New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: Sailing photography advice (DSLR)
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Sailing photography advice (DSLR)
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
phillip.padd View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 17 Jul 08
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7 		Post Options Post Options   Quote phillip.padd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Sailing photography advice (DSLR)
    Posted: 29 Aug 08 at 11:11am
reguarding shooting Raw files. I am a professional photographer and would only ever shoot Raw files. In post production it gives you 2 f stops either way to play with without losing quality ie if the shot is overexposed you can still retain the highlight without it burning out and the same with the shadow detail being too solid but it does mean big file sizes so you need a large memory card.If you must shot in j-peg format once you have manipulated your image save as a tiff file not a j-peg as if you do you compress the image again losing even more quality.
Back to Top
tgruitt View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 02 Dec 04
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2479 		Post Options Post Options   Quote tgruitt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Aug 08 at 3:23pm
Originally posted by laser4000

ok so now you've sorted out depth of field.How do you
keep your kit dry??I was shooting some shots with a compact a few weeks
ago (not ideal but all I had), and it got a bit drenched) and hey presto it's
cream crackered...not so much of an issue for a 150 snapper, but I'd be
gutted if I'd spend 500 on an slr and got that soaked too...


Well I made a Gore-Tex rain coat for it, just like the ones you can buy in the
shops. If I don't use that then plenty of insulating tape over all the cracks
and joins, and if you have the pro lenses they are pretty waterproof anyway,
so are the pro bodies, but I don't have 5k to spare for one of those!
A towel also comes in useful, for me and the camera
Needs to sail more...
Back to Top
laser4000 View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 02 Aug 05
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 589 		Post Options Post Options   Quote laser4000 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Aug 08 at 2:45pm
ok so now you've sorted out depth of field.

How do you keep your kit dry??

I was shooting some shots with a compact a few weeks ago (not ideal but all I had), and it got a bit drenched) and hey presto it's cream crackered...not so much of an issue for a 150 snapper, but I'd be gutted if I'd spend 500 on an slr and got that soaked too...
Back to Top
dics View Drop Down
Far too distracted from work
Far too distracted from work


Joined: 05 Oct 05
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 317 		Post Options Post Options   Quote dics Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Aug 08 at 12:52pm
Originally posted by m_liddell

Originally posted by dics

I have never thought like that. Simply beacuse you must always get a close to your subject as possible. So I would not use a 400mm lens when I can get away with a 50mm. This is becuase there are more opics in a 400mm lens with means more light refraction which means poorer picture quality

You don't always have to get as close to your subject as possible, it depends on the perspective that you want. For a given compostion, a telephoto lens shot from futher away flattens perspective (makes near/far objects look closer together) while a wide lens shot much closer will accentuate the distance between them.

This is why the favourite pictures thread often has "omg that is close!" comments on yacht racing photographs because the long lens has made the boats appear closer together (flattened perspective) than they really were. This argument was used in an Americas Cup protest hearing in the 80s over a photograph used as evidence.

Thanks for the tip. I don't shoot this kind of stuff usually but well worth knowing when I do. Amazing how my interest in sailing has made me a better photgrapher.
Back to Top
m_liddell View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 27 May 05
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 583 		Post Options Post Options   Quote m_liddell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Aug 08 at 12:22pm

Originally posted by dics

I have never thought like that. Simply beacuse you must always get a close to your subject as possible. So I would not use a 400mm lens when I can get away with a 50mm. This is becuase there are more opics in a 400mm lens with means more light refraction which means poorer picture quality

You don't always have to get as close to your subject as possible, it depends on the perspective that you want. For a given compostion, a telephoto lens shot from futher away flattens perspective (makes near/far objects look closer together) while a wide lens shot much closer will accentuate the distance between them.

This is why the favourite pictures thread often has "omg that is close!" comments on yacht racing photographs because the long lens has made the boats appear closer together (flattened perspective) than they really were. This argument was used in an Americas Cup protest hearing in the 80s over a photograph used as evidence.



