Thoughts on landscape photography techniques

snerkler

Outstanding Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2011
Messages
23,986
Reaction score
14,267
Points
5,850
This is not asking for advice, just interested in people's landscape techniques and why they choose to do it that way.

I know once upon a time most would shoot at the smallest aperture possible to get the max DOF, but more recent thinking has been to use a wider aperture to minimise diffraction, focussing at the hyper focal distance.

I personally use the latter, shooting at f8 on crop, and f5.6 on my M4/3. Apparently M4/3 suffer bad diffraction at apertures smaller than this, and at f5.6 they have the equivalent aperture of f8 on a crop anyway. I'm currently waiting for delivery of FF so will probably shoot at f10/11.

Earlier in the year I went on a landscape photography course and the guy was 'adamant' that you should still shoot at the smallest aperture possible (f22 in his case), and focus on the main subject of the frame (hadn't heard this before). For example, in this shot he wanted me to shoot at f22 and focus on the bridge. As I was using M4/3 I was very reluctant to do this due to the diffraction and actually shot at f8 (I actually don't think there's any diffraction issues at this aperture) and focussed about 3m away.

P7092098 by TDG-77, on Flickr

I'm interested to know what technique folk use and why?
 
FF 21mm focused at 2 metres @ f8. Gives me from about 1 metre to infinity in focus
 
FF 21mm focused at 2 metres @ f8. Gives me from about 1 metre to infinity in focus
So you'd still use F8 on FF? I personally can't see what the advantage of shooting at f22 is. If at f8 you get focus from 1m to infinite what more can F22 give you? You gain 0.5m near distance, but at the sacrifice of what diffraction :eek:
 
So you'd still use F8 on FF? I personally can't see what the advantage of shooting at f22 is. If at f8 you get focus from 1m to infinite what more can F22 give you? You gain 0.5m near distance, but at the sacrifice of what diffraction :eek:

Rarely would you want to use f22, maybe if you wanted a long exposure - water for example, where diffraction would probably be unnoticed

Shoot both apertures, compare them - if f22 is noticeably diffracted, send it to him and ask him WTH MAN?!
 
I searched landscape on flickr, this was the highest aperture I came across in 10 clicks

Granite Landscape | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

f14, probably because he wanted detail in something very close.

You can focus stack though
Focus stacking sounds like too much work for me ;)

This was shot at f8, and I don't think close sharpness is bad at all. Mind you, on saying that aperture equivalence is probably f16 :laugh:

PA023428 by TDG-77, on Flickr
 
Check your lens charts, it will show you the optimum sharpness throughout the apertures
 
Check your lens charts, it will show you the optimum sharpness throughout the apertures
Lens charts? Now where would one find those, DXO and such like?
 
Don't really do much landscape stuff but whenever i have been out with more experienced photographers the advice is usually

F8
ISO100 (over ride any auto iso settings)
Focus to infinity
Mirror up mode & remote release
Filters where appropriate - usually just UV but occasionally a c/pol if there is any reflection from water or buildings, but never around dusk or dawn

As for the pics - looks like Monsal head and the rock formations near surprise corner on the approach to hathersage. Great shots
 
Don't really do much landscape stuff but whenever i have been out with more experienced photographers the advice is usually

F8
ISO100 (over ride any auto iso settings)
Focus to infinity
Mirror up mode & remote release
Filters where appropriate - usually just UV but occasionally a c/pol if there is any reflection from water or buildings, but never around dusk or dawn

As for the pics - looks like Monsal head and the rock formations near surprise corner on the approach to hathersage. Great shots
Thanks. Monsal Head is right, but the other is Curbar Edge ;)
 
Lol, yeah I knew where you meant ;) Curbar Edge overlooks Curbar and Baslow.
 
I think someone pixel peeps to much, great shot btw.
Thanks. Lol, I view images at fit to screen and if there's no obvious CA or diffraction I'm happy with that ;) Strange thing is I get overly carried away looking at sharpness scores etc when looking at the stats, but when I look at pics I'm only looking on a 15" monitor so most of it's going to be lost on my screen anyway :laugh:
 
This is not asking for advice, just interested in people's landscape techniques and why they choose to do it that way.

