OK actually a few. I figure the answers have to be the same whether it's digital or traditional film.

Take this image into mind when I'm asking:
http://www.pronetworks.org/MISC/PhotoQuestion.jpg

I used: Nikon D50 and Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5 - 5.6G

First - Why does Photoshop show one value for my f-stop and yet another for my "maximum aperture value." How can those be different?

Second - Would a higher aperture value have helped make this photo's elements more clear? Should I always use a high aperture value when shooting landscape scenes with extreme depth like this?

Third - If I do use a high aperture, that likely means slowing my shutter speed a bit (unless it's really bright out). But if it's cloudy, I'll have to slow it down. If so, how on earth do I keep the waves from blurring?

Fourth - Is my White Balance off in this photo, or was the wave just overexposed? How can I make sure that doesn't happen?

Fifth - If shooting, does RAW make THAT big a difference from JPG? I need the space on my cards and I dislike that RAW won't thumbnail in Windows XP.

Every time we go I take several thousand photos, and most I take by hand. Every time I feel like I have to pick my images apart over stuff like the above photo. It's not going to be perfect, but I'd like it to be a lot better. I see other photos that make me feel like I'm doing a lot wrong. This time I've sworn to use a tripod, no matter what. I've seen the difference with a few shots I've taken, and it's enough to make me realize I need to just slow down, and take my time framing, and setting up a shot. No more point and shoot if I'm serious about getting the good shot. Tash can take the hand photos with the D50 and I'll use the tripod for the D80.

My D80 also has a new lens. Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AF-S VR DX Zoom-Nikkor Lens. So hopefully that'll help as well.

Thanks for any tips and suggestions to those questions.

1st- Me personally, I have not used photoshop since like 2.5 or 3, so I cannot say about that one. But Im sure somewhere in photoshop it will tell you the what and why for those settings. (Im sure we have a resident photoshop expert who will weigh in)

2nd- when shooting landscapes it is best to shot at the smallest aperture that you can pull off (which means if you have a tri-pod, which Im pretty sure you do, I remember that post) but I would mount it and shoot it at the highest aperture, be it f22 or f32. Another thing, zoom lenses are inherently sloppier (with the added elements to allow the range of focus, lenses just dont hold good sharpness, unless you spend several thousand bucks on one of the ED Zoom lenses) than fixed focal length lens. Fixed is a cheaper route, but then you wind up with a collection of lenses. So, in the long run you would spend about the same either way, having several fixed focal lens or one really high end zoom. (and you would still get a better quality from the fixed, if those are available in ED, I would splurge. The ED was a special type of glass or treatment for the elements in the lens)

3rd- You are correct, its a catch 22. You can go with a 'wider' fixed focus length lens, like a 35mm (or maybe something like a 24mm for the type of shot you are trying to pull off) But keeping the foreground sharp along with the way distant. If you are far enough back, with a wider angle, everything past a certian distance should be all in focus. That or a long lens from way, way back. There are several ways to achieve your goal. The wider lens will have a range where when you spin it out to infinity, everything from that min distance on out will be in focus.. but you have to get past that diffrence.
Basically your asking the camera to cover to very different 'things' stopping motion for the waves, but increasing your depth of field.. kind of like telling your dog to 'fetch' and 'sit' at the same time.

Secret photogs lesson here: Shoot for best depth of field, while still stopping the motion, then burn the waves in during the printing.. (I could do this in a dark room, as for doing it with PS, well your own your own there, sorry)

4th- More than likely its over exposure of the wave (I prefer 'artistic embellishment'), when you are there shoot your shot as many different ways and angles as you can think of (shoot for both stop action and increased depth of field and bracket both so you have a varied of different density's and tonal ranges)

5th- I recently read an article on the +'s and -'s of raw vs. JPEG, but for the life of me.... well if I can find the article I will post a link..

For every photo I had that was a keeper, there were between 30-60 junk photos that were relegated to the cull bin. You must shoot TONS of photos, to insure you do get that ONE great shot, MHO. Ok I see you have an ED lens, so if you are having clarity issues.. sometime pin a peice of newspaper on the wall (the jobs or financial sections are good with all the little print that goes out to the very edges). Set your camera on a tripod and pick a good distance (farther out than min distance if you can) make sure the camera image area and the wall are in the same plane (not airplane, clearance, Clarence?) And take shots of the news print then blow it up on your pc as large as you can get it, and inspect the very edges.. you will be able to see how far your focus carries (which might explain the soft leaves in the bottom)

Thanks Dave. I think I understand most of that, LOL. I still get confused with some of the terminology.

So I assume it IS better to shoot with the ED lens than the old 18-55mm that came with my D50? The ED lens did cost me a bit more, so I have always assumed it the better lens. Haven't had the chance to put it to work just yet. I just checked though and the 18-55 (18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor), so it's an ED too. That's what I shot that image above with.

Which is better for the D80 (10.2MP)? The 18-55 or the 18-200?

You've got a point about taking several variations of the same photo and then creating the "master" photo in photoshop, yet another benefit of a tripod (your shot doesn't change so long as you keep the zoom fixed). That program I discovered seemed pretty cool, but it almost make the images look "fake." I always feel like I'm cheating when I use photoshop, but I'm sure it's no different than the tricks of the dark room in a way.

I'll definitely shoot with the smaller aperture setting (highest number) from this point forward. I could kick myself for not doing that before. And I'll just get myself into the mindset of taking 30-60 photos of each spot to get "the picture." I can relate already... I used the tripod in 2006 to take about 20 pics of a falls. Of the 20 pictures, 2 were phenomenal. The rest, eeh, they were OK. So I definitely see where you're coming from.

Oh, and regarding "soft" corners. Should I just make sure when I zoom, I leave whatever I want the TRUE (cropped) corner to be inside from the edge a bit? I assume that'd help, bc then I could crop off the edges if they blur or get "soft."

Quote:

So I assume it IS better to shoot with the ED lens than the old 18-55mm that came with my D50? The ED lens did cost me a bit more, so I have always assumed it the better lens. Haven't had the chance to put it to work just yet. I just checked though and the 18-55 (18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor), so it's an ED too. That's what I shot that image above with. Which is better for the D80 (10.2MP)? The 18-55 or the 18-200?

The ED lenses are (supposed) to be better, higher quality glass used, different coating process, etc, etc.. But sometimes even a 'supposed' higher quality can have mfg defects, thats why I usually did the newspaper test on all my lenses, to check the focal fall off. All lenses will have it to a degree, but the better zooms will have less. And the fixed still even less.
If you continue to do lots of these types of shots, start tracking your shot specifics (record the f, ss, focal length, light conditions, etc, etc....)
If you find that a majority of your shots are in the 40mm-60mm range, go out and get a GOOD fixed 50mm lens, if a majority are in the 20mm-30mm range, get a good 24mm. (instead of trying to cover the gambit, get your self one specialty lens for your scenic shots.

Quote:

You've got a point about taking several variations of the same photo and then creating the "master" photo in photoshop, yet another benefit of a tripod (your shot doesn't change so long as you keep the zoom fixed). That program I discovered seemed pretty cool, but it almost make the images look "fake." I always feel like I'm cheating when I use photoshop, but I'm sure it's no different than the tricks of the dark room in a way.

Well when you are 'there', chances are you wont be back to the same place, same conditions, and so forth... so its always a good idea to cover your shot from a variety of different angles and exposures, because you may get an effect that you actually like, but were not expeciting. (like the over exposed waves, or maybe a darker one will give the sky 'that' much more 'pop'. You just never know what the 'film' (I know you dont have film, lol) will look like (the finished image)

Quote:

I'll definitely shoot with the smaller aperture setting (highest number) from this point forward. I could kick myself for not doing that before. And I'll just get myself into the mindset of taking 30-60 photos of each spot to get "the picture." I can relate already... I used the tripod in 2006 to take about 20 pics of a falls. Of the 20 pictures, 2 were phenomenal. The rest, eeh, they were OK. So I definitely see where you're coming from.

There are not hard and fast rules for which 'is the best way' but smaller aperture will increase the 'range' of your apparent focus (its all visual trickery, lol) so that is where that school of thought is going with the smaller f stop. And again, all of my experience is with fixed lenses (I have a couple of zooms, but the were mainly used for 'grip & grin' stuff and press style shots, where it was either flash or 'grab on the go' so all I was worried about was my main focus of the shots. You can always make sure you are far enough back (with a zoom this should be somewhat easier) where that the entire area you wish to encompass falls from your infinity line on out.

Quote:

Oh, and regarding "soft" corners. Should I just make sure when I zoom, I leave whatever I want the TRUE (cropped) corner to be inside from the edge a bit? I assume that'd help, bc then I could crop off the edges if they blur or get "soft."

I would use the 'news print' test and see how far out the 'fall off' actually starts. Nikon lenses are some of the best in the world, so it should be minimal. But the shot you were using as an example, well the leaves that were blurry, could have been because the were falling outside of the 'focus' range, or it could have been lens fall off (or it could have even been a breeze). But if you do the news print thing, shooting a flat subject, well there should be no focus fall off, just use a level on the back of the camera and the wall to make sure both are in the same plane..(de plane.. de plane... de plane.. sorry couldn't help it..) well that will show you if your lenses are soft on the edges or not.

Hope that helped some.. (I have to re-read everything, sorry sometimes the thoughts get jumbled between the brain and fingers.)

What's the best environment (lighting) to do the newspaper test? Does it matter?

And when you say in the same plane, do you mean the same height? Or something else?

I think most of my shots in Hawaii are at the widest I can get, so that's usually 18mm (that's why I spent all the money on the new lens having that wide zoom). I don't typically use the zoom, but I like knowing if I need to now, I can with a single lens. The 18-55 should work fine for Tash. I just got tired of switching between that lens and the 70-300mm we also have (which has a bad f-stop of like 5.6)

Hey John, just a little information about RAW vs JPG.

JPG is what's known as a "lossy compression" technology, in that it reduces the quality of the image and can, depending on the compression ratio, cause the image to contain "artefacts". The loss in quality is unrecoverable so what's gone is gone. A certain amount of "tweaking" can be done but, in essence, they are the digital equivalent of a developed photograph

RAW files are precisely that, they are the exact image data captured by the camera's sensor at the time the shutter was opened. No alteration of any kind has taken place on it, hence the size. They are the digital equivalent of an undeveloped negative and you need to use some sort of image editing software to finish of the "development" of the image. In the example photograph you posted above, you'd probably be able to alter the exposure on the section of the picture that contains the waves without adversely affecting the rest of the image.

If you're shooting a lot of images then JPG is probably best, simply because of the size of the files and the likelihood that you're going to have a good image in amongst them that won't need editing. RAW files are best for those people who want to be able to perform alterations on the actual data, mush like you could do in a darkroom with silver-halide negs.

Thanks Dan. Sounds like sticking with JPG might be my best option due to the quantity I take. It's hard to sort through a lot of RAW files and usually the photos I do take are for the web or book graphics at no more than 300 DPI. Typically any posters I do, well, there's always one good photo like you said. Or perhaps I can try using layers with several photos to "create" the ultimate shot.

kanaloa wrote:

What's the best environment (lighting) to do the newspaper test? Does it matter? And when you say in the same plane, do you mean the same height? Or something else? I think most of my shots in Hawaii are at the widest I can get, so that's usually 18mm (that's why I spent all the money on the new lens having that wide zoom). I don't typically use the zoom, but I like knowing if I need to now, I can with a single lens. The 18-55 should work fine for Tash. I just got tired of switching between that lens and the 70-300mm we also have (which has a bad f-stop of like 5.6)

This would illustrate your film plane vs. your subject plane, basically make sure the back of the camera is parallel with the wall (guess I could have said that..)

Any type of light (as in light source) just make sure its as even as you can get it. Heck, do it out side on the side of your house on a nice over cast day (the over cast wil provide real even lighting). But sunlight or a flash anything you have as long as you have the planes lined up a flash should work. You are not worried about the light, but the lens so as long as its good and even all the way across, your good.



Do make sure you have everything level (with 90 degree angles and such)

*How about those drawings, think I missed my calling as a stick person animator....

Remember what you are doing here is BLOWING up the very out side edges of your image when you done, it will show you exactly where your lenses start to fall off. Enlarge those corners and edges, it will be very minimal with Nikon lenses, if you have some 'OFF' brand lenses, use those too, do all your lenses. Just make sure you label the shots so you know what is photo goes with what lens. If you do have some non-nikor lenses that will show you the real difference. At the lest you will know how much you need to crop to keep sharpness out to the edges.