Hyperfocal distance
Here's another early morning shot from Graveyard flats in Banff. I used a GND filter to reduce the overall dynamic range, and a circular polarizer filter to cut through the light bouncing off the surface of the water and allow you to see the beautiful stones at the bottom of the pond clearly. The sun had climbed high enough in the sky to require a shorter shutter speed here (0.5 seconds at f/16) - but the surface of the pond was absolutely still, so a longer shutter speed was unnecessary.
The question then, is this... why I am using f/16? Why not shoot at f/8 or f/11, since I know that's where my lens works best? The reason I chose f/16 is because that gives me a hyperfocal distance of about 0.5 m with my focal length at 12mm ... so objects just .25 m away will be in sharp focus!
At f/8 - that near focus point will be about half a meter away... not close enough to get those rocks in the foreground sharp. I have my tripod low to the ground, here... just about .25 m from the closest rocks. I could have gotten even closer with f/22 - but I want my aperture as close to f/11 as possible, since that's where I get my cleanest shot.
All right - no more technical stuff. Sorry about that. ;)
I took several shots that morning, and I'm not sure which one I like best. I've processed four and deleted the rest - and I'll add them all to a new Canada gallery once I've finished the rest from the trip. I'm having such a great time working through these photos!
The question then, is this... why I am using f/16? Why not shoot at f/8 or f/11, since I know that's where my lens works best? The reason I chose f/16 is because that gives me a hyperfocal distance of about 0.5 m with my focal length at 12mm ... so objects just .25 m away will be in sharp focus!
At f/8 - that near focus point will be about half a meter away... not close enough to get those rocks in the foreground sharp. I have my tripod low to the ground, here... just about .25 m from the closest rocks. I could have gotten even closer with f/22 - but I want my aperture as close to f/11 as possible, since that's where I get my cleanest shot.
All right - no more technical stuff. Sorry about that. ;)
I took several shots that morning, and I'm not sure which one I like best. I've processed four and deleted the rest - and I'll add them all to a new Canada gallery once I've finished the rest from the trip. I'm having such a great time working through these photos!
Labels: aperture, Banff National Park, focal length, focus, GND filter, hyperfocal distance, polarizer, shutter speed, travel
4 Comments:
Interesting blog!
Thanks, CJ. I hope you found something worthwhile, here!
Great websites! And please don't apologize for the "technical" stuff; hyperfocal distance is something I've been experimenting with, and reading this really helps!
Thanks, Kim! I'm glad there are some who are interested in the technical side of photography. :) We try to make sure we offer something for everyone, but it's not always easy to balance!
Good luck with hyperfocal distance. It's easy once you know how it works!
Varina
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home