Beginner Landscape Photography

kam1

kam1

Suspended / Banned
Messages
26
Name
kamran
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm heading towards the Lake district over the Easter break, and looking to take my camera along with me to to capture some memorable photos.
I'm still learning and still don't know much about photography. But I'm looking for advice and tips on what setting to put my camera on for manual mode.

Any one have YouTube videos they can share for tips and tricks?
 
Why manual mode? there's no real need...

The key to getting stunning shots is to make sure the light is great, this means getting up to watch the dawn or hanging about to see the sunset - both of these times tend to give fantastic warm and soft light which is perfect for landscape photography (assuming the weather doesn't scupper you).
 
Usually shoot aperture priority and set f stop and use low ISO and over expose slightly
 
For landscapes you will probably want as much of the scene in focus as possible and therefore a small aperture(say f8.0 to f11) will be needed.

As already noted use aperture priority and set the aperture (and ISO) you want and let the camera take care of the shutter speed.
As long as the combination of the selected aperture and ISO does not need a shutter speed that is low enough to induce camera shake there is no problem. If you have a firm tripod then you can use virtually any shutter speed.

Manual exposure has its place but you need to know why you are using manual. If any other mode will get me exactly the result I want, then I can see no reason to use manual.
If, in manual mode and with, say, an aperture of f8, the shutter speed is adjusted so the indicator on the "- 0 +" scale in the viewfinder is on the "0" mark, then the exposure will be the same as if the camera had been set at the same aperture in aperture priority mode.

Enjoy your trip.

Dave
 
JohnX said:
Read up on hyperfocal distance.http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/hyperfocal-distance.htm

This method enables you to get everything in focus from half the hyperfocal distance to infinity, which is great for landscapes.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about getting everything in focus, maybe it's more like getting things acceptably sharp at a stated image size and viewing distance?

There's also the Merklinger method method, if front to back DoF is your aim, which doesn't need DoF tables or a photographic memory...

http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/DOFR.html
 
woof woof said:
I'm not sure about getting everything in focus, maybe it's more like getting things acceptably sharp at a stated image size and viewing distance?

There's also the Merklinger method method, if front to back DoF is your aim, which doesn't need DoF tables or a photographic memory...

http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/DOFR.html
Click to expand...
In there he says

"The general rule for scenic photographs, where one wishes to maximize the depth of field, is as follows. Set the focus at the distance of the most distant object. Then set the lens opening to the size of the smallest object to be resolved in the foreground. No calculations needed! "

Have to say i am struggling to see how on earth that works? the size of the object ?
 
Andrew Davies Photography said:
In there he says

"The general rule for scenic photographs, where one wishes to maximize the depth of field, is as follows. Set the focus at the distance of the most distant object. Then set the lens opening to the size of the smallest object to be resolved in the foreground. No calculations needed! "

Have to say i am struggling to see how on earth that works? the size of the object ?
Click to expand...

Yes, size of aperture and object (real size, size on sensor and size on output/print) are all directly related for DoF calcs. Merklinger's theory works, but unsurprisingly his method has escaped popular use.
 
Andrew Davies Photography said:
So if i have a small rock in the foreground i want to be in focus , by that method i have to measure its size ? and what do i do it in feet inches mm cm ? then set my aperture to the size of the rock ! I can see why his method has escape popular use , in fact i think he has 'escaped' from somewhere.
Click to expand...
It's in the link given above for anyone that wants to read it.
 
I have read it and it has left me more questions than answers which is why I am asking. Take for instance the last example , a Muskrat at 25 feet , just how do you know its at 25 feet , get a tape measure out ? . Just one foot out in your guess and your DOF is shot in that example ( 800mm lens at F8 ) and a waste of time calculating anything.
 
Andrew Davies Photography said:
I have read it and it has left me more questions than answers which is why I am asking. Take for instance the last example , a Muskrat at 25 feet , just how do you know its at 25 feet , get a tape measure out ? . Just one foot out in your guess and your DOF is shot in that example ( 800mm lens at F8 ) and a waste of time calculating anything.
Click to expand...
The calculation is there, run it for 23' and 27' and see if it's really so disastrous.
 
Andrew Davies Photography said:
In there he says

"The general rule for scenic photographs, where one wishes to maximize the depth of field, is as follows. Set the focus at the distance of the most distant object. Then set the lens opening to the size of the smallest object to be resolved in the foreground. No calculations needed! "

Have to say i am struggling to see how on earth that works? the size of the object ?
Click to expand...

If you give it a thorough read you should be able to grasp what he's getting at and there are plenty of examples of this technique on line plus you can always give it a go yourself. It's a pretty widely accepted alternative to hyperfocal technique.

Personally I'm just as likely to want the depth of field to drift off and not have front to back DoF.
 
And let's face it, both the hyperfocal method and the Merklinger method are going to be better than that old "focus one third of the way into the picture" nonsense which usually gets trotted out.
 
