Old 07-09-2017, 07:10 PM   #1
RobJor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 753
Default Blurry

Existing Light only. Thoughts welcome

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...00&key=6205384


They seemed to accept a lot of these type from me before but seemingly much harder although I accept that maybe not as good . I did cut the shutter speed a little to gain a little depth of field instead of shooting at 1.4
Any way, I don't try too much anymore, remembering the old Carly Simon song.

Bob

Here is a prior of I thought similar quality

Image © Robert Jordan
PhotoID: 610327
Photograph © Robert Jordan
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Railpics-01Sharp.jpg
Views:	167
Size:	929.4 KB
ID:	9469  
RobJor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2017, 07:24 PM   #2
bigbassloyd
Senior Member
 
bigbassloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hilldale, West Virginia
Posts: 3,734
Default

The train is for sure. I'd also quibble about the image quality as a whole. Very poor contrast and plenty of noise throughout. I would have kicked the accepted one for the same thing. As a prolific night shooter (and not just silly choo choos), I'm not exactly sure why you're fooling around at iso 1600 with a full frame, only to make the final result worse than if you'd crank the iso and shoot it right.

With a full frame I'm shooting at a minimum of iso 6400 and up to 12,800 to get em right when in an urban (lit) area, while retaining print quality files.

Loyd L.
__________________
Social Media elevates the absurd and mediocre to a point where they aren't anymore, and that is a tragedy.

My personal photography site

Last edited by bigbassloyd; 07-09-2017 at 08:17 PM.
bigbassloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2017, 11:04 PM   #3
Noct Foamer
Senior Member
 
Noct Foamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 571
Default

I too shoot quite a bit with available light. Some thoughts. First, I always use a tripod. This always improves sharpness more than any other single thing. Second, if something is moving you must make shutter speed the priority, and that's going to be 1/250s if object is moving ~10 mph, and 1/500s if under 40 mph. I bump up ISO to whatever it needs to be to hit that. (Or deploy flash units.) DoF is less important than shutter speed so I'll go down to f1.4 if I have to. You can gain some DoF by going to a longer lens and backing up, say instead of using a 20mm f1.4 you use a 50mm or even 85mm f1.4. I'm often at ISO 2000 or even 5000 if shooting a moving object at night. If my subject is stationary, I can use any ISO. With film cameras I often shoot ISO 100.


Kent in SD
Noct Foamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2017, 11:12 PM   #4
RobJor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 753
Default

Thanks Loyd, I will try the higher ISO as I can shoot the train(w/o flags) any night I want to go to bed after 3:00 AM. The processing could be better as I looked at another version posted elsewhere and did look better, I took out the green of some of the lighting out here to avoid color cast rejection and could have dulled the overall color and contrast.
Bob
RobJor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2017, 11:24 PM   #5
RobJor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 753
Default

Kent, thanks. My biggest problem here was I wanted to include as much as the office detail as possible, otherwise I am left with a train and a platform. If did this one again i would have shot at 1.4 like you mentioned and upped the shutter speed but I was influenced by a prior shot at the other end of the platform which was affected by DOF(below) and I had to struggle to get accepted. I should use a tripod more.

Image © Robert Jordan
PhotoID: 562304
Photograph © Robert Jordan


Bob

Last edited by RobJor; 07-09-2017 at 11:28 PM.
RobJor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2017, 11:54 PM   #6
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

Both the accepted photo the OP included and his rejected shot, the numberboards are pretty blurry / OOF, that's why it was rejected. Why the other one got accepted, who knows
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2017, 01:39 AM   #7
bigbassloyd
Senior Member
 
bigbassloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hilldale, West Virginia
Posts: 3,734
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobJor View Post
Thanks Loyd, I will try the higher ISO as I can shoot the train(w/o flags) any night I want to go to bed after 3:00 AM. The processing could be better as I looked at another version posted elsewhere and did look better, I took out the green of some of the lighting out here to avoid color cast rejection and could have dulled the overall color and contrast.
Bob
I think you'll be much happier when you get to 3200 and above.

iso 6400




iso 8000


Full frames make the dark a much better place to be.

Loyd L.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	6dBeechRidgeMilkyWayTurbine24-1052.jpg
Views:	290
Size:	852.1 KB
ID:	9470   Click image for larger version

Name:	6dSandstonefallsNightPainted2redo.jpg
Views:	289
Size:	696.7 KB
ID:	9471   Click image for larger version

Name:	6dStauntonSignalsFromCabNight.jpg
Views:	290
Size:	597.3 KB
ID:	9472   Click image for larger version

Name:	6dWashingtonDCfedTriangleStation.jpg
Views:	267
Size:	716.3 KB
ID:	9473  
__________________
Social Media elevates the absurd and mediocre to a point where they aren't anymore, and that is a tragedy.

My personal photography site
bigbassloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2017, 02:47 AM   #8
miningcamper1
Senior Member
 
miningcamper1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,221
Default

I never, ever shot a slide at any wider aperture than f2.8 (f4 preferably).
Wait, there was the one Hail Mary of NKP 759 in near darkness.

But I'm open-minded! Somebody please post a link to a quality photo shot at f1.4.
__________________
flickr photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/11947249@N03/

RP Photos: www.railpictures.net/miningcamper1/
miningcamper1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2017, 05:05 AM   #9
Noct Foamer
Senior Member
 
Noct Foamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 571
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by miningcamper1 View Post
I never, ever shot a slide at any wider aperture than f2.8 (f4 preferably).
Wait, there was the one Hail Mary of NKP 759 in near darkness.

But I'm open-minded! Somebody please post a link to a quality photo shot at f1.4.

It was too dark to read a newspaper, but ISO 1600 and f1.4 still found enough ambient light. When you're up close, the DoF on f1.4 is very, very shallow. However, when you back off, where your subject is at infinity focus, DoF really doesn't come into play. For this shot I was about 200 yards back.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/968260...posted-public/


This one was f2, ISO 3200:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/968260...posted-public/

This one was f4, but I did up it to ISO 2000 with no problem:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/968260...posted-public/

ISO 2000 and f1.8:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/968260...posted-public/

ISO 3200 & f1.6:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/968260...posted-public/


ISO 4000 & f1.8 (and pretty much infinity focus):
https://www.flickr.com/photos/968260...posted-public/

The lens you are using makes a big difference. I have Sigma ART lenses 35mm & 50mm f1.4, the very sharpest AF lenses you can stick on a Nikon. The Nikon 20mm f1.8G is also very highly rated for sharpness. Needless to say, every photo posted above was made using a very solid Gitzo 1325 tripod with AcraTech head.

Two of the key points I'm trying to get across to you are:
(1) Use a tripod. A really, really good one.
(2) Up close, the DoF from f1.4-f2 is very very shallow (maybe only an inch at portrait distance.) However, at infinity focus (i.e. more than ~50 ft. away,) the DoF should become considerably more (I'm tempted to say infinite but have not tested this.)


Kent in SD

Last edited by Noct Foamer; 07-10-2017 at 05:12 AM.
Noct Foamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2017, 05:46 AM   #10
bigbassloyd
Senior Member
 
bigbassloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hilldale, West Virginia
Posts: 3,734
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noct Foamer View Post
(2) However, at infinity focus (i.e. more than ~50 ft. away,) the DoF should become considerably more (I'm tempted to say infinite but have not tested this.)
I commonly shoot at f2.8 and lower. The entire visible world (and others) is in focus with a little distance and the focus adjusted as such.

My old Tokina 11-16 was set and forget in the dark @ 2.8. Didn't even need to look at the focus ring, just roll it till it stopped and good to go no matter what I was shooting.. The Samyang 14mm is almost as easy, just have to stop a small twist short of infinity.

Loyd L.
__________________
Social Media elevates the absurd and mediocre to a point where they aren't anymore, and that is a tragedy.

My personal photography site
bigbassloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2017, 06:13 AM   #11
Noct Foamer
Senior Member
 
Noct Foamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 571
Default

Another thought. Many lenses (such as my Nikon 50mm f1.2 AiS) are not sharp wide open, or are only sharp in the center. The older Sigma 20mm f1.8 was not very sharp until stopped down to f2.8. So, I just bought the Nikon 20mm f2.8D. Some lenses ARE actually quite sharp, even edge to edge, at f1.4. The Zeiss Milvus and Sigma ART f1.4 lenses are in that class.


Kent in SD
Noct Foamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2017, 07:57 AM   #12
miningcamper1
Senior Member
 
miningcamper1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,221
Default

Of the f2 to f1.6 ones, the last 4 are very good.

But the train on the bridge just isn't sharp (lead engine, all the foliage).

