Down to Earth (Click for larger view)

Sincere Thanks for your interest and thoughtful comments.

It is indeed an amazing place that holds the fascination of all who venture up the mountain to see it.

Kind Regards 

Alf 

Hi Alf,

Another wonderful scene, well presented.

As for the use of F/4 verse F/5.6, I do see a change in this image, and after copying this image into my analysis program to measure specific features and their transitions across the dynamic range present. For this lens, which I have enormous testing data on, F/2.8, F/4 and F/5.6 work well, but in that descending order from best to very good. At F/8 and beyond, you might as well save the money and buy a cheaper lens. 

No doubt that most people will not see any difference, and references to DOF are not applicable when such a short focal length setting is used in a setting like this. Short focal length lens inherently have large DOF, because their focal length does limit the finite definition obtained because of the sensor/lens combination employed. Again, DOF is a perception, and the more DOF that is present, the more a good lens is compromised.

Myself, I would have shot this at F/2.8 and cropped out the closest subject that might show a focus change, since the perspective of this wide angle shot will work anyway to produce this "sweeping" result.

Best Regards my friend, Mike

Many Thanks for your observations, I am pleased that you could see a difference in the images. Although to be fair I don't know just how much could be attributed to the point of focus.  In order to carry out a better analogy or comparison I should have shot the scene exactly the same and just changed the F stop.

But, that would be quite boring : - ) 

So my intention is as much intended to see how the Portrait V Landscape compares as well as the F stops.

I take on board you thoughts regarding F / 2.8 and cropping and in all fairness cropping the huge files of the D800 even by up to 50% would have no detrimental effect on the quality of the image. However I very rarely take a photograph with the intention of cropping later for no other reason than I like to see the finished product in the frame before I press button.

I read an interesting article recently regarding the "perception" of sharpness.  The term "Circle of Confusion" may be one you are familiar with.

The depth of field does not abruptly change from sharp to unsharp, but instead occurs as a gradual transition. In fact, everything immediately in front of or in back of the focusing distance begins to lose sharpness — even if this is not perceived by our eyes or by the resolution of the camera. 

Since there is no critical point of transition, a more rigorous term called the "circle of confusion" is used to define how much a point needs to be blurred in order to be perceived as unsharp. When the circle of confusion becomes perceptible to our eyes, this region is said to be outside the depth of field and thus no longer "acceptably sharp." 

When does the circle of confusion become perceptible to our eyes? An acceptably sharp circle of confusion is loosely defined as one which would go unnoticed when enlarged to a standard 8x10 inch print, and observed from a standard viewing distance of about 1 foot.

At this viewing distance and print size, camera manufactures assume a circle of confusion is negligible if no larger than 0.01 inches (when enlarged). As a result, camera manufacturers use the 0.01 inch standard when providing lens depth of field markers (shown below for f/22 on a 50mm lens). In reality, a person with 20-20 vision or better can distinguish features 1/3 this size or smaller, and so the circle of confusion has to be even smaller than this to achieve acceptable sharpness throughout.

Note that depth of field only sets a maximum value for the circle of confusion, and does not describe what happens to regions once they become out of focus. These regions also called "bokeh," from Japanese (pronounced bo-ké). Two images with identical depth of field may have significantly different bokeh, as this depends on the shape of the lens diaphragm. In reality, the circle of confusion is usually not actually a circle, but is only approximated as such when it is very small. When it becomes large, most lenses will render it as a polygonal shape with 5-8 sides.

Well the article goes on to show examples of the dof achieved at different F stops and further explanations regarding wide angle and telephoto lenses and the effects that magnification can have on dof.

This link may prove interesting

 http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm

Thanks again Mike! 

Alf 

Hi Alf,

A very dramatic capture! You do get to some fabulous places! Great textures, details, composition and light!

Best wishes. Sarah.

A wonderful capture with good perspective and very nice texture and coloring.  I "see" strange "subjects" (lines of stones) moving towards the ridges, or maybe the building is their final destination?

For using f/4 I think you did an excellent job here and I really admire your technique!  I really enjoyed your image my friend!  Cheers!

do i detect a slight bit of age creeping in?

Apologies for my late response!

Many Thanks for your thoughts and positive feedback.  I do manage to get to some remarkable places.  I have been up in Northumberland for a few days and the sunrises on that East coast are just exquisite. HOpefully I will have captured one or two.

Glad you liked this one Sarah! 

Best Regards 

Alf 

PANAYOTIS 

Good to hear from you! 

The stones are part of a wall that has collapsed and consequently provide several leading lines that do go towards the remains of  building.

Many Thanks for your thoughts and positive feedback, much appreciated!

Best Regards 

Alf 

JAMIE 

Uphill and down dale

Even the downhill part hurt! 

Age is but a testament of survival ....but I don't think the ever increasing collection of lenses and camera paraphernalia helps!

and shoot more

Is that what they all mean't by "less is more" 

: - / 

But seriously I need to cut down on all this gear .......... any idea's on a 10 - 500 mm f/2.8 lens  : - ) 

Cheers Jamie! 

Alf 

mostly 28-28, though

Well......who needs zoom lenses anyway when we have legs......gets a bit more tricky when walking on water though! 

They have "Multi-Focal" lenses.  Not zooms.  Never zooms.

DON'T CALL THEM ZOOMS!!!

silly Leica

Sacrilege!

Hush my blasphemous font! 

 But you started it! 

"I know a lot about zoom lenses" 

silly Leica

Splendid!  The radiating clouds in the similarity of the foreground rocks make the whole scene more powerful and perspective.  Love your photos which always have strong and interest and sharp foregrounds.  Best Regards,

Well.....I suppose Leica are a bit special .........best to just humour them! 

BR 

Alf

WANGHAN 

Many Thanks for your interest and positive feedback.

This was a bit of a challenge, so much slate about that it becomes difficult to get separation and so make the main object of focus stand out.

Best Regards 

Alf 

Leica users.   I can see that.  You think they'd reduce my council tax?

Alf,

A very dramatic image!  This is an excellent example of how to use a wide angle, you have sacrificed nothing in this image, the foreground details are just as important as the background and there is plenty of detail in both.  Excellent technique with this lens.

Jim

I'm sure if you explained your reasoning to those lovely people at the council offices they would take immediate action........by phoning the police probably ! 

BR

Alf 

JIM 

Thank you so much for your interest and thoughtful feedback!

I am not 100% happy with this one and might on reflection take it slightly differently next time. Maybe a smaller aperture, and maybe zoomed from a greater distance.  Just a few soft spots I need to eradicate next time. Although I do like the overall result. 

 Best Regards 

Alf