Appreciating that not all camera's are suitably equipped - but if you have Liveview and DOF preview available to you is there any reason why these shouldn't be the first port of call rather than relying on mathematical models. I've found you only need to be a small amount out when using hyperfocal distances from a chart or app to throw things out.....
My usual approach is once I've composed the shot I set the aperture, use DOF preview while zoomed in in Liveview, adjust focus so that the closest thing I want sharp is sharp but focussing any further stops it being so, then see if the furthest thing is sharp - if so great if not adjust aperture/point of focus until I do get the result I'm after. All with manual focussing (just to be clear :) ).

Have found that far more consistent than any tables or calculation methods if only because you can't always easily translate the numbers in the model to/from real life - the "how far away is the rock" type of question alluded to above......
 
Last edited:
Hyperfocal distance focusing is easy, but you do need a few numbers jotted down and be able to estimate close distances, like 10-12ft. HFD focusing only works with wide or standard-ish focal lengths, because longer lenses would require impossibly high f/numbers. I have a small table of just nine numbers printed inside the lens cap of my 17-40 on full-frame, ie HFD at 17, 24 and 35mm, at f/5.6, f/11, and f/22. You can guesstimate in between.

Then... what is the distance of the nearest object you want sharp? Let's say it's 6ft. Now double that distance* and focus on something at that double distance, ie 12ft, using centre-point AF. Look up 12ft on the table with the focal length you're using, and closest with a 35mm lens is 12ft at f/11. Set f/11 and that's it.

*HFD is always exactly double the distance of the closest object you want sharp.
 
Hoppy - not sure if your reply was directed at me - but my comments was based on what I have found to be real world challenges of applying HFD based focussing in the field. I understand the principles - but have found the Liveview and DOF preview far more reliable as I am actually looking at what is and isn't acceptably sharp.

As an example - using DOFMaster on my phone tells me that the HFD with a 24mm lens at f/11 on one of my cameras is 1.72M. Fine - know that everything from 0.86M will be acceptably sharp. However if I have just a 2cm error in my estimation and focus at 1.7M the furthest extent of my DOF drops to 137M. Hardly the far distance I may need. And quite often I am working at these types of distances.

So quite happy with the principles of HFD - I just find Liveview and DOF preview more reliable in a wider range of circumstances - in fact it was one of the main drivers for upgrading from a 5D to a MKII - to get Liveview to help manual focussing. Also 99% of my stuff is on a tripod so adjusting the framing for "focus-recompose" to autofocus at the HF distance seems more effort than just moving the frame round on my Liveview screen once I've framed things up.

Apologies if you weren't responding to me - but I'm yet to be convinced..... :)
 
Krisstiffer said:
Hoppy - not sure if your reply was directed at me - but my comments was based on what I have found to be real world challenges of applying HFD based focussing in the field. I understand the principles - but have found the Liveview and DOF preview far more reliable as I am actually looking at what is and isn't acceptably sharp.

As an example - using DOFMaster on my phone tells me that the HFD with a 24mm lens at f/11 on one of my cameras is 1.72M. Fine - know that everything from 0.86M will be acceptably sharp. However if I have just a 2cm error in my estimation and focus at 1.7M the furthest extent of my DOF drops to 137M. Hardly the far distance I may need. And quite often I am working at these types of distances.

So quite happy with the principles of HFD - I just find Liveview and DOF preview more reliable in a wider range of circumstances - in fact it was one of the main drivers for upgrading from a 5D to a MKII - to get Liveview to help manual focussing. Also 99% of my stuff is on a tripod so adjusting the framing for "focus-recompose" to autofocus at the HF distance seems more effort than just moving the frame round on my Liveview screen once I've framed things up.

Apologies if you weren't responding to me - but I'm yet to be convinced..... :)
Click to expand...

My post wasn't directed at anyone in particular. I just outlined an easy way of setting hyperfocal distance. But to comment on your post above, I also use your method, but as a check rather than a starting point, and depending on what I see, will then moderate either the aperture or focusing distance to taste.

To add though, HFD is not nearly as critical or sensitive as your 2cm error suggests. With something like a 10ft/3m HFD, you could be out a foot or so either way and it'd be very hard to see any significant difference in the final image. The maths in HFD calcs suggests otherwise, but that's because it has to draw a clear line of differentiation somewhere, but in reality focus doesn't go from sharp to unsharp like that, it's a very gradual process.

There is another danger when checking DoF via the LCD image. You can do it of course, but need to be aware that using the magnification feature is changing two fundamentals in the DoF calculations, ie image size and viewing distance. Basically, the more you zoom in on the screen, the less sharp the image becomes, so it needs a bit of practise and familiarity to get right.

There's a whole lot more debate, and argument, about HFD focusing and how that sits with achieving optimum sharpness (foreground, middle ground, and distance) in a landscape image. In fact it's something of a poor compromise, but plenty good enough for most folks. For others, only a tilt-shift lens is will do.
 
Checking sharpness throughout the image is IMVHO easier with a CSC as you can look around the scene in magnified mode. I don't know if you can do the same with a DSLR in live view on the back screen but for me looking in the VF is easier.

Anyway, as I said earlier I'm just as likely to let the DoF drift as I find it gives a more natural look.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top