I know once upon a time most would shoot at the smallest aperture possible to get the max DOF, but more recent thinking has been to use a wider aperture to minimise diffraction, focussing at the hyper focal distance.

I personally use the latter, shooting at f8 on crop, and f5.6 on my M4/3. Apparently M4/3 suffer bad diffraction at apertures smaller than this, and at f5.6 they have the equivalent aperture of f8 on a crop anyway. I'm currently waiting for delivery of FF so will probably shoot at f10/11.

Earlier in the year I went on a landscape photography course and the guy was 'adamant' that you should still shoot at the smallest aperture possible (f22 in his case), and focus on the main subject of the frame (hadn't heard this before). For example, in this shot he wanted me to shoot at f22 and focus on the bridge. As I was using M4/3 I was very reluctant to do this due to the diffraction and actually shot at f8 (I actually don't think there's any diffraction issues at this aperture) and focussed about 3m away.

P7092098 by TDG-77, on Flickr

I'm interested to know what technique folk use and why?

Nice shot. I do similar, focus for foreground interest (in this case the bridge) or 'a third of the way in' as a rough guide. With smallish apertures, F11 typically on a crop, then most of the scene will be nicely focussed.
I also shoot wider on my D7100 than I used to with the D90/D300 and crop more for composition. Probably not the proper way to do things but I do like the option to change my mind in PP.
As for general settings...
Base ISO 100
Auto WB
Aperture ... F11 as a start but usually F8-F13
RAW 14 bit
Manual focus
Tripod and remote release
Filters ... Usually a grad and/or ND if I want to lengthen the exposure time to get some movement in the scene.
I don't tend to bracket exposures much but try and expose right of centre on the histogram.

As an aside, interesting article on 'equivalence' here...

"Full Frame Equivalence" and Why It Doesn't Matter - Admiring Light
 
Nice shot. I do similar, focus for foreground interest (in this case the bridge) or 'a third of the way in' as a rough guide. With smallish apertures, F11 typically on a crop, then most of the scene will be nicely focussed.
I also shoot wider on my D7100 than I used to with the D90/D300 and crop more for composition. Probably not the proper way to do things but I do like the option to change my mind in PP.
As for general settings...
Base ISO 100
Auto WB
Aperture ... F11 as a start but usually F8-F13
RAW 14 bit
Manual focus
Tripod and remote release
Filters ... Usually a grad and/or ND if I want to lengthen the exposure time to get some movement in the scene.
I don't tend to bracket exposures much but try and expose right of centre on the histogram.

As an aside, interesting article on 'equivalence' here...

"Full Frame Equivalence" and Why It Doesn't Matter - Admiring Light
Interesting, thanks. I think I might give manual focussing a go too and see what the results are like. I need to have more confidence in my abilities ;)
 
Nice shot. I do similar, focus for foreground interest (in this case the bridge) or 'a third of the way in' as a rough guide. With smallish apertures, F11 typically on a crop, then most of the scene will be nicely focussed.
I also shoot wider on my D7100 than I used to with the D90/D300 and crop more for composition. Probably not the proper way to do things but I do like the option to change my mind in PP.
As for general settings...
Base ISO 100
Auto WB
Aperture ... F11 as a start but usually F8-F13
RAW 14 bit
Manual focus
Tripod and remote release
Filters ... Usually a grad and/or ND if I want to lengthen the exposure time to get some movement in the scene.
I don't tend to bracket exposures much but try and expose right of centre on the histogram.

As an aside, interesting article on 'equivalence' here...

"Full Frame Equivalence" and Why It Doesn't Matter - Admiring Light

Interested in the bracketing comment - any reason why not?

A good proportion of the 'pro' photographer talks i've attended advocate this, not to try and get a HDR look but maybe a -1 / - / +1 bracket - I've blindly followed this advice without ever really fully testing or understanding it

Did you use to bracket on the D90/D300 but don't feel the need on the D7100?
 
you haven't mentioned focal length in the discussion so far.
Landscapes with a UWA can get away with a much wide aperture than Landscapes with a telephoto, of course.
Why would you need to use F22 on a 10mm lens on a crop? But you might with a 200mm. (perhaps...)

