Lanscape Photography

[enzodm]

haha, I was merely telling SirAshley that the "Hyperfocal" wouldn't apply to my camera as much as one with the larger aperture. I'm sure I can get a decent landscape shot with what I've got =p

just to be precise, the small sensor of your camera and the very short focal length (your zoom is truly a 6-72mm) makes easier to achieve hyperfocal distance than on dSLR. Compact cameras are missing the opposite quality, i.e. shallow DoF.
You shot the picture at 6mm, f/8: with these values, hyperfocal distance is 0.91m or 3 feets for you imperial guys (Depth of Field Table ). So, most likely you were already focusing around hyperfocal distance, even without knowing it .

 

[KevinPutman]

Why is it, the people who have grown up with the internet seem to be the ones least likely to use it to advantage?

Understanding Your Camera's Hyperfocal Distance

Let me google that for you

Because this generation is also very lazy ^-^

So basically what that article says, is that hyperfocal can indeed be from any aperture. Although since my max is only F8, it won't be as prominent as it would be on say F16 or F22.
It also says the best thing would be to manually focus on the "halfway" point between the foreground and the background. My only issue with that, is that the MF option on my camera is not the easiest thing in the world to use. It comes up on my LCD screen, on about a 1/4 in by 1/4 in area, and you can adjust it using that.

But I understand now, thanks ^-^

Also @Kmh, the version you edited, what would the aesthetically pleasing difference be between the 2 pictures, aside from the blown out portion? Just for clarification.

 

[KevinPutman]

haha, I was merely telling SirAshley that the "Hyperfocal" wouldn't apply to my camera as much as one with the larger aperture. I'm sure I can get a decent landscape shot with what I've got =p

just to be precise, the small sensor of your camera and the very short focal length (your zoom is truly a 6-72mm) makes easier to achieve hyperfocal distance than on dSLR. Compact cameras are missing the opposite quality, i.e. shallow DoF.
You shot the picture at 6mm, f/8: with these values, hyperfocal distance is 0.91m or 3 feets for you imperial guys (Depth of Field Table ). So, most likely you were already focusing around hyperfocal distance, even without knowing it .

I'm guessing that would be from me having the little box thing (i can't think of what it's called! urgh) placed where the "hyperfocal" distance would be? So when I pressed the shutter, it focused on that spot?

Also,
the EXIF data says 6mm, but I think it's been the same for every picture I've ever taken. From macro, to landscape..not sure why that is?

 

[KmH]

Also @Kmh, the version you edited, what would the aesthetically pleasing difference be between the 2 pictures, aside from the blown out portion? Just for clarification.

The crop, the vibrance, the presentation (mat/frame).

I just added another version, I worked on the mid-tone contrast in just the sky.

 

[gsgary]

Landscapes have to have something interesting to look at, i'm sorry but yours is flat water, tree line and some sky have a look at my friends site he's not an out and out landscaper but he's pretty good
Landscapes/Seascapes - Images | Vince Bevan

Wait! Gary has a friend? Whodda thunk?



:lmao:

I kid.

Not many on here but i have very thick skin

 

[KevinPutman]

How's this one look?

 

[480sparky67 66]

Looks like rain.

 

[TwoTwoLeft]

I like the last one! Nice Job.

 

[Super Simple]

How's this one look?

Like the perfect setting for a horror flick. I like it.

 

[KevinPutman]

Thanks guys ^-^