NPhoto June cover shot
Discussion
http://500px.com/photo/30083051
This is the lovely shot chosen as the cover of the June edition of NPhoto. The exif data says that it was taken at 20mm, 1/4 sec, f22, ISO1000.
As someone fairly new to photography they strike me as slightly odd settings. Can anyone explain the choices?
I suppose I'm particularly thinking why would you stop all the way down to f22? Surely f11 or f16 would have given enough DOF, enabled him to use a lower ISO and been sharper (not that it looks like it is lacking any sharpness)?
Is there something I am missing or was the choice of f22 purely down to DOF?
This is the lovely shot chosen as the cover of the June edition of NPhoto. The exif data says that it was taken at 20mm, 1/4 sec, f22, ISO1000.
As someone fairly new to photography they strike me as slightly odd settings. Can anyone explain the choices?
I suppose I'm particularly thinking why would you stop all the way down to f22? Surely f11 or f16 would have given enough DOF, enabled him to use a lower ISO and been sharper (not that it looks like it is lacking any sharpness)?
Is there something I am missing or was the choice of f22 purely down to DOF?
Lower ISO would not have made the image any sharper. Modern full frame bodies have the ability to shoot at high ISO with negligible quality loss - the higher the ISO, the more digital noise, but unless one looks at 100% crop, you'll not notice at 1000 ISO. My two FF Nikons are set at 640 or 800 ISO by default, and I'll take them up or down depending on light / tripod etc.
COMPLETELY different to when I used film.... when ISO (ASA) was the limiting factor in the triangle of Aperture, Shutter speed and ASA.
...and completely different to my crop sensor bodies which don't have the sensor size to use high ISO to such effect (though they are getting better every year).
ETA... but I still try and steer clear of f22... partly 'cos of the dust marks!
COMPLETELY different to when I used film.... when ISO (ASA) was the limiting factor in the triangle of Aperture, Shutter speed and ASA.
...and completely different to my crop sensor bodies which don't have the sensor size to use high ISO to such effect (though they are getting better every year).
ETA... but I still try and steer clear of f22... partly 'cos of the dust marks!
Edited by GetCarter on Wednesday 8th May 15:06
GetCarter said:
Lower ISO would not have made the image any sharper. Modern full frame bodies have the ability to shoot at high ISO with negligible quality loss - the higher the ISO, the more digital noise, but unless one looks at 100% crop, you'll not notice at 1000 ISO. My two FF Nikons are set at 640 or 800 ISO by default, and I'll take them up or down depending on light / tripod etc.
COMPLETELY different to when I used film.... when ISO (ASA) was the limiting factor in the triangle of Aperture, Shutter speed and ASA
ETA... but I still try and steer clear of f22... partly 'cos of the dust marks!
I was more referring to the softness being caused by diffraction at such a small aperture rather than high ISO. Noise at 1000 on a FF body is obviously going to be barely worthy of a mention but the point still stands, why use f22 if not purely for DOF.COMPLETELY different to when I used film.... when ISO (ASA) was the limiting factor in the triangle of Aperture, Shutter speed and ASA
ETA... but I still try and steer clear of f22... partly 'cos of the dust marks!
Edited by GetCarter on Wednesday 8th May 14:56
Must just want to give him/herself a lot of work cloning out dust I guess 
Just looked at the photo. Don't like the PP. Curves or HDR (probably the former) have discoloured the lighthouse, making the top half darker than the bottom half. Bet you a pound it didn't look like that to the eye - I bet it was white for a start. Should have been more gentle IMHO. Too keen to play with the sky, and forgot the subject.
Shame, as it's a great photo. As so often, it's just been over processed.
ETA... and before anyone accuses me of 'nitpicking' - these views are all 'in my humble opinion'. We are all entitled to them
Just looked at the photo. Don't like the PP. Curves or HDR (probably the former) have discoloured the lighthouse, making the top half darker than the bottom half. Bet you a pound it didn't look like that to the eye - I bet it was white for a start. Should have been more gentle IMHO. Too keen to play with the sky, and forgot the subject.
