charles_sieracki1

Thanks for all the answers. I've been reading a lot of articles about this issue. There's really no complete consensus. I'm surprised no one mentioned hyperfocal distance focusing. I knew about it and tried to practice it and sometimes it fails miserably. I thought I was just not doing it right. I found an article called 'The Ins and Outs of Focus' by Harold M. Merklinger. He discusses the problems related to focus in this article:

 

http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/TIAOOFe.pdf

 

In a nutshell, he argues that you should focus more toward infinity (or at infinity) than hyperfocal distance suggests. This has to do with rather old standards for the circle of confusion standard built into most lenses. It seems to me he is advocating sacrificing some foreground detail for perfect detail in the background. It certainly is easier to remember to focus at infinity and shoot there. I'm going to try his technique.

 

Anyone else read this article and has comments?

Michael,

 

Just returned from there on a month long shoot in July. I have been to the park many times over the years as well. I find the Smokies a bit too crowded for my taste. I like to shoot on the blue ridge parkway. You'll see similar vistas there. Much less crowded and much less fighting traffic. Not many waterfalls on the BRP and not that many cabins. Everyone and his dog heads for cades cove. Best strategy is to head out before dawn and leave before 9am. Otherwise you'll be neck deep in tourists.

Returning from a recent shoot in North Carolina I noticed that many

of my photos were out of focus somewhat more often than I liked. I

suppose this happens to everyone to a degree, but I decided to try

and find the reason for this. I had several possible explanations:

 

1) my eyesight is failing or needs testing

2) carelessness with tripod or tripod head being loose or wobbly

3) poor quality lenses

4) improper focus distance set on the lens

5) too slow a shutter speed in the wind

6) any combination of factors above

 

I decided to test using my best lens, the Canon L 135mm f2. I took

several shots of a nearby brick column. The column was some 50 feet

away or so, since I did not want to test close up photography.

 

Using my normal approach, that is, using a good tripod, cable

release and mirror lock up, I tried getting some very sharp photos

of this object. Locking down the ball head securely and making sure

the tripod was steady on a calm day, I focused on the column and

shot at f22. After an entire day of non-sharpness, I remembered the

DOF field preview button. Normally I use this to see if the subject

is in enough focus for a particular aperture. What I did that was

new was set the focus when I held the button down. I didn't do this

before since the viewfinder gets dark.

 

When I did this I was surprised to see incredible detail. I then got

a ground glass focusing loupe and looked inside the viewfinder with

it with the button held down. I then could see the detail that I

needed to see to focus properly. I could then make extremely fine

adjustments to the focus and see the portions in focus and out of

focus.

 

I was wondering if anyone else has tried this or used this method

before. I never see any other small format photographers doing this.

I know our large format friends do this on the ground glass of their

view cameras.

To have this included as an option would be a huge advance and a time saver. But I would have some problems with it as I think that the decision is much more complex than simply exposing for the brightest area in the frame. Think of what would happen if the sun were in the frame; the whole image would be underexposed. If the designers could duplicate my decision rules perfectly then I would be happy to use automatic metering. What I tend to do is make sure that the dynamic range of the camera is used optimally. This is the goal at least - not always achieved in practice of course.

 

I do this by making sure that the highlights are not over blown for sure, but not always. I find that if I can raise my shadow areas (call them S) then I have to decide what to do about highlights (call them H). It also depends on whether H is colored or not. If H is white, like a cloud, I say raise it to a very high value. I can usually go to +3.7 over medium gray on this type of H. I'll do this to preserve S. It all comes down to how much detail you really need in H and S simultaneously. Large areas of blown H look terrible, as large areas of S that are totally black can. I certainly prefer black S to blown H. But I can sacrifice small areas of H to preserve S, then I'll do it.

 

Also, this works much better in camera RAW when shooting digital. In Photoshop's camera RAW converter I can recover quite a bit of blown H. H looks funny if it is colored, like blue sky, so pushing that up too much beyond +2.7 doesn't work for me. The best way to find these limits is to test your camera. Then things get more complex. If H and S are too far apart, then I consider a graduated neutral density filter (I'm shooting landscapes). I'd prefer the camera just to tell me what is the difference in stops is between H and S. Then I could pick which one to expose for, or use a GND filter. All that can be done with a spot meter either inside or outside the camera. If H and S are measured in EV's then I subtract them to get the subject brightness range (SBR). If it is greater than 6 (for my camera) then I have a decision to make. Perhaps if the meter could do as suggested above and tell me the SBR, I could really make the decision process much faster and more efficient.