At what ISO does your camera get too noisy?
__________________
flickr photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/11947249@N03/

RP Photos: www.railpictures.net/miningcamper1/
miningcamper1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2017, 03:01 PM   #13
Noct Foamer
Senior Member
 
Noct Foamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 571
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by miningcamper1 View Post

At what ISO does your camera get too noisy?

This is very subjective and depends on one's tolerance for noise. It also depends on one's ability to use software to reduce noise, and finally some scenes are easier to avoid noise than others in the first place. According to DxO, my D800E shoots very cleanly up to ISO 2000. I will push to ISO 3200 without big problems most of the time. I will go one stop higher than that if necessary. When setting up a shot, I generally try to bring the histogram further to the right, to pull the shadows out of the noisy left "region." I do this using exposure compensation button, or have the camera in manual mode.


Kent in SD
Noct Foamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2017, 03:09 PM   #14
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbassloyd View Post
The train is for sure. I'd also quibble about the image quality as a whole. Very poor contrast and plenty of noise throughout. I would have kicked the accepted one for the same thing.
Speaking of PIQ, look at the nose of the loco. What is going on with that? Was this taken with a potato?? haha

Image © Kevin Burkholder
PhotoID: 622579
Photograph © Kevin Burkholder
__________________
.
Rhymes with slice, rice and mice, and probably should be spelled like "Tice."

This pretty much sums it up: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Thias
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2017, 04:15 PM   #15
RobJor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 753
Default

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

DOF calculator

D800E 35mm focus at 50' "in focus" range is 32 to 105, Hyperfocal not until 94 feet. But this only mathematical, in relation to your criterion, conditions etc??? They use a circle of confusion 0f .3 mm.

Bob
RobJor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2017, 04:33 PM   #16
bigbassloyd
Senior Member
 
bigbassloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hilldale, West Virginia
Posts: 3,734
Default

damn double post
__________________
Social Media elevates the absurd and mediocre to a point where they aren't anymore, and that is a tragedy.

My personal photography site

Last edited by bigbassloyd; 07-10-2017 at 04:56 PM. Reason: cause this bb sucks
bigbassloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2017, 04:35 PM   #17
bigbassloyd
Senior Member
 
bigbassloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hilldale, West Virginia
Posts: 3,734
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias View Post
Speaking of PIQ, look at the nose of the loco. What is going on with that? Was this taken with a potato?? haha

Image © Kevin Burkholder
PhotoID: 622579
Photograph © Kevin Burkholder
Hot mess. I don't normally click on his shots because I'm not worthy of viewing such greatness. Thankfully the 47 facebook groups he always whores his shots out to for clicks are..

Loyd L.
__________________
Social Media elevates the absurd and mediocre to a point where they aren't anymore, and that is a tragedy.

My personal photography site
bigbassloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2017, 04:40 PM   #18
Noct Foamer
Senior Member
 
Noct Foamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 571
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobJor View Post
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

DOF calculator

D800E 35mm focus at 50' "in focus" range is 32 to 105, Hyperfocal not until 94 feet. But this only mathematical, in relation to your criterion, conditions etc??? They use a circle of confusion 0f .3 mm.

The math actually works out pretty well. Lenses are designed from a mathematical formula (for an honestly fascinating story read up on Josef Petzval.) And yes, what I was getting at is the more distance you put between you & subject, the less effect the actual f-stop is going to have on DoF. At hyperfocal DoF becomes unlimited.

The camera format you use makes a difference as well. Using the calculator we see that at 50' DoF is about 73' with D800E (FX camera.) With a D3200 and same lens it is 40' and hyperfocal isn't reached until 142'! To match the same image size from DX, you could use a 20mm lens on the DX (roughly.) The DoF then becomes 46', with hyperfocal occurring at 46'. What this shows is you get more DoF with a DX camera than an FX camera when image size is taken into account. Sometimes this is an advantage (landscapes,) sometimes it is a disadvantage (portraits.)


Kent in SD

Last edited by Noct Foamer; 07-10-2017 at 04:43 PM.
Noct Foamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2017, 04:45 PM   #19
Mberry
Senior Member
 
Mberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Montreal, Qc
Posts: 639
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias View Post
Speaking of PIQ, look at the nose of the loco. What is going on with that? Was this taken with a potato?? haha

Image © Kevin Burkholder
PhotoID: 622579
Photograph © Kevin Burkholder
I noticed that, unbelievably grainy.
Mberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.