Shame, as it's a great photo. As so often, it's just been over processed.
ETA... and before anyone accuses me of 'nitpicking' - these views are all 'in my humble opinion'. We are all entitled to them
Edited by GetCarter on Wednesday 8th May 15:32
The diffraction issues won't be too evident once the image is resized and sharpened, but agree - I'd only go beyond f/11 if looking for a motion blur of some sort. Would also have avoided too much ISO, even on a very good FF sensor like the D700 unless needing to handhold.
Overall, it seems like an "OK" shot, with a touch too heavy handed PP for my liking. I agree with GC - the lighthouse should have some pizazz, flair (not necessarily Flare, mind) crispness and general eye-catchiness about it!
Overall, it seems like an "OK" shot, with a touch too heavy handed PP for my liking. I agree with GC - the lighthouse should have some pizazz, flair (not necessarily Flare, mind) crispness and general eye-catchiness about it!
Well, I'll go against the grain and say that I like it, processing included. It's a very eye-catching image of what is essentially a very boring subject. (I don't even mind the colour-cast on the light-house, which frankly would have looked odd without it given the colours in the sky)
I dare say that image is the result of multiple layering. The chances are that the metadata is simply for the lowest layer (the photographer has likely stacked multiple frames onto one base layer, rather than create a new canvas which would have erased the exif). There could be all kinds of legitimate reasons to use those settings so anyone attempting to explain is merely speculating. Of course there is every chance that the photographer isn't particularly savvy with the settings themselves (although I'd like to assume otherwise given the high standard of image).
I dare say that image is the result of multiple layering. The chances are that the metadata is simply for the lowest layer (the photographer has likely stacked multiple frames onto one base layer, rather than create a new canvas which would have erased the exif). There could be all kinds of legitimate reasons to use those settings so anyone attempting to explain is merely speculating. Of course there is every chance that the photographer isn't particularly savvy with the settings themselves (although I'd like to assume otherwise given the high standard of image).
Rogue86 said:
Well, I'll go against the grain and say that I like it, processing included. It's a very eye-catching image of what is essentially a very boring subject. (I don't even mind the colour-cast on the light-house, which frankly would have looked odd without it given the colours in the sky)
It's a good HDR image. The shaded top of the lighthouse irks a little but no big deal. Losing a chunk of the right would be nicer IMHO.Rogue86 said:
There could be all kinds of legitimate reasons to use those settings so anyone attempting to explain is merely speculating.
To be fair there are only so many possible reasons. It's not like a plane crash and nobody here yet has been able to think why f22 was used.Rogue86 said:
Of course there is every chance that the photographer isn't particularly savvy with the settings themselves
You may choose a biscuit from the tin 
Simpo Two said:
To be fair there are only so many possible reasons. It's not like a plane crash and nobody here yet has been able to think why f22 was used.
I still think some of the comments are a touch unfair. For all we know, there could have been a bomb planted inside the camera which detonates at anything below ISO1000, with puppies and children gaffa-taped to the tripod. There are lots of reasons to use seemingly ridiculous camera settings on location, and being a retard is only one of those reasons. 
paul911 said:
Given the conditions apparent in the OPs pic, f22 wouldn’t have been my choice either. But I would use a small aperture akin to f22 if I was doing a long exposure, and couldn’t achieve a suitable exposure with a filter. He’s also used f22 on other pics too 
I would just pile on more filters (or the Big Stopper) to get a slower shutter - f22 just seems plain odd to me Not everyone has NDs - so min aperture and min ISO is all you have in the box if you suddenly need a longer exposure. But he doesn't need the long exposure and he doesn't need that much DOF either - especially on 20mm focal length.
Most likely answer IMHO is that he always runs at ISO1000, looked at the scene, thought 'Max DOF needed here' and cranked it up to f22 'to be on the safe side'. ATEOTD it doesn't really matter; he got the shot he wanted.
Most likely answer IMHO is that he always runs at ISO1000, looked at the scene, thought 'Max DOF needed here' and cranked it up to f22 'to be on the safe side'. ATEOTD it doesn't really matter; he got the shot he wanted.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff