual darkness if you set the camera up correctly and give it long enough to make the exposure. Good, crisp landscapes is a combination of many factors, some of which are technique, light and equipment.
Click to expand...

Not if the atmospheric haze is casing anything over 100m away to shimmer. You can use all the equipment you want but you're never going to overcome atmospheric effects with a heavier tripod or a super cable release

The real question is why do you want super crisp landscapes, they tend to be boring
 
ChrisGilbert said:
So if I go out in excellent light and set the camera up so that it over-exposes and blurs the shot that's a good, crisp landscape ? No. Thought not
Click to expand...

No because you over exposed it.

Light is the most important consideration.


Steve.
 
ChrisGilbert said:
Sorry but that is just wrong.

Light is important but it is wasted without good technique. You can't consider it in isolation.
Click to expand...

You can be the best landscape photographer in the world but if the light is crap, you aren't going to get good results
 
ChrisGilbert said:
Infra red ?

Light is just the starting point. As I said, you can get a perfectly crisp landscape in near darkness when you know what to do with the camera.
Click to expand...

Infra red is just another form of light, it is the same thing just a different wavelength which is why humans don't see it.

Light isn't just the starting point, its the be-all and end-all of photography; without it we couldn't make photographs. Knowing what to do with a camera only makes sense when you take light and quality of light into consideration. Take your example, low light means you need to add light in some form to your image. Be that using a flash, longer exposures, higher sensitivity or a wider aperture. If you couldn't gauge how much or how little light there is, there would be no way to make an acceptable photograph. Whether you analyse the scene using your own eyes or the camera's meter, you are still looking at the same thing, light, be it ultraviolet, infrared or plain old visible.
 
robhooley167 said:
You can be the best landscape photographer in the world but if the light is crap, you aren't going to get good results
Click to expand...

Again, not true. A good landscaper looks at what light is available and works with it. They look for the unique characteristics of the conditions and composes within them.

'Good' light - whatever that is - delivers landscapes of certain characteritsics. Characteristics that a lot of people enjoy looking at. 'Bad' light delivers different characteristics and makes different demands of the photographer but can also deliver very unusual results because it forces us to look at things slightly differently.

If we put technique aside for a moment - and it pains me to do so because it is technique that ultimately delivers results - far more important than good light to landscape photography are contrast and good continuation, both of which are available even when the light is poor.
 
Chris, are you saying you can get a great photo in any light conditions with any scene? Every photographer I know and respect waits for the light to be right to get what they want and considers light to be tremendously important, I've never once heard any other photographer write off the importance of light as you seem to be doing.
 
ChrisGilbert said:
and it pains me to do so because it is technique that ultimately delivers results
Click to expand...

It depends on what you call technique.

The variables we have at our control are aperture, shutter speed, focus and, most importantly, the direction in which we point the lens.

There has to be something interesting in front of the camera otherwise all the 'technique' in the world isn't going to give you a good picture.

With landscape photography, nature does most of the work and we just record it, hopefully with enough competence to make our pictures look the way we want them too.

ChrisGilbert said:
far more important than good light to landscape photography are contrast and good continuation, both of which are available even when the light is poor.
Click to expand...

Contrast is very dependent on the light. The more cloud cover you have diffusing the sun, the lower the contrast.

http://photo.tutsplus.com/articles/shooting-articles/using-light-to-shape-landscape-photography/


Steve.
 
Last edited:
The assertion was that to get a crisp landscape shot you need good light. I am challanging that assertion. You can get a crisp landscape shot in *any* light if you use the camera correctly.

There is an entirely different argument to be had about the value of the end result, which is inevitably affected by the conditions you have but this can be either a positve or negative efftect. All conditions deliver both good and bad opportunities. Writing off the conditions in front of you simply because they don't appear to meet expected criteria is self-limiting. Photography has many different vectors, all of which can be seperated out and worked with individually.

(PS. I've just had a look through Simon Bray's work and I don't rate it. Sorry. That 'Garden Of Edale light' is blown-out to buggery in the top right and most of his other work demonstrates a very poor understanding of light despite his assertion that it is 'everything').
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top