Edited by m_liddell
Back to Top
dics View Drop Down
Far too distracted from work
Far too distracted from work


Joined: 05 Oct 05
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 317 		Post Options Post Options   Quote dics Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Aug 08 at 9:36am

Originally posted by tgruitt

Originally posted by m_liddell





Originally posted by tgruitt


Originally posted by m_liddell


Originally posted by dics

TAlso the more focal length with give you a narrower depth
of field. That is a f8 on a 50mm lens with have a larger depth of feild than
a f8 on a 200mm lense.
This is incorrect, it is camera to subject
distance that has the effect over depth of field not what length lens you
use.
No I'm sorry but dics is correct. Say a photo was taken of an
of an object 5 meters away with a full frame camera. Using a 50mm lens
set at f4 the depth of field would be 2.8m, but taken with a 400mm lens
at f4, focused on the same point the depth of field would be 0.038m,
significantly smaller. For this purpose 'depth of field' is to mean 'closest
to furthest distance of acceptable sharpness'.
For the object to
be the same size in the picture, the shot with the 400mm would need to
be shot from approx 40m away not 5m. The depth of field would then be
exactly the same.You cannot think "oh no I don't have enough depth of
field with my 400mm 40m away, I'll use my 50mm for this shot because
that much more" because as soon as you move to frame the same
composition (5m away) you will find you have exactly the same amount,
as shown by the above example.


Ok, let me make this simple. If the subject is ALWAYS 5m away from the
camera, regardless of what it looks like in the viewfinder, the depth of
field will vary depending on focal length used. This is the point I'm trying
to make. Simple.

Yep agreed.

Back to Top
tgruitt View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 02 Dec 04
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2479 		Post Options Post Options   Quote tgruitt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Aug 08 at 9:34am
Originally posted by dics

Originally posted by m_liddell

Originally posted by tgruitt

Originally posted by m_liddell


Originally posted by dics

TAlso the more focal length with give you a narrower depth
of field. That is a f8 on a 50mm lens with have a larger depth of feild than
a f8 on a 200mm lense.
This is incorrect, it is camera to subject
distance that has the effect over depth of field not what length lens you
use.
No I'm sorry but dics is correct. Say a photo was taken of an
of an object 5 meters away with a full frame camera. Using a 50mm lens
set at f4 the depth of field would be 2.8m, but taken with a 400mm lens
at f4, focused on the same point the depth of field would be 0.038m,
significantly smaller. For this purpose 'depth of field' is to mean 'closest
to furthest distance of acceptable sharpness'.
For the object to
be the same size in the picture, the shot with the 400mm would need to
be shot from approx 40m away not 5m. The depth of field would then be
exactly the same.You cannot think "oh no I don't have enough depth of
field with my 400mm 40m away, I'll use my 50mm for this shot because
that much more" because as soon as you move to frame the same
composition (5m away) you will find you have exactly the same amount,
as shown by the above example.


I have never thought like that. Simply beacuse you must always get a
close to your subject as possible. So I would not use a 400mm lens when
I can get away with a 50mm. This is becuase there are more opics in a
400mm lens with means more light refraction which means poorer
picture quality.


Sorry but this is what your telephoto lens does. It you want a really
narrow depth of field, set the aperture to 3.5, zoom right in with a
400mm lens and that will give you a much norrower depth of field than
3.5 close up at 28mm. Your telephoto lens will automatcially change the
aperture as you zomm in and out. So you set it at f3.5 and as you zoom
in the f number will automatcally incrrease.


If you bought a good lens at around £5k like a fixed 400mm focal
length lens then you would have the option to shoot at f4 and f4 is what
it would be. Why do you think there is a difference in the price between
amature lenses and top quality professional? It is because the opics are
better and the lenses can be calibrated to give you this type of range.
Also you would need to be blooming good to use it.


That is my understanding of it, but I like your point on the distance to
the subject. I will look into this as it has never really occurred to me. This
is what I really like about photography, you can get so set in your ways
about it when someone mentions something so elementary it is like a big
revelation!


 


 



Well I'm glad it has provoked some thought. I only use Canon L Series
Professional lenses, soon to be adding a 300mm f2.8 IS L to the collection
soon I hope....
Needs to sail more...
Back to Top
dics View Drop Down
Far too distracted from work
Far too distracted from work


Joined: 05 Oct 05
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 317 		Post Options Post Options   Quote dics Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Aug 08 at 9:30am

Originally posted by m_liddell

Originally posted by tgruitt

Originally posted by m_liddell

Originally posted by dics

TAlso the more focal length with give you a narrower depth of field. That is a f8 on a 50mm lens with have a larger depth of feild than a f8 on a 200mm lense.


This is incorrect, it is camera to subject distance that has the effect over depth of field not what length lens you use.


No I'm sorry but dics is correct. Say a photo was taken of an of an object 5 meters away with a full frame camera. Using a 50mm lens set at f4 the depth of field would be 2.8m, but taken with a 400mm lens at f4, focused on the same point the depth of field would be 0.038m, significantly smaller. For this purpose 'depth of field' is to mean 'closest to furthest distance of acceptable sharpness'.