Just wondering if anyone else had used a resolution chart to try to

test different lenses. I'm looking at the following web site:

 

http://www.sinepatterns.com/i_Stdrds.htm

 

They have many different ones to choose from, in many sizes and

different prices. I'm shooting with the full frame Kodak SLR/c. I

think I have to get one of the larger charts for this camera. I also

don't know which one to get: the ISO 122333, the IEEE, or the USAF

1951, or another.

 

I'm primarily interested in being able to test lenses I've purchased

very quickly and be able to tell if there's a problem. The return

period on most lenses is very short, so I need the right way to test.

Thanks everyone for the advice. Anyone been to Strathcona Provincial Park? It looks very mountainous and could be a great place to hike if the coastal areas are crowded (although sounds not very likely).

Was wondering if anyone had been to Vancouver Island in July. Is it

crowded and are there plenty of good places to shoot? Where can I

escape the crowds? What's the weather like up there? Thanks for the

help.

Just wondering if anyone out there shooting digital infrared has

ever tried to make the long shutter speeds necessary with this kind

of photography shorter with super fast lenses. For those unfamiliar

with this, I'm placing an infrared filter (a special very dark red

filter that blocks all but the longest of light waves) on my lens

and shooting with it. Since the filter is so dark, it's necessary to

have long (>30 seconds) shutter speeds at mid-apertures (such as

f8). I was thinking of putting this filter on a very fast lens, say

an f1.2 (one is available from Canon, a prime lens, 85mm) and

shooting wide open. I am asking since I am unsure of the effect I

would get since infrared does not focus like visible light.

Wondering what the bokeh or out of focus areas might look like. In

any case, I could shoot with a much faster shutter speed and perhaps

loose the tripod in the process.

I'm going to try it - just ordered one. I'm going to put on my own Arca Swiss QR adapter on so I can use standard AS plates. Reason I bought it was price ($229 for the 58mm ball without QR) and it looks quite attractive. Here is a web site that apparently is the distributor of these products:

 

http://www.omegasatter.com/v2/products/displaybrand.cfm?BrandID=135

 

I'll report back with my impressions once I get the item and try it out....

I now want to respond to some of the other photographers comments. Yes, I am trying indeed to create an analogue to film processing that AA established, but more than that. This analogy does not break down if the sensor is smaller than a large format. Actually, in 35mm roll film the Zone System could not be used 100% since each frame could not be separately developed. In digital, they can be. Now that I'm 100% digitally re-mastered, I want a methodology for digital photography that is as comprehensive and logical as the zone system is/was regardless of what we might call it. When I go into the field I want order not chaos, since I want to concentrate on 'art.'

 

Thomas, you are absolutely correct in saying the RAW file is like the negative in film and using ACR is like film development. In fact, I think the designers of the RAW software packages that are out there want us to use them with similar techniques as with film. Indeed, I can take a long SBR frame (one with a wide range of brightness values) and decrease the contrast in ACR, very much like reducing development (N+1, N-1, etc, was the terminology in film). But I am moving a slider and not bathing in chemicals.

 

Yes, 254 would be the closest value to 255 and not theoretically be 'blown out.' Then the question is how much exposure gives a consistent 254 (or a bit lower, since we are working in one third of a stop steps on most cameras) is the root of my original question. I have done some testing towards this and it's complicated by several factors. Your white balance has to be spot on in ACR for the shot. If I move the white balance slider, I can blow the highlights or recover them as well. I also can recover highlights if I move to a larger color space such as Pro Photo RGB. I'm finding that I want to move the white balance away from what the camera shot to give a warmer color balance. If I do so, I'm risking blowing out the red channel. So I've got to take that into consideration when I expose in the field.

 

Your other comment about letting some highlights blow out to avoid blocked shadows is also correct IMO. You can sacrifice H (highlights) to allow S (shadows) to be increased in exposure, if H is small and/or unimportant and S is large and important. Alternatively, you can let S go to black if S is small and/or unimportant and H is large and important. These are rules I try to follow when the SBR is larger than 6 stops. Or, I reach for a grad filter if appropriate. Someone mentioned that solution, as well as digital blending. These are useful of course, but my purpose here is to find the optimal point before any remedies such as these are employed.

