Is the landscape bar really that much higher?

I see a lot of people worrying about focus stacking and PC lenses for landscape photography. Sure, there are some situations where you want something very close also in focus, and have to take heroic measures, but it seems like DOF could be set to take care of most common situations. Most people never make large prints, if they print at all. Diffraction has always been an issue, but even if your lens is best at f/5.6, that doesn't mean it's useless at f/11. What am I missing here? Is it the high pixel count sensors or just that there's more pixel peeping going on. Do we need a new number for the circle of confusion that's better suited to modern equipment?

Is the landscape bar really that much higher?

No? It's all in the mind of the photographer.

 

All photographic "concerns" are up to what any individual photographer emphasizes.

 

Of course, advertising, marketing, and habit play a big role in all this, but when you wash away all the fuzz, you're simply left with user choice.

 

Looking for an external reason may just be looking for an excuse not to take responsibility for what one thinks is important. It can be good to take a step back and consider what's important at any point in time ... and question it. That often leads to growth.

Just put the thing in "P" mode and push the button.

That actually works more often than we'd like to admit.

Many photographers fail to meet their artistic aspirations, including me sometimes, because visualizing and producing are two different things. It is easy to blame equipment, but much more often it is the photographer. This week it is landscape, last week it was street photography, etc...etc. IMHO nothing new here.

I see a lot of people worrying about focus stacking and PC lenses for landscape photography. Sure, there are some situations where you want something very close also in focus, and have to take heroic measures, but it seems like DOF could be set to take care of most common situations. Most people never make large prints, if they print at all. Diffraction has always been an issue, but even if your lens is best at f/5.6, that doesn't mean it's useless at f/11. What am I missing here? Is it the high pixel count sensors or just that there's more pixel peeping going on. Do we need a new number for the circle of confusion that's better suited to modern equipment?

I agree--I think that pixel peeping is the culprit here. 20-30 years ago 16x20 prints were rare for most people, let alone larger sizes, so DOF was less of a problem as was diffraction. Now that many people have large monitors and can zoom in to their heart's content, any lack of sharpness is immediately obvious, so perhaps it is time for a smaller circle of confusion, at least for pixel peepers.

The digital gear and post processing tools for attaining technical perfection with digital images has skewed our approach. I've found that I've been lured into taking a technically perfect, ultra sharp (within the chosen focus plane) image of a mediocre subject and created a boring photograph. The application of technical processes (just because I could) is a poor approach to landscape photography. Too many hammers in the toolbox looking for a nail. I now force myself to ask "why take this image" and if exercising technical capability is part of it, perhaps it's time to move on.

FWIW, I'm a technical person and often struggle with aesthetics. I'm as attracted to sharpness and perfect exposure and color balance as any of us, but I've got the perspective of having learned photography back when graded black and white papers were the rule, not the exception, and RC papers were just a dream. It was a lot more work to get a technically perfect image, and color was even worse. Beyond a certain point people didn't pick apart an image because the entire optical system wasn't diffraction limited. Just as many boring photos were taken, but it was hard to hide them behind a screen of flawless technical perfection.

Hi @conrad_hoffman - this is a very good question. I'm not a landscape photographer at all but I'm interested in things like 'perception'of a photo, how a photographer directs and retains the viewer's attention, 'layering' a photo so that the viewer discovers new things, etc. I've learned a bit about the theory of this but I can't pretend to practice any of it!

 

Anyway, back to landscapes. Over the past few centuries, artists have developed techniques to suggest 'depth' in paintings. For example: the further away things are, the 'bluer', less definite, less vibrant and less sharp they become. Artists deliberately focused the viewer's attention on people and objects in the foreground or middle-distance, highlighting - as necessary - the main subject(s) of the painting and darkening those parts of the foreground or middle-distance that don't contribute to the 'subject(s)'.

 

To me, this shows artistic intention,and vision as to 'what's important and what's not?' and as to 'what do I want viewers to focus on first and next? To me, a focus-stacked, everywhere-sharp runs contrary to (usual) human visual perception and to the artistic notion of depth. Without a sense of depth, my guess is that the photo just becomes 'flat'.

 

Just my humble opinion,

 

Mike

 

PS. I also subscribe to the view that the technically most accomplished photo's are not always the most creative or exciting. The 'photographer's eye' is more important than technique.

 

I see a lot of people worrying about focus stacking and PC lenses for landscape photography. Sure, there are some situations where you want something very close also in focus, and have to take heroic measures, but it seems like DOF could be set to take care of most common situations. Most people never make large prints, if they print at all. Diffraction has always been an issue, but even if your lens is best at f/5.6, that doesn't mean it's useless at f/11. What am I missing here? Is it the high pixel count sensors or just that there's more pixel peeping going on. Do we need a new number for the circle of confusion that's better suited to modern equipment?

I wonder if some don't just want photography to be an arcane art (as it was to an extent in those days past you describe, and which experience we shared). Digital systems are enormously capable. Most people can do things, given understanding of their camera gear and practice, that would have been limited to professionals in film days. It has gotten to the point that under average conditions, it is difficult to take a technically bad photo. At worst, it is a matter of using the much scorned Auto when in doubt. I won't venture into the "Art" minefield!

