Skyfall (click for larger view)

I don't usually include all the exif information, but as it is a direct

comparison with the previous posting I thought it might help.

The main difference between the two being that this was from a slightly

higher perspective in portrait orientation. The aperture was F/5.6 as

opposed to the previous F/4 and I was able to use a tripod because the

perspective was that bit higher. I don't think the tripod made much of a

difference other than making it possible to compose the image and wait

for the clouds to arrange themselves and then just click the shutter at a

convenient moment. The object of the exercise was to examine the

perceived sharpness using both apertures in similar images. Personally

I think the F/ 5.6 aperture was the correct choice for this situation. Your

thoughts and comments are always appreciated. Thank You.

A fantastic perspective with fantastic colors and texture my friend. The sky adds to this great composition! Warm regards.

A stunning view, Alf.  And, I think you made the right f-stop choice.  This is a very good image and I like it a lot. 

Hi Alf

 

WOW!.... The sharpness,  detail and clarity in this image is tangible.  

 

I viewed "Down to Earth" to make a comparison and this one is my preferred choice,  and thanks to the extensive photography knowledge you have shared with me I am now able to understand the technical side more,  so I would agree with you that F5.6 was definitely the correct choice.

 

Now, enough of the techy stuff...I'm going to get to what's far more important to me....aesthetics.....and wow this is an extremely aesthetically pleasing image Alf......sheer beauty,  perfectly composed (with the aid of the trusty tripod :) )  

 

My eyes were drawn into the image...along the slate wall to that resplendent skyline.  I love the way your images give the viewer the perception of being able to "step into" the scene and take in the stunning view and solitude of the surroundings.

 

Absolutely striking image viewed large Alf.... my sincere compliments to you for sharing yet another awe inspiring picture.

 

warmest regards

 

Jacqueline

A truly wonderful image.  I particular enjoy the leading lines the fallen wall has created.  The tremendous DOF really brings the image to life.  Another beautiful landscape brought to life by your talents.  Thank you for sharing.  Cheers...

 

-Dave

 

Hi Alf, I did the comparison in between both images, having in mind that you were doing and examination trying to see where do you have more sharpness using  f/4 in the image  entitle "Down to earth" or in this particular one using f/5.6, I truly believe that there is more sharpness in the other image than in this one, the details are more clear, I'm able to perceive more details in the far mountains and the pyramid, than in this one. The clouds also have a better definition in the other one. If both images were in a competition my inclination and vote would be "Down to Earth"

Both images are beautiful, the place is awesome, the peace I can experience contemplating this awesome place is unspeakable, so thanks so much for sharing this wonder of nature!!!

Warm regards,

LuDa

 

Beautiful shots. Both have their high points but claims about rectal linear lenses aside... I like the more panoramic capture.

 

A 500th at this aperture seems adequate for you, with or without the tripod unless your wanted to make a really huge print.  There is no apparent difference in sharpness to me.

 

As usual, your fine narration adds a lot to the enjoyment of your images.Thanks for sharing.

Wonderful. Love the composition and the sharpness throughout. Well done.

Really beautiful work, Alf!

 

First class work Alf, love it. Regards, Erik

You have done a very good job here. The sharpness and DOF is outstanding.

Regards Eystein

Superb! Stone pattern is an amazing guide for the eye.

Best regards,

Alain

This one appeals to me more than the horizontal.  I like the cloud orientation & colors, the white balance, and strong lines.

Hi Alf,

  Wow...beautiful scene with amazing details, colors & composition that you are drawn to.  Take care, Patsy

Verticality gives more dash to the image!

Absolutely love the perspective on this!!!!!  AJ

Beautiful shot again! The eye travels all the way from the bottom to the top to discover the beauty of the sky! Nice title too. Warm regards, Tamara

Many thanks for your interest and kind words! 

 

Best Regards my Friend! 

 

Alf 

 

BILL

I think the foreground sharpness is more acceptable and aesthetically pleasing to most viewers. Though how much can be attributed to the F stop and how much to the point of focus is only guess work since I didn't carry out a direct comparison.  But I'm inclined to go with the F/ 5.6 on this one.

Sincere Thanks Bill

 

Alf

 

JACQUELINE 

 

Many Thanks for your interest and thoughtful analogy.

I am only too pleased to be able to share the technical details in order that you can try them for yourself. 

I think aesthetics are the most predominant influence for most artists. How things look must surely be the driving force for most photographers and indeed viewers. 