 

I'd say the print phase is what you do in Photoshop proper, after the RAW data is converted and the white balance is set, whether the output is a TIFF, JPG or whatever. At this stage you might do sharpening or play with saturation. But the 'negative' has been translated into values you can see like a photographic print. It is no longer just data that your sensor collected. So if you shoot JPG, the camera throws away the negative and you are left with 'the print' whether you like it or not. Perhaps not a perfect analogy but close.

 

The bottom line here is that testing is needed if you want to find out where the optimal points are for your camera. My sensor may not behave like yours. I do think that exposing a middle toned subject as middle toned can be used if you are staying with JPG. If you use RAW, then I think that that methodology isn't optimal.

Thanks to everyone, especially you, Thomas. I think you might be getting at some of the points I was hoping to have discussed. I want to respond to some of your comments but I have this to get off my chest first:

 

I've been doing a bit more testing and I guess I should mention that I'm working in Adobe Photoshop CS RAW converter (I call it ACR for short). What I have done is try to establish some sort of calibration method for exposure like AA did for the Zone System. As Minor White and others recommend in the New Zone System Manual, they take a +0.0 exposure B&W photo of an evenly lighted gray card, then after normal development, compare that print to the actual gray card. If they look the same you are OK. Now, what to do in digital?

 

Something similar but provide a standard that makes sense in RAW processing. I've been thinking that a perfect Zone V exposure should be equivalent to a 127 on the scale from 0 to 255 as seen in the RAW converter when you move your cursor over the frame. Since RAW data is linear in brightness levels, I am assuming that 127 (actually 127.5, or the midpoint between 0 and 255) is a perfect middle gray. If I shoot a uniformly lighted grey card in daylight (i.e. color temp of 5500K) and I spot meter on the card and allow the meter to give the same +0.0 exposure, I should have upon opening the RAW file in ACR after setting white balance to 5500K, a reading of 127 should be obtained, or thereabouts. I have noticed that the color space choice matters for this exercise, as well as the shadow slider (should be set to 0). My in camera meter gives me pretty close to 127 every time in various tests I have done, setting the color space to Adobe RGB 1998. Of course, what you really see in ACR is a triplet of RGB values. Only when I desaturate to grey using the saturation slider moved all the way to the left, do I get a (127,127,127) triplet. When the frame is mostly blue, like a frame taken of the sky, the Blue value (the last value in the triplet) is always the highest. Therefore, the key to setting the optimal exposure depends on whether one of the color channels will go to saturation first. I could shoot a perfect blue card for instance and see how far I can push up the highlights on this frame by using the exposure slider, and record that as the parameter to be used in the field for blue sky, for instance. I could also do that for green and red.

 

So now I have a calibrated reference point for middle gray at least in ACR, and I will know how far I can go above this value for highlights. So all I do is determine SBR (subject brightness range), place the highlights in the optimal zone for it's color characteristics, and then I'll know where the shadows fall in terms of zone placement.

 

I also conducted another test. I shot a sequence of frames at different exposures. I selected the one that was 2 stops below the +0.0 frame. This is zone III if my meter is calibrated correctly. I opened that frame in ACR and tried raising exposure on it. I found that if I view at 50% (this is arbitrary, but a decent view of any frame) and I raise the exposure by more than +1.33 (one and a third stops) then I see posterization, or at least some pretty bad noise artifacts. So my shadows are pretty safe in Zone III. So I figure I have 6 stops of dynamic range to play with at a minimum.

 

In summary, I can get an optimal exposure for post-processing if I follow the rule that I use that first stop of brightness in digital photography. If my subject scene has 6 stops or less, I am assured of having a RAW file that contains the maximum amount of information. So basically digital photography is more about gathering data than trying to get the final exposure that you would like to see in the print (or on the monitor screen).

 

Sorry so long winded. I hope this might spur some further discussion.

Just to clarify on my own question, and comment on responses. The histogram can be a bit misleading if you shoot RAW, since the histogram shows what the image looks like after all processing is done to the JPG file (curves, white balance are applied), so the histogram doesn't tell the story of what can happen in post processing with the RAW file. It seems like there is about 2/3 of a stop or so of highlights that still exist even if the histogram is showing blown out. My original question (perhaps not precisely worded enough) is how do I know where to stop in 'exposing to the right'? I see that even if I clip a color channel I can still recover it in RAW processing without any serious problems unless I really go far to the right by increasing exposure. If I go way too far, I notice that even recovered highlights look pretty strange. What I am trying to do is maximize the amount of information in the RAW file for use to build the picture. I have read that half of the brightness levels available are in the first stop of brightness in the histogram. So if I underexpose by 1 stop I am throwing away half of my data. Is there a standard exposure compensation value that seems like it works in most cases? I am finding that +3.0 works on my Kodak DCS SLR/c. If you notice too, this is the point at which the display on all cameras that I have owned stop flashing overexposure; maybe there's a reason. So I'm suggesting that within plus or minus a third of a stop, put highlights in Zone VIII in digital regardless (bracket around this value). I'll continue to test this myself and I was hoping that someone else had tried this technique as well.

