DOF Vs. Focus Stacking?

[pgriz]

What you are seeing is diffraction from using f/22 at 24mm. I don't know enough about diffraction to really explain it but, I do know that once you get past f/11 or so it starts giving everything a slight blur. Focus stacking at say f/8 will give you sharper results but, it has its pitfalls like anything else. I like your photo and most people would be perfectly satisfied with it.

This is a valid and important point. Diffraction is both aperture and sensor dependent. With my set-up (Canon APS sensor) anything past f/16 shows more and more obvious diffraction. So part of the game is to use enough aperture to get you the depth of field you need, but not more than that, as using higher apertures will make the diffraction more and more visible. Try this link to get a better handle on this phenomenon: (Diffraction Limited Photography: Pixel Size, Aperture and Airy Disks).

 

[The_Traveler]

I don't see what's "hyper-realistic" about having the entire scene be sharp, the same way your eyes would see it (unless in person you held a leaf an inch away from your eye and expected something at 50ft away be in focus)

Our eyes constantly refocus and don't have a remarkable depth of field - and we are aware of that. What is so impressive about high definition, deep depth of field images is exactly that; they are different from what we see just because seemingly everything is in focus and thus there is a feeling of hyper-reality.

 

[smoke665]

they are different from what we see just because seemingly everything is in focus and thus there is a feeling of hyper-reality

A photo is two dimensional where depth is a simulated illusion compared to the three dimensional world we live where depth is real. "Hyperreality" is the inability of conscious mind to distinguish reality from a simulation of reality, but as you point out, because of that third dimension (depth), the eye is incapable of focusing both near and far at the same time, therefore any printed image which purports to show everything in focus at once would be an incongruity to the conscious mind. Therefore this type of photo would be more aptly described as an "Augmented Reality". Something I also misstated in a previous post when I used "hyper realistic". A more accurate example of a "Hyperreality", image would be a 3D or holographic image where the conscious mind is actually fooled by the addition of depth and no longer able to discern it is a simulation.

 

[N1kon1k]

This forum is great... I really enjoy asking a question and receiving so many responses/opinions in which they all teach you something new and put things in perspective...

Like @pgriz stated sharpness is something that can be attained, and I guess this is why I'm trying to "attain" the goal... not necessarily because it needs to be done in every single photo, but because I would like to be able to "Know How"

I still consider myself very new to photography after 3 years of going out every weekend and practice... and I am just trying to learn as much technique and as many technical aspects of photography as possible so that when a situation calls for it? I will not have to think twice about it and it will come natural...

@jsecordphoto he also pointed something very insteresting on big prints... although sharpness may not be as noticeable in a smaller print or web, I'm sure it would be very different when presenting the shot to a customer...

One thing I find very interesting around where I live is that people don't seem to see photography as an art form and don't appreciate it as much as blobs of paint splattered on a canvas "called abstract"

In the end experience and practice it's what's going to marry everything together... lol

 

[jsecordphoto]

I still maintain that sharpness is extremely important when shooting landscapes. Maybe the "sharpness is overrated" thing is valid for some forms of photography- but the only time I've ever heard it was on message boards, never from other landscape photographers. Can't say I've ever heard it from any wildlife photographers either...

 

[N1kon1k]

From reading and watching so many things on photography I can firmly say that photography in the end has to be taken with a grain of salt... I feel like some principles need to be exercised For a photo to work but in the end how you post process it's up to a personal taste... in the end I feel like if you can sell your work and make a good living equals success

 

[smoke665]

For a photo to work but in the end how you post process it's up to a personal taste...

Not necessarily, the reality is the "end result" is dependent on everything you do "before you take the shot". Post processing should be the clean up phase, not the creative stage, unless you're doing a composite or other creative work.

 

[jsecordphoto]

For a photo to work but in the end how you post process it's up to a personal taste...

Not necessarily, the reality is the "end result" is dependent on everything you do "before you take the shot". Post processing should be the clean up phase, not the creative stage, unless you're doing a composite or other creative work.

Gotta disagree with you there. Creativity has had a place in the darkroom (and digital darkroom) since Ansel Adams and before him. Doing things like dodging and burning to shift the viewers eye and enhance light has been a practice for a long time.

 

[smoke665]

@jsecordphoto This bone's been gnawed on before on this forum and others. For a photographer (not a graphic artist) the creativity begins the moment the photographer see's something that catches his eye. From that point the creativity is a series of choices on everything from lens, exposure, framing, light, etc. leading up to the point of clicking the shutter. If the photographer got it right the creativity is over, it's SOOC to on the wall. Since I rarely am that perfect, for me it involves cleaning up. Burning, Dodging, cloning, and adjusting are all parts of improving the image that was already "created" at the time the shutter was pushed. To often I think people take a somewhat lazy approach before the shutter clicks, with the belief that they'll "correct it post". If you're going to do that, why bother with taking the photo, just compile a database trees, rocks, sky, people, etc. and make your own scene, that's what a graphic artist does.