The tripod allows a safe resting place for the camera, its allows a stable platform and it removes any chance of a momentary wobble.  It's also useful to compose the image and wait for a gap in the clouds when the sun shines through for example, or for a shooting opportunity when the clouds diffuse the harsh light of the sun.  And any number of other variables that occur when shooting.

Its very gratifying to read your perception of the place and its barren kind of beauty.

Thanks again Jacqueline.

 

Warm Regards 

 

Alf 

 

DAVE 

 

Many Thanks fo your thoughts and kind words.

 

The fallen wall was something I had in mind before I got there , it was then just a case of playing with the composition.

Of course now I have more idea's for when I return there.C

 

Cheers Dave!

 

Alf 

 

LUISA 

 

Sincere Thanks for your in depth analogy and comparison, much appreciated! 

 

In truth there is probably little difference in the sharpness. But the perceptible foreground sharpness is definitely more apparent in this image.

However it must be recognised that the point of focus could be quite different than the "Down to Earth" image, which would also go some way to explain the your perception of the distant detail in that image.

I think there is a difference in the F stop but to get a more informed and directly comparable example please see the following link.

 

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

 

I am so pleased that you enjoyed viewing both images, irrespective of F stop : - ) 

 

Warm Regards 

 

Alf 

 

STEVE 

 

Sincere Thanks for your thoughts and positive feedback, much appreciated. 

1/500th  is easilly enough to obtain a good sharp photo...even for me. But I like to deliberate and change the composition......sometimes by minute degrees and the tripod makes life easier in this respect.

Cheers Steve! 

 

Alf 

 

TONY 

 

See, I recognise wisdom when it is delivered to me and your tips relating to portrait orientation always stayed with me.

Many Thanks 

 

Alf 

 

RUUD 

 

Thank you so much for your interest and kind words! 

 

Alf 

 

ERIK 

 

Its very gratifying to read that you love it Erik! 

 

Sincere Thanks & Best Regards 

 

Alf 

 

EYSTEIN 

 

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

 

Regards 

 

Alf 

 

ALAIN 

 

Some things just kind of beg to be photographed and the fallen stone wall was one of them.

Many Thanks 

 

Alf 

 

JEFF 

It is always useful to know exactly what elements are appealing. 

Sincere thanks for your clear concise comments, much appreciated! 

 

Alf 

 

PATSY 

 

Thank you so much for your kind words and observations. 

I'm glad you felt "drawn" to the image, that is exactly what it was intended to do! 

 

Best Regards 

 

Alf 

 

MAURIZIO

 

I agree, it does give it a bit more Zip! 

 

Sincere Thanks! 

 

Alf 

 

A J 

Thanks for stopping by and leaving your thoughts, much appreciated! 

 

Alf 

 

TAMARA 

 

Nothing to with James Bond either : - ) 

I just like the sound of it and it  kind of reminded of the Tale of Chicken Licken when the sky fell down! 

Sincere Thanks Tamara! 

 

Warm Regards 

 

Alf 

 

 

 

 

Hi Alf.  I have been watching the two pictures, and I prefer this one, because I think that the vertical format makes me follow a Stone path wich leads me to the cottage in ruins and a wonderful sky.

Regards,  Rosario.

Wonderful composition and viewpoint- I think the vertical format provides a great character to the shot.  Looking at the scene, it's telling a story to me.  Congratulations

Sincere Thanks for your thoughtful comparison and positive feedback.

I agree the vertical version does seem to provide stronger leading lines.

Best Regards 

 

Alf 

 

PHIL

 

Thank you for your interest and kind words.

The whole place is teeming with character, I'm glad it comes across in the image.

 

Best Regards 

 

Alf 

 

Hi Alf,

There is no doubt technically, that the use of F/5.6 is not as defined as the F/4 shot.

For myself, F/2.8 is the best way to assure the maximum benefit with this lens that I understand so well from my lab tests and use of my own copy in the field.

I did copy your image into my lab analysis software and measured the complex transitions between the smallest scene elements present. By comparing it to the last image taken at F/4, the analysis confirms what my lens tests in the lab show as well.

The software is NOT Photoshop, as this program is not even considered for such studies.

Your image is nice to look at (the aesthetics aspect of imaging) and I expect that most people are not critical observers to see the difference at most any f-stop used in a scene like this antway.

I do have over 40+ years as a critical , expert observer of imagery. I have been called upon to review  a great number of images for  programs that are far removed from amateur photography applications.

