Had my first attempt at a sunrise shoot

[Intervention302]

Hello guys,

My first mistake was in thinking it was around 30f this morning. Didn't realize it was 2f until I had already left my house. I should have packed boots!

Anyways I don't have my tripod yet (arriving Tuesday) so I needed to use a large aperture to get the shutter speed fast enough. I am overall pleased with the results, but know I can do so much better with more practice


1.
Nikon D60 RAW
Kit Lens
22mm, ISO 100, 1/500 @ f4.0



Now if I had a tripod and I used a smaller aperture and a longer shutter would that yield an overall better image? What other adverse issues arise from using a smaller aperture other than a shorter DOF? This image is slightly edited in LR5


2.
Nikon D60 RAW
35mm f/1.8G
35mm, 1/500 @ f1.8



Again, I think I should have used a smaller aperture and a longer shutter speed to have things more crisp or detailed. Although, my initial intention was to get the waterfall in focus and have everything else semi-blurred out


3.
Nikon D60 RAW
35mm f/1.8G
35mm, 1/640 @ f1.8



This is the only picture that I'm really happy with.


4.
Nikon D60 Raw
35mm f/1.8G
35mm, 1/1000 @ f1.8




I just threw in this picture for fun. I honestly got into photography to take a bunch of pictures of my Mustang, but since that is stored for the winter I took a few pictures of my daily driver. I am pretty happy with this shot

 

[480sparky]

Using a smaller aperture will increase sharpness.......... up to a point. After that, closing the aperture more will start reducing sharpness (due to diffraction).

It's hard to judge sharpness on such small images.

 

[Intervention302]

Using a smaller aperture will increase sharpness.......... up to a point. After that, closing the aperture more will start reducing sharpness (due to diffraction).

It's hard to judge sharpness on such small images.

I should have linked the larger images now that I think of it...

 

[JoeW]

First, congrats to you for trying this. Lots of people think of shooting sunrises. But they don't bother to get up early enough. And then doing it in inclement weather....like I said...congrats to you.

Okay, a couple of tips.
1. Yes, you want to use a tripod.
2. Don't center the horizon. Either shoot more of the foreground or more of the sky but not a 50-50 split.
3. A great basic rule I got from someone else is: don't shoot a sunrise or sunset just to shoot it. Make it an interesting shot...that also happens to have a sunrise or sunset. So...find an interesting building or tree as a silhouette. Or someone walking through the horizon (a dog walker, an animal grazing). Or a sculpture. Heck...a Ford Mustang even. But get a visual interest and then put the sunset in the background.
4. Another basic rule...a bare sky tends to produce a mediocre sunrise or sunset. It's great if there's some clouds or foul weather or particulate matter (air pollution or dust) in the sky.
5. For sunrises, my two favorite elements (especially in winter) are BEFORE the sun comes up (and you get interesting colors in the sky and REFLECTIONS from that sunrise. For instance, you're clearly shooting in a cold-weather environment. Can you find a barn with ice on the side facing East? Shoot the side of the barn as the sun comes up. Or a stone cliff. Or the sun reflecting in a frozen creek or pond.
6. I also tend to underexpose just a little bit (you can either use exposure compensation OR you can shoot manual and up your shutter speed). This will tend to produce more vibrant colors.

BTW...I love image #3...nice work. But then I'm a sucker for DoF concepts and that's a nice one.

 

[leeroix]

Using a smaller aperture will increase sharpness.......... up to a point. After that, closing the aperture more will start reducing sharpness (due to diffraction).

It's hard to judge sharpness on such small images.

Whats the sweet spot rule of thumb?

 

[480sparky]

Whats the sweet spot rule of thumb?

Mine is to test MY lens, not assume someone else's test of another copy will result in the same as my test.

I test every lens I own. I put it on a tripod, and take an ISO fine JPEG at each aperture, and if it's a zoom, each focal length marked on the barrel. I then pixel peep the results and judge each aperture on a scale of 1-10.

 

[TCampbell]

Diffraction limits can be calculated mathematically because they are based on physics (the math assumes perfect optics -- so it's not really a question of the specific lens). Note... that's for diffraction limits which is ONE aspect that can impact image quality. Keep in mind that the lens itself will also have factors that contribute to image quality. But nothing can overcome the physics of diffraction limits.

See: Diffraction Limited Photography: Pixel Size, Aperture and Airy Disks

That site also has a diffraction calculator that will tell you when your camera will suffer from diffraction limits.

Each lens has it's own personality... if it'a a zoom lens, some focal lengths will be better than others when it comes to the optical quality of the image. Also some f-stops will be better than others. As a generalization (note the term "generalization" means that this is usually true... but not ALWAYS true) lenses tend to be sharper if you stop them down about 2 stops from whatever "wide open" is. I find that most lenses seem to yield the best results somewhere in the f/5.6-f/8 range, but it will vary by lens. But it does little good to use an f-stop that technically yields better focus on the in-focus elements of your shot... at the cost of decreasing the depth of field and having parts of the shot that SHOULD have been focused, but aren't.

When shooting a landscape, you want a broad depth of field. This is when f/16 (or possibly f/11) will provide a thoroughly focused image from front to back. There may be times when you want to use more selective focus and go for a low focal ratio so you can deliberately throw the background (or foreground) out of focus. If you're shot doesn't show much of a foreground or background (or not one that matters), then go for something around f/8 or whatever happens to be the best for that particular lens (it will probably be in the range somewhere between f/5.6 and f/8).

All this about what's the best f-stop for the sharpest image aside... the better question is... will you notice the difference?

The truth is that most sensors pack a LOT of pixels into a very tiny space. When you make a "print" or display on image on a monitor, you probably don't use all your data.

Your camera has a sensor resolution of 3,872 x 2,592... but the photo you posted was 1,600 x 1,071 (just taking those numbers from the first image). In other words you're only using a little under 1/4 of the total pixels in your image. (Keep in mind also that your D60 is an older body... newer bodies pack even more pixels onto the sensor.)

The D60 is "technically" just barely diffraction limited at f/11 (the smallest size of the airy disk just barely bleeds onto adjacent pixels). At f/16 it's easily diffraction limited.

But here's the thing... when you use less than a quarter of the available resolution, it's like doubling the size of a pixel. In effect... four pixels got converted to one pixel when you display the image at 1/4 of it's true size. So the question is... is the circle of confusion at f/16 larger than 4 pixels (a 2x2 arrangement of pixels) -- and the answer to that is no. If you want to shoot at f/16... go right ahead. You won't be able to tell... nor will anybody else.

If, on the other hand, you decide to display at a size where you use every pixel, then you may notice that the images look slightly better at f/11 (or even f/8) then they do at f/16.