I am hoping for some comments on the following reasoning about

trying to apply the zone system to digital photography. It seems to

me that "correct" exposure is crucial to digital. If I overexpose,

then I have highlights that cannot be recovered in RAW converter

such as ACR. If I underexpose, then I risk noisy shadow areas. This

suggests that there is an optimal exposure, one that allows

highlight recovery and minimizes the possibility of shadow

posterization. So I PLACE my higlights in Zone VIII for instance

(+3.0 exposure compensation above the meter recommendation for Zone

V), and my shadows FALL in Zone III, I am optimally using the

dynamic range of the sensor. The question is, how to determine where

the highlights should be placed prior to exposure. In trying

different scenarios, it seems that if the highlight region is

colored (e.g. blue sky) then there is a limit to how far one might

push the highlights up. This also seems to depend on the color space

chosen in the RAW converter and the color temperature applied.

Anyone discovered a way to find the optimal placement?

I see a new spot meter/incident meter in town these days...the

Sekonic 558 "Dual Master." Has anyone yet had any experience with

this new meter? It seems to be priced between Sekonic's 508 and 608

model lines. It also seems to be directly in competition with

Gossen's Starlight combo meter. Any thoughts as to which of all

these meters might be the best to go with?

Bring everything you can. Don't miss Moraine lake near Lake Louise. Many people head straight to Lake Louise and miss Moraine Lake. BTW the Chateau Lake Louise is under construction right now. I heard jack hammers and construction noise big time. Left there pretty quick. I was there last two weeks of Sept 2003.

 

Icefields is the best in the world. Fall is really underway up there. Weather is still warm -- 15 Celsius or so for highs. The trees were turing orange just as I left on Sept 30, 2003. Had a freak snow on Sept 16th. Made for some awesome shots. Snow is all melted now.

 

BTW see Mt. Robson Park in BC. Give the rest of BC a miss. In Banff go to the Vermillion Lakes. You'll see the turnoff before you get into town. Very nice pics of Mt Rundle. Also do Tunnel Mtn drive and go see the Hoodoos. There will be a sign for the trail.

 

C.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree on favorable scenery in BC. Traveled in BC twice this year. Did the Crowsnest Highway #3 in southern BC plus the Sea to Sky Highway from Lillooet to Vancouver back in June (2003). I saw quite a bit of deforestation in many areas. Around Duffey lake on the Sea to Sky (Highway 99) there were huge tracts of cleared out forests that make my photos look like s**t. The area around Lillooet is pretty much the same, and the terrain is semi-arid. Manning Provincial park is pretty miserable unless you want to photograph large sections of dead trees. Many of the roads run out of pavement and you are driving on dirt roads. I'd stick to North Cascades NP or Mt Baker in Washington if you want to see the north Cascades.

 

In September of this year I also did the Yellowhead highway (#5) from Kamloops to Jasper. More devestated forests. BC has allowed some forest company or companies to absolutely STRIP mine the forests. The upkeep on the roads is not good either. So many junkyards. I compare most of BC to Arkansas here -- it's a pitiful shame.

 

I also took a side trip to Revelstoke and Glacier National parks on the Trans Canada Highway. The parks were very poor compared to Jasper and Banff. I took all of 4 photos in Revelstoke. The Meadows in the Sky road was kind of bad. I didn't see any flowers. Maybe wrong time of year. Park is not well maintained. I headed back to Banff.

 

What to see: Icefields parkway in Alberta. Give BC a miss.

 

C.

Happened to me too. Considered sanding down sides of filters a little. Didn't make enough of a difference. Ended up buying Hitech's filter holder (very expensive) instead of using the Cokin. Cokin's is so cheap I wonder if it would hold up anyway. Still using the Cokin adapter ring. I guess Hitech wants you to buy their holder; That's the only reason I can see for this situation.

B+H and Adorama both carry the X-pro series. Adorama has the best prices as of my last purchase. Also there is a very nice bellows lens hood that fits the X-pro series. The bellows come with a filter holder already installed, so all you'll need is the adapter ring + any filters.

 

C.