Best Regards my friend, Mike

 

Many thanks for going to the time and trouble of analysing this image to such a high degree. I don't doubt for a one second your expertise or ability to be able to identify the finer qualities of the image through microscopic analysis and inspection. However the most interesting aspect of the image for me and I suspect a lot of viewers was summed up in your words

 

"Your image is nice to look at (the aesthetics aspect of imaging)"

 

Of course I always strive to achieve quality and aesthetics, and realise there is a certain amount of compromise to be made on each side of the equation, but I am unwilling to sacrifice the latter for the former.  A high quality image that has no aesthetic appeal is of no use to me whatsoever and defeats the object of trying to capture the essential beauty of a scene. 

 

In the meantime I continue to study the "perceptions" of sharpness and the effects of dof and apertures.

The following passages I copied from my last image and in turn from an article I read that was of great interest.

 

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 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 tobe 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 acceptable sharp circle of confusion is one which is loosely defined as one which would go unnoticed when enlarged to a standard 8 x 10 inch print, and observed from a standard viewing distance of about  12 inches.

At this viewing distance and print size, camera manufacturers 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 dof markers on lenses.  

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

The article goes in to illustrate graphically and physically the dof achieved at different apertures and the consequential "perception" of sharpness that relates to them ranging from F2.8  - F 5.6 to F 8.  I found this particularly interesting

And then further explanations regarding wide angle and telephoto lenses and the effects that magnification can have on depth of field. 

Altogether I found it most illuminating and interesting. 

 

This link may prove helpful

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

 

Thanks again Mike! 

 

Best Regards 

 

Alf 

Hi Alf,

You are speaking to the choir my friend.

I have spent many years in graduate school studying Visual Perceptions as it relates to many fields.

Manufacturers take the easy way out to produce photographic equipment that is acceptable for the mass population using it. The tolerances and acceptable standards are NOT optimized, as they address only what the market has accepted over the years.

An untrained "eye" will not ever advance to a state that will cause the observer to demand better systems become available for use. The simple proof of this fact is the number of photographers that do own above average lens/cameras still do not know who best to utilize them.

"DOF" remains a statement that describes how much compromise is found in a displayed image.

There is only one point of TRUE focus.

We "see" and judge distance, size, etc. by using two eyes, each focused at a different plane of focus and constantly updating the "master processing center", the brain. We even are sensitive to color changes, which also effect the plane of focus that our eyes interpret.

Fortunately for us, we (our eye lens) are very short focal length , and during the day function at their peak performance under adequate lighting conditions. The "eye" peaks around F/8 because as a simple lens , aberrations begin to become controlled. Again, our "perception " and brain image processing often cleans up many of the technical shortcomings of the simple lens across a wide range of vision conditions. Our "memory recall from the visual ceneter" fills in the blanks as we see. A $2 simple lens can be shown to perform at the same level as our eye optically. However, as a visual system, the eye, the retina, the optic never and visual center (brain) is an  amazing system.

Best Regards my friend, Mike

Many Thanks! 

 

Of course if I'm speaking to choir then its safe to assume we are singing from the same hymn sheet, albeit with slightly different tunes : - ) 

The text that I copied would indeed concur with your studies, and enlarges on the fact that there is only one true focus point, the increasing and diminishing distances for and aft becoming less sharp bygradual transition.

Of course I can't claim to have studied the subject for years at any college, but I take notice of those that have and I can read. 

However the use of smaller F stops by thousands  photographers that knowingly compromise quality for aesthetics would never be described as  "wrong" by myself.  It is a tool that can be used to serve a purpose, and if the parameters of quality and aesthetics are known to the photographer in the first place then surely the methods used to achieve better perceptions of aesthetics (smaller apertures) are a matter of choice, not a matter of ignorance.

There may well be large numbers of photographers that also use smaller F stops and follow "rules" and popular misconceptions, however I would regard the vast majority of photographers as intelligent inquisitive people that ensure they get the optimum quality and best aesthetic combination form the equipment within their given budget. Like myself, I am fairly certain they would experiment in the field to find exactly what works for them.

It is always good to remind ourselves that the target audience for most photographers are either the public or specific clients that don't give a hoot about F stops, they simply want something that pleases their "untrained" eye. : - )

Cheers Mike......Always good to discuss this subject, though I fear we are becoming somewhat repetitive : - ) 

Best Regards my friend! 

 

Alf