For the object to be the same size in the picture, the shot with the 400mm would need to be shot from approx 40m away not 5m. The depth of field would then be exactly the same.

You cannot think "oh no I don't have enough depth of field with my 400mm 40m away, I'll use my 50mm for this shot because that much more" because as soon as you move to frame the same composition (5m away) you will find you have exactly the same amount, as shown by the above example.

I have never thought like that. Simply beacuse you must always get a close to your subject as possible. So I would not use a 400mm lens when I can get away with a 50mm. This is becuase there are more opics in a 400mm lens with means more light refraction which means poorer picture quality.

Sorry but this is what your telephoto lens does. It you want a really narrow depth of field, set the aperture to 3.5, zoom right in with a 400mm lens and that will give you a much norrower depth of field than 3.5 close up at 28mm. Your telephoto lens will automatcially change the aperture as you zomm in and out. So you set it at f3.5 and as you zoom in the f number will automatcally incrrease.

If you bought a good lens at around £5k like a fixed 400mm focal length lens then you would have the option to shoot at f4 and f4 is what it would be. Why do you think there is a difference in the price between amature lenses and top quality professional? It is because the opics are better and the lenses can be calibrated to give you this type of range. Also you would need to be blooming good to use it.

That is my understanding of it, but I like your point on the distance to the subject. I will look into this as it has never really occurred to me. This is what I really like about photography, you can get so set in your ways about it when someone mentions something so elementary it is like a big revelation!

 

 
Back to Top
tgruitt View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 02 Dec 04
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2479 		Post Options Post Options   Quote tgruitt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Aug 08 at 9:18am
Originally posted by m_liddell





Originally posted by tgruitt


Originally posted by m_liddell


Originally posted by dics

TAlso the more focal length with give you a narrower depth
of field. That is a f8 on a 50mm lens with have a larger depth of feild than
a f8 on a 200mm lense.
This is incorrect, it is camera to subject
distance that has the effect over depth of field not what length lens you
use.
No I'm sorry but dics is correct. Say a photo was taken of an
of an object 5 meters away with a full frame camera. Using a 50mm lens
set at f4 the depth of field would be 2.8m, but taken with a 400mm lens
at f4, focused on the same point the depth of field would be 0.038m,
significantly smaller. For this purpose 'depth of field' is to mean 'closest
to furthest distance of acceptable sharpness'.
For the object to
be the same size in the picture, the shot with the 400mm would need to
be shot from approx 40m away not 5m. The depth of field would then be
exactly the same.You cannot think "oh no I don't have enough depth of
field with my 400mm 40m away, I'll use my 50mm for this shot because
that much more" because as soon as you move to frame the same
composition (5m away) you will find you have exactly the same amount,
as shown by the above example.


Ok, let me make this simple. If the subject is ALWAYS 5m away from the
camera, regardless of what it looks like in the viewfinder, the depth of
field will vary depending on focal length used. This is the point I'm trying
to make. Simple.
Needs to sail more...
Back to Top
m_liddell View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 27 May 05
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 583 		Post Options Post Options   Quote m_liddell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Aug 08 at 11:03pm
Originally posted by tgruitt

Originally posted by m_liddell

Originally posted by dics

TAlso the more focal length with give you a narrower depth of field. That is a f8 on a 50mm lens with have a larger depth of feild than a f8 on a 200mm lense.


This is incorrect, it is camera to subject distance that has the effect over depth of field not what length lens you use.


No I'm sorry but dics is correct. Say a photo was taken of an of an object 5 meters away with a full frame camera. Using a 50mm lens set at f4 the depth of field would be 2.8m, but taken with a 400mm lens at f4, focused on the same point the depth of field would be 0.038m, significantly smaller. For this purpose 'depth of field' is to mean 'closest to furthest distance of acceptable sharpness'.


For the object to be the same size in the picture, the shot with the 400mm would need to be shot from approx 40m away not 5m. The depth of field would then be exactly the same.

You cannot think "oh no I don't have enough depth of field with my 400mm 40m away, I'll use my 50mm for this shot because that much more" because as soon as you move to frame the same composition (5m away) you will find you have exactly the same amount, as shown by the above example.


Edited by m_liddell
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.665y
Copyright ©2001-2010 Web Wiz
Change your personal settings, or read our privacy policy