I also think you're missing some great opportunities as an artist if you limit yourself to only tack sharp images. Look at these landscapes from Andrew S. Gray http://andrewsgray.photography/galleries/latest/ I could find others, but I thought his work illustrated the point that there's more than just sharp.

 

[Overread14 2]

Sharpness tends to get people all riled up about nothing.


Mostly because some people worry that new photographers focus on it too much; that they are aiming for technical perfection at the expense of their artistic creativity; and that hunting down extreme sharpness causes them to throw away photos that otherwise would be perfectly fine.

Part of this is a reaction to avoid that extremist angle - which is somewhat overblown as technical prowess is part of the creative learning curve - because by attaining technical competency one is more able to be creative. Without it you can see great shots; have great ideas and achieve non of them.
Someone earlier said that they don't remember sharp photos because they are sharp; but I bet those great photos were sharp where it counts and when it needed to be.


Another part is mystery. Sharpness IS a mystery because we tend to onyl see web-resized photos online which are very easy to sharpen. Heck you can get some really soft fullsize shots and sharpen them up great for web display. This tends to mean that we see a lot of very sharp photos online - it also means that people get worried that all this sharpening they are doing isn't what others are doing - that htey are oversharpening to compensate for lack of skill.

Equipment comes into it too as like it or not higher end higher priced gear DOES produce sharper results at a wider range of aperture values (in general although the diffraction limit is often about the same so long as the camera used is the same).



In my view its perfectly fine to learn and talk about sharpness. Chasing it isn't a waste of time - indeed learning how to get tack sharp shots every time; to get it sharp when you want it etc.... is a great part of learning. Sure it shouldn't be your only thought but its not bad if its a prime motivator for you.


Focus stacking is certainly a means to an end and I bet if this were a macro thread instead of a landscape everyone would be encouraging the OP and this discussion would not have gone the way it has into a slight meta-talk about correct learning approach and the like. Indeed focus-stacking is a fantastic example of "niche thinking"

Done in macro or as part of astrophotography its accepted as totally normal; skilled but great for achieving otherwise impossible results. Bring it into other genres and some get confused why you'd do that or feel as if its a cop-out of other established methods - or any one of a hundred other viewpoints.
Part of this is niche thinking - that false concept of ascribing certain skills or methods to be restricted to certain situations and subjects as dictated by popularity of used of the method in those interests.

 

[The_Traveler]

Post processing should be the clean up phase, not the creative stage, unless you're doing a composite or other creative work.

This is a very, very narrow way of looking at things.
Ansel Adams did a lot of post processing because Nature did not always agree with the photographer's view of what looks good.

 

[smoke665]

This is a very, very narrow way of looking at things.
Ansel Adams did a lot of post processing because Nature did not always agree with the photographer's view of what looks good.

Only if you take my comment out of context. The post I was commenting on seemed to imply that creativity came from post processing, if that's the case then again why bother with the photograph, just create an image from a composite of parts. As to Adams, like any artist his vision, his creation, was already formed in his mind when he clicked the shutter, whether he improved on it later in the darkroom is irrelevant.

 

[jsecordphoto]

@jsecordphoto This bone's been gnawed on before on this forum and others. For a photographer (not a graphic artist) the creativity begins the moment the photographer see's something that catches his eye. From that point the creativity is a series of choices on everything from lens, exposure, framing, light, etc. leading up to the point of clicking the shutter. If the photographer got it right the creativity is over, it's SOOC to on the wall. Since I rarely am that perfect, for me it involves cleaning up. Burning, Dodging, cloning, and adjusting are all parts of improving the image that was already "created" at the time the shutter was pushed. To often I think people take a somewhat lazy approach before the shutter clicks, with the belief that they'll "correct it post". If you're going to do that, why bother with taking the photo, just compile a database trees, rocks, sky, people, etc. and make your own scene, that's what a graphic artist does.

I also think you're missing some great opportunities as an artist if you limit yourself to only tack sharp images. Look at these landscapes from Andrew S. Gray http://andrewsgray.photography/galleries/latest/ I could find others, but I thought his work illustrated the point that there's more than just sharp.

Guess we'll agree to disagree. To me there are no images that I'd ever share SOOC, a raw file requires processing. While I'm not much for over the top processing, I'm certainly no purist.

Btw those images do absolutely nothing for me. I've seen ICM images that are great, and of course everyone has different tastes, but I can't say I liked any of the images on his site- I've seen countless photos like that from people just trying too hard to be artsy.