I guess I can understand the point about the main object in the photo being the point to focus on. If the bridge is what you want people's eyes drawn to, then wouldn't you make sure that was the sharpest object in the photo? Does it matter if the grass right at the front of the photo is slightly out of focus as a consequence? Or are you always trying to get everything in focus. I guess that is as much a style issue as it is a technical issue.
 
Interested in the bracketing comment - any reason why not?

A good proportion of the 'pro' photographer talks i've attended advocate this, not to try and get a HDR look but maybe a -1 / - / +1 bracket - I've blindly followed this advice without ever really fully testing or understanding it

Did you use to bracket on the D90/D300 but don't feel the need on the D7100?
I bracket my shots as it gives me the opportunity to do subtle HDR if there's too much contrast in the scene. I normally use ND grad filters but this doesn't always guarantee that you're not going to lose detail in some shadows for example.
 
you haven't mentioned focal length in the discussion so far.
Landscapes with a UWA can get away with a much wide aperture than Landscapes with a telephoto, of course.
Why would you need to use F22 on a 10mm lens on a crop? But you might with a 200mm. (perhaps...)

I guess I can understand the point about the main object in the photo being the point to focus on. If the bridge is what you want people's eyes drawn to, then wouldn't you make sure that was the sharpest object in the photo? Does it matter if the grass right at the front of the photo is slightly out of focus as a consequence? Or are you always trying to get everything in focus. I guess that is as much a style issue as it is a technical issue.
Good shout on the FL. Most of the time I shoot at 18mm eq, but do sometimes shoot different FL's, occasionally even with a telephoto as you mentioned. I do want everything in focus, and this is what the guy wanted that I mentioned in the original post.
 
Interested in the bracketing comment - any reason why not?

A good proportion of the 'pro' photographer talks i've attended advocate this, not to try and get a HDR look but maybe a -1 / - / +1 bracket - I've blindly followed this advice without ever really fully testing or understanding it

Did you use to bracket on the D90/D300 but don't feel the need on the D7100?

Ask them why they bracket? I can understand Snerk's point about subtle HDR. But, in reality, with modern sensors, a stop of recovery is perfectly doable in post processing. Lightroom's ND Grad tool - yay!

Your camera sensor does not have the dynamic range of the human eye, so there will always be compromises. At the end of the day, all we are trying to achieve is to replicate the scene that our eye sees. You can do this with filters, you can do it in post-processing, or both - it doesn't really matter, as long as you get the required result.

I did used to bracket on the D90/D300 but that was more due to my thinking that I should, and because I didn't have the filters I do now.
 
Ask them why they bracket? I can understand Snerk's point about subtle HDR. But, in reality, with modern sensors, a stop of recovery is perfectly doable in post processing. Lightroom's ND Grad tool - yay!

Your camera sensor does not have the dynamic range of the human eye, so there will always be compromises. At the end of the day, all we are trying to achieve is to replicate the scene that our eye sees. You can do this with filters, you can do it in post-processing, or both - it doesn't really matter, as long as you get the required result.

I did used to bracket on the D90/D300 but that was more due to my thinking that I should, and because I didn't have the filters I do now.
Whilst I'm sure you're right about the detail recovery, that sunset pic is a 5 shot HDR which took about 20s to process. To get that level of detail recover, lighting etc etc using one image in LR would have probably taken me at least 45 mins and I'm just not that dedicated to processing ;)
 
Whilst I'm sure you're right about the detail recovery, that sunset pic is a 5 shot HDR which took about 20s to process. To get that level of detail recover, lighting etc etc using one image in LR would have probably taken me at least 45 mins and I'm just not that dedicated to processing ;)

And a fine photograph it is too!
 
I did used to bracket on the D90/D300 but that was more due to my thinking that I should, and because I didn't have the filters I do now.

That pretty much sums up why i do it, not convinced it's adding much value but has become second nature
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom