If I'm reading correctly I need to use a higher fstop number to get a deeper depth of field on landscape shots. What can I do to help with the lack of lighting when I use the higher fstop # other than leaving the shutter open (sucks for handheld shots)? Am I going about this in the right direction or do I need to make a u turn? With digital "point and shoot" cameras, you can select the landscape feature and just go from there. It seems that when I'm trying to get the same results from my digital SLR, I am having to use longer shutter speeds than is used on the automatic point and shoot model, thus making blury pics without a tripod.
Find's Treasure Forums
Welcome to Find's Treasure Forums, Guests!
You are viewing this forums as a guest which limits you to read only status.
Only registered members may post stories, questions, classifieds, reply to other posts, contact other members using built in messaging and use many other features found on these forums.
Why not register and join us today? It's free! (We don't share your email addresses with anyone.) We keep email addresses of our users to protect them and others from bad people posting things they shouldn't.
Click here to register!
Need Support Help?
Cannot log in?, click here to have new password emailed to you
Changed email? Forgot to update your account with new email address? Need assistance with something else?, click here to go to Find's Support Form and fill out the form.
Help with depth of field.
- Thread starter dudephil
- Start date
I agree with RM, if you want more depth of field for low light landscapes you need a tripod, and I might add a remote shutter release as well. Basically you can manipulate your shutter speed, f-stop and your ISO to find a balance of exposure, depth of field and grain. Below is a link to a handy web site for calculating depth of field.
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
Shot the first two last night after the missus started putting up her small trees. Was wondering what you guys would've done different to make what would be considered a better shot. The ornaments are pretty small; shot with 75-300 lens from about 4 ft with tripod. Any comments or critiques would be appreciated. My feelings don't hurt too easily so go ahead and tear into me 
ExposureTime : 5.00Sec
FNumber : F45.0
ExposureProgram : Shutter Priority
ISOSpeedRatings : 100
[attachment 10467 PICT0033.jpg]
ExposureTime : 1.30Sec
FNumber : F25.0
ExposureProgram : Aperture Priority
ISOSpeedRatings : 400
[attachment 10468 PICT0039.jpg]
These were shot today in my office. I have one of these cans on either side of a shelf. The further one is about 12 ft away and the closer one is about 8. Same lens as above in natural light through the windows, no tripod.
ExposureTime : 1/10Sec
FNumber : F5.6
ExposureProgram : Aperture Priority
ISOSpeedRatings : 400
[attachment 10469 PICT0120.jpg]
ExposureTime : 1/50Sec
FNumber : F4.5
ExposureProgram : Aperture Priority
ISOSpeedRatings : 400
[attachment 10470 PICT0123.jpg]
ExposureTime : 5.00Sec
FNumber : F45.0
ExposureProgram : Shutter Priority
ISOSpeedRatings : 100
[attachment 10467 PICT0033.jpg]
ExposureTime : 1.30Sec
FNumber : F25.0
ExposureProgram : Aperture Priority
ISOSpeedRatings : 400
[attachment 10468 PICT0039.jpg]
These were shot today in my office. I have one of these cans on either side of a shelf. The further one is about 12 ft away and the closer one is about 8. Same lens as above in natural light through the windows, no tripod.
ExposureTime : 1/10Sec
FNumber : F5.6
ExposureProgram : Aperture Priority
ISOSpeedRatings : 400
[attachment 10469 PICT0120.jpg]
ExposureTime : 1/50Sec
FNumber : F4.5
ExposureProgram : Aperture Priority
ISOSpeedRatings : 400
[attachment 10470 PICT0123.jpg]
OK, I'll ignore composition as it appears you did the same. I'll concentrate on exposure and DOF as that was what your original post was about.
The first two are underexposed due to the bright white bulbs. Also, when you underexpose this much it kills any DOF so the photo looks very flat. If you go for a longer exposure time the lights will be blown out. So, you really only have three options. Either find an acceptable exposure balancing between the lights and the ornaments. Keep in mind that when you use Av or Tv mode the camera will average the exposure for you which in these photos will be bad. You will have to go in manual mode to find something usable. Or, using a tripod shoot two exposures, one for the lights and one for the ornaments. Then in Photoshop layer the two together so you would have a photo with proper exposure for both. And last, you can use your own lighting to balance everything out.
The second two are exposed properly. The top photo turned out very well considering how much of the white shelf was in the photo. Good DOF too. The bottom photo has a stronger DOF so it stands out a little more. I like both of these photos.
In short, in the top two photos you are working with a lot of light variation with the shadows and the lights. That is some tough conditions to shoot under. In the bottom two you have a much smaller variation in lighting so it's much easier to shoot.
Here's my tip of the day: Understand lighting and you're on your way to getting good quality photos.
The first two are underexposed due to the bright white bulbs. Also, when you underexpose this much it kills any DOF so the photo looks very flat. If you go for a longer exposure time the lights will be blown out. So, you really only have three options. Either find an acceptable exposure balancing between the lights and the ornaments. Keep in mind that when you use Av or Tv mode the camera will average the exposure for you which in these photos will be bad. You will have to go in manual mode to find something usable. Or, using a tripod shoot two exposures, one for the lights and one for the ornaments. Then in Photoshop layer the two together so you would have a photo with proper exposure for both. And last, you can use your own lighting to balance everything out.
The second two are exposed properly. The top photo turned out very well considering how much of the white shelf was in the photo. Good DOF too. The bottom photo has a stronger DOF so it stands out a little more. I like both of these photos.
In short, in the top two photos you are working with a lot of light variation with the shadows and the lights. That is some tough conditions to shoot under. In the bottom two you have a much smaller variation in lighting so it's much easier to shoot.
Here's my tip of the day: Understand lighting and you're on your way to getting good quality photos.
I only adjusted aperture and/or shutter speed on the top two, not exposure - so that's something I'll mess with tonight. Been reading about bracketing and the depth of field preview today so I've been tinkering with those a little as well. Very challenging but I'm certainly enjoying learning new things daily and I appreciate your time and help. Still learning about depth of field and when you need more or less. Shot this one through the door from my desk today from 40ft or so.
[attachment 10471 jag.jpg]
Remember the Maxxum 7D/lens kit I found that was 20 bucks less than the body alone? It turned out to be a mistake on Beach Cameras part but they never mentioned it. I went to Bizrate and Beach Camera the following day of receiving my order and the price had been changed. When I received the camera, the invoice was correct and the rebate info was in line. Thought it was pretty cool of them to eat their mistake without complaining to me about it.
[attachment 10471 jag.jpg]
Remember the Maxxum 7D/lens kit I found that was 20 bucks less than the body alone? It turned out to be a mistake on Beach Cameras part but they never mentioned it. I went to Bizrate and Beach Camera the following day of receiving my order and the price had been changed. When I received the camera, the invoice was correct and the rebate info was in line. Thought it was pretty cool of them to eat their mistake without complaining to me about it.