 

[unpopular]

@jsecordphotoIf the photographer got it right the creativity is over, it's SOOC to on the wall.

Correction: if the software engineers at Canon/Sony/Nikon/Leica/Hasselblad got it right. I am assuming you don't know what an image look like SOOC. Well. Let's start with linear gamma. It's also green with no perceivable color information. It also appears vastly under-exposed. Not just a little, but a lot (again, linear gamma). Oh. And all the RGB pixels aren't composed into a color, so it has a checkered appearance. And there's an extra green pixel that our brain has no frickin clue what to do with. Oh. And there is no white balance in a digital exposure. That's entirely done in processing ... good thing the image is green.

In other words, SOOC doesn't really mean anything. It represents only slightly more than an undeveloped sheet of film.

@smoke665 you make it sound so easy. I'm a visual effects artist. All day I make scenes that were shot on location look like they take place in the civil war. I add mortar blasts and dirt hits. I make blood spray out of soldiers (which is pretty ridiculous honestly, but, it's entertainment). I erase modern buildings, power cables, people in baseball caps who are found wandering around b-roll footage. I add caskets and wooden crates and dead bodies. Sometimes it woks out, sometimes I'm just glad the forty frames I've been staring at for the last two hours lasts only a seconds on TV. And the fact that we spend hours on a few frames should say something about how fixing it in post amounts to being "lazy".

No. It's not "easy", but it is cheaper to pay a junior VFX artist to do it than to rent props or send a camera man through a practical explosion SFX. It turns out that Camera operators don't like being blown up (nor would whoever owns the $30K cameras)

My point is that yes, maybe there are some newbies out there with an attitude that it'd just be easier to "fix in post"; shows like CSI make it look easy: just press the "enhance" button. But I think everyone who has this attitude eventually realizes that it's not that simple. It's FAR easier to capture the data you need to make the image than try to create it after. Eventually, anyone serious about photography will realize that they can't hide behind instagram filters forever. Their images suck on a fundamental level, and even the look that they're going for ultimately can't be achieved without good data.

NOW. I say "good data" because the image your camera records is not a "good exposure" to the eye. This is super important when you're talking about image processing. SOOC, without any post-exposure correction is not color balanced, has no color profile, and in a linear gamma. Looking at it without any understanding about how image processing works, you'd assume it's *totally* unusable.

Of course, it can be argued that the camera and raw processing software attempts to correct this in a way that resembled what our eye naturally sees - but if we're going to be super objective about it - our eyes are pretty lousy optically-speaking and if it weren't for our brain "post processing" the signal off our retina my $25 chinese c-mount lens is more accurate. Really, have you tried to pay attention to the OOF region of our vision? It is difficult, but if you really pay attention, the bokeh isn't "creamy", it's *terrible*. And what can you expect from such a small aperture being focused through a liquid filled with crap? The laws of physics apply to our eyes as well.

Photography isn't about recording what is *there* it's about recording what we *see*. While our eye's lens is REALLY, REALLY bad, the camera system is pretty good, and the raw processor is about the best thing we have available to us. No camera can record the amount of color depth that our eye sees, nor can it process what's important and ignore the rest. To do that, we have to compress tones, dodge and burn, apply LUT curves... And even when we try our best to replicate with scientific precision the qualitative natural gamma of vision, it frequently doesn't work out.

That's why Adams developed the zone system, and why digital photographers everywhere unknowingly apply it. A good exposure is not one that looks good SOOC, or even one that looks good according to camera software engineers.

It's one that gathers enough information about that scene to allow the photographer to express what he or she saw. And if the photographer perceives a subject in crystal-sharp detail beyond the physical capabilities of the lens, who am I to say their vision is wrong?

 

[unpopular]

And let's not forget about ETTR either, a process first essentially developed by Ansel Adams before being adapted to digital.

Only in his day you never saw your N+3 negatives developed out normally.

If you're shooting SOOC and not using ETTR then you're using only about 1/3 of your cameras dynamic range in many cases, which is already significantly limited as compared to human vision.

So right out of the gate you're further from the goal of emulating vision by rejecting a large chunk of luma that the eye had seen at time of exposure.

Is good photography then exclusively dependent on the subject being illuminated in a way that fits within the usable range that the camera can record under "normal" processing? Is the skill of the photographer to be measured entirely by how diffused the light happens to be on a given day?

I'm 99.9% sure that Adams would disagree. It takes FAR more skill to compensate for difficult lighting conditions in a way that includes how it is to be processed than to be so tightly bound by specific lighting conditions.

Complaining about "bad light" is a true sign of a lazy photographer.