There are essentially two types of photographers with gradations between the two. Those who like stuff and like nothing better than comparing specs and spend their days testing lenses and pronouncing on dynamic range, resolution, ISO invariance and on and on (I call these folk "engineers with cameras" and then there are "artists" who care little about those things and concentrate on making art using whatever tools are at hand. Most of us lie somewhere on this continuum. Many people who contribute to many forums on photography fall into the engineer camp, because there so much more to talk about when dealing with the specifications than discussing meaning, art, aesthestics, which are much harder concepts to discuss. Technically excellent photography does not get you very far, the real key is having something to say.

 

The answer to the OP's question therefore is quite simply "no". Of course, PC lenses etc. have their uses, but much of it is the desire to own more stuff in the vain hope that buying it will make you a better photographer, or even, I suspect, to experience "pride of ownership". It might, sometimes, allow you to take better shots, but it is certainly not a requirement.

it is difficult to take a technically bad photo

Yet so many of the photos posted here are technically bad (e.g., unintentionally burned-out skies, muddy shadows, unintentional color balance screw-ups), not to mention technically awful post-processing (e.g., halos resulting from oversharpening, oversaturation gone unnoticed, artifacts galore from overuse of sliders). Having all the buttons in the world doesn’t compensate for having a discerning eye.

 

I do agree that It likely isn’t as difficult to take a technically good photo as it used to be. But it’s just as difficult to develop an eye that can perceive what’s necessary to achieve one.

a technically perfect image

To me, first of all, there’s no such definite thing as “a technically perfect image.” There’s the image that’s technically appropriate for what the photographer wants to express. That’s why a technically good image might be softer rather than sharper and why aiming for sharpness as a habit or default could be at odds with aesthetics or good image-making. Same with standard color balance or exposure. Sometimes the content or a sense of individual vision requires an odd color balance or an extreme exposure. Yet many photographers seem to play to an objective technical standard, which keeps them from a more expressive understanding of the many possibilities of the use of sharpness, exposure, and color balance as tools rather than objective standards.

The "master" photographers from the Ansel Adams era seemed more concerned about dynamic range than sharpness.

Depth of field is inversely proportional to media size. While tilt and swing were vital to large format photography, they are much less so for FF and smaller, at least for landscapes. Macrophotography is an application for which focus stacking and, to a lesser extent tilt, can make the impossible happen.

 

The art of landscapes is more aesthetic than technical. The place, time and composition are paramount. The huge dynamic range and high acutance of digital helps, and can be augmented with multiple exposures (as long as the effects are not overdone). If you have the luxury of selecting all three (time, place and composition), you have a better chance of personal if not commercial success. I generally settle for whatever time is available and make the most of the rest. For me, travel photography is like writing an essay, looking for just the right phrase and structure for the story, not just a catchy word or two.

 

When something catches your eye, ask yourself what about the scene do you find attractive, and how would that impression be best rendered in an image? I like to travel, and photograph my adventures extensively. It helps to study the culture and history of the region. In addition, I like to research the geography and geology of the land. Don't forget to turn around. Everything looks different from another direction.

When something catches your eye, ask yourself what about the scene do you find attractive

Or ... ask yourself what’s NOT and challenge yourself to make a good picture out of it!

Let us walk in the world. Simple thought.

 

Yes, I agree with the above. However, the but is...who are you to tell any photographer what photographs they should take.

 

Seems to my mind a form of bulling.

 

Have a think about that thought.

 

I once knew a photographer who just took photos of English pub signs. He was happy, enjoying himself.

Technical, Art, it is what the photographer decides.

 

Not you.

 

Full of yourself to question

Edited June 12, 2020 by Allen Herbert

who are you to tell any photographer what photographs they should take.

 

Seems to my mind a form of bulling.

I don’t think you understand the difference between offering alternatives and telling people what to do.

 

I don’t get the sense you know what bullying is, but I do get the sense you know from bull.

"I don’t think you understand the difference between offering alternatives and telling people what to do" Sam

 

With respect, the alternatives are not really being offered in a kind way. Sort, of being condescending, to what you consider, lesser photographers. Being master photographs that you consider you are.

 

"I don’t get the sense you know what bullying is" Sam.

 

Some folks who consider themselves superior to others. How does that fit?

 

Lets have a think. Why post your photo? When they feel they will be abused. Regardless, of thier experience in photography.

 

Would you like me to point you to numerous examples?.

Edited June 12, 2020 by Allen Herbert

"but I do get the sense you know from bull." Sam.

 

Unlike yourself, in a interesting discussion, I do not feel the need to personal insult.

 

Big boys, in long trousers, do not that. Little boys, in short trousers do all that.

I respect that you actually take photos...a rare event on PN.

 

Okay, you are upside down, and all confused.

 

Get it.

Bottom, line is really simple.

 

Does the photo work.

 

Sam/Fred two love you in this place.

 

Me and the bloke on the cross .So it is told.

I think, technique should follow the purpose, not the other way round. That said, I have found focus stacking to be useful in macro photography, rather than landscapes. For macros, even f11 is not enough in many cases, especially if the subject has a lot of depth in the direction of the lens. Moreover, stopping down will necessitate unpractically long exposures most of the time, unless used with a flash, which of course gets rid of the natural lighting. Focus stacking works well in these cases and allows one to display the interesting textures etc. in a more natural way.

I'm too lazy to research this myself, does any camera offer hand-held focus stacking?