My husband and I were up in a hot air balloon this week and I took tons of pictures. I was a little disappointed when I uploaded them to find that they were all very soft focused. I have no idea what to do to fix that. I was using the kit lens about 800 ft up. Here is an example..
You can see that none of the trees are crisp. I was trying to focus on the lone tree in the center of the fog. Didnt work out well for me.
do you have tips to use when taking photographs of a broad landscape to better focus, or better yet, on what to set my focus? Or any other tips in general that could have made this and all of my other images better?
@katiebrenkert - Hi Katie, I would have backed off the f-stop. I see you have fired at f7.0. I would have gone for say f3.5 and my personal opinion would have aimed focus at the first band of trees. Aiming at that single tree is a big ask, and early morning sunlight is pretty tricky. I just use the software that comes with iPhoto and the sharpness slider in that is pretty good, so I would have cleaned it up a little post.
They say in landscapes you should shoot at f11 and above, but I don't. Aperture mode and f3.5 works for me... and I have scored some cool depth to my images...
@sdpace thanks. I've just really started playing around in photoshop. I tried to sharpen this. Dont know what a clarity brush is but I'll look for it and try that. I just dont know what Im doing wrong in the setup to get fuzzy images to start with.
@bobfoto I never thought to back off the f-stop. I thought that was supposed to be larger when taking landscapes to keep more in focus? Although I guess at 800+ ft away from the subject the focal distance is far enough that that doesnt matter? When is the larger f-stop appropriate vs. using the 3.5 ish?
@sparkle I had no idea 3.5 was the way to go. I was using my kit lens and it only goes to 5.6 so I get get all the way down to 3.5 but its worth a shot at the smaller end then I guess!
@katiebrenkert - for me, I start using the f11 and above, even f18 and f22 when I am macroing something with the flash and I want more then just the face of the caterpilla or fly in focus. Almost exclusively the rest of the time I am f3.5 or as close to as I can get, including landscapes.
@katiebrenkert Beautiful photo. It is a bit soft. Like Staceface @sdpace said, you can always try in post. But I really don't know if backing off the f-stop would improve the sharpness.
You were using auto focus, right? Did you see if the focus ring was maxed out or at infinity? If that happens, dialing it back a little bit can help the sharpness, especially when shooting at such extreme distances.
Based on a little science, the hyperfocal point (or a point of focus beyond which everything appears in focus) for ƒ3.5 is about 125 feet. For ƒ7.0, it's about 75 feet. Now, it's obviously impossible to measure such distances from a hot hair balloon, but assuming that focusing at "infinity" is beyond those particular distances (or that your AF was locking onto something at 800 feet away, which is also beyond those distances), dialing the focus back a little bit might help add to the sharpness, as you're focusing closer to those sweet spots.
@bobfoto@sparkle Could you explain this suggestion a little bit more? If I'm missing something obvious, I'd very much like to know :) From 800 feet, I figured an aperture between ƒ8-14 would produce sharper results than ƒ3.5. But, I could be wrong...
@gurry - I am going on just what works best for me, and I have no real science to back me up. However, I have found in low light situations such as an early morning balloon flight, I like my shutter to operate as quickly as possible and I find in Aperture mode, by setting my f-stop to as small a figure as possible, say f3.5, it means by shutter speed is pretty quick and this makes for sharper images in my hands.
No science to it. I in fact like your answer better, I just struggle to turn that into reality.
@gurry like jason, no science, just what works from trial and error with my shooting. I take a lot of mountain views (looking down from 15-20,000 ft and I get sharper images at f/3.5 than at f/22. I wouls normally be on autofocus and would also be getting as many focal points into the shot as possible. Maybe it's time to experiment some more ;o)
I don't see any need for this pic to be real sharp. There is no specific subject and there is a lot of fog and other softness in the pic anyway. I think the slight softness just really adds to the feel of the picture. Just like not every pic has to obey rule of thirds (for example), not every pic has to be tack sharp.
If the fog were super heavy and only one tree was sticking up through the fog, then yeah, you'd want that tree to be sharp. But this image doesn't need that, IMO.
I like it as shot. Nicely done.
@sparkle@bobfoto Thanks for you replies. Science sure doesn't solve everything, but it does help a bit! :)
With that said, I was doing a little reading just now and stumbled about another bit of science (!!!) and camera testing. I love me some science.
Apparently, each sensor has something calle a DLA (Diffraction Limited Aperture) that indicates at which aperture the sharpness of a photo is compromised for a wider depth of field. It's mostly negligible outside of viewing at full size, but it exists. Since we're getting into the nitty gritty, I thought I'd bring it up just to be thorough.
Anyway, point is the Canon XSi DLA is ƒ8.3. Based on this, shooting at ƒ7 should have a minimal affect on sharpness, other than slowing down the shutter speed and in turn causing blurriness.
@bobfoto when you say aim for the first band of trees is that because there are more of them, easier for me to hit something? ;)
@gurry ok, moron part of me speaking now. You are saying maxing out the focus ring? What exactly does that mean? I was using the kit lens in auto focus because I suck at manual focus. If you don't mind explaining a little more, that would be great!
Your scientific info does help explain why f7 should have worked. i'll just try other f-stops I guess and see what else works but it's good to know I was on the right track anyway. Im just going to start coming to you with questions so you can read all the technical stuff and spit it back out in normal language. Ha. @mikehamm thanks Mike. Im just annoyed that I can't seem to get a crisp focus. user error that I can't seem to fix!
@katiebrenkert You know, the more I think I about it, the less it makes sense. F/7.1 tends to be pretty a sharper aperture with a good depth of field, but this is a major generalization, and is more specific to individual lenses. By this, I mean that every lens has a sweet spot where it's sharpest, but saying that shouldn't take away from f/7.1 because it's still sharpish, but maybe not the sharpest.
Also, your shutter speed was 1/400, so any blurriness can't really be caused by motion. In other words, I'm stumped. This must boil down to the lens itself, and it's probably just because it's a kit lens shooting from 800 feet :)
By maxing out the focus ring, I mean turning it allll the way to the furthest point, which would be infinity. So, if your AF locked, and you couldn't turn your ring anymore, that means it's already focusing on infinity. If that was the case, my suggestion (which was a guess, a total shot in the dark) was to pull the focus back just a smidge so that it wasn't at infinity, but at a point somewhere in the 800 feet between you and your subject -- preferably on or near the hyperfocal distance.
But really, with that much distance, I'm not sure if it would make any difference, and I'm more inclined to say that it ultimately wouldn't matter at all. Regardless, it might be worth testing out. Just to see. (For the sake of science!)
That, and maybe trying another lens. The 50mm f/1.8 is sharp as ever, and dirt cheap. I'm not suggesting you pick it up specifically for aerial photography, but I've seen side by side comparisons of the 50mm at f/8 and the 18-55mm at 50mm at f/8, and the 50mm prime wins every time.
Feel free to tag me in any questions of yours. So long as it's not a goofy question, I won't tease you with goofy answers :)
@gurry@bobfoto@sparkle good discussion, it's got me thinking. I can't really figure it out either. I did a quick bit of reading and for the kit lens f5.6-10 is the sweet spot up to 55mm where it's f8-10. So at 55mm and 7.1 it should be roughly good and 1/400 should not give camera shake. Possibly stupid question but how fast do hot air ballons go? Maybe the blur is relative motion between ground and balloon overcoming the 1/400 shutter??
Balloons move as fast as the wind will take them, but they move up and down as quick as the pilot will allow, remembering that he doesn't want to blow sinuses in rapid changes of altitude not that a balloon can go that quick.
I should pull out some of my balloon shots and see what kinda exif data they have... but they're on another PC.
It is true that a lens has a sweet spot and a preferred f-stop. I'm a super lazy photographer and I rarely mess around with settings. I mentioned focusing on that first band of trees not really for focus reasons, but more that because they are in the first third of the image, I think a sharp focus on them would give the field more depth. Focusing on the solo tree at the back to me feels like the photo is a bit flat, I mean as a viewer, what am I drawn to?
@bobfoto But at 800 feet with a 55mm at f/7.1, there's really no way to control your depth of field. If everything in your frame is beyond 70 feet away, it will simply have to be in focus ("in focus" being relative to the ability/quality of the lens and camera being used, which I'm assuming is the situation we're in here).
Now, if you were using a 500mm lens, you'd have more control of the DOF. 500mm at f/7.1 and focusing at 800ft will give you a DOF that extends from 720 to 900 feet, but obviously the focal length of the lens would produce an entirely different shot.
Just for fun, a 500mm at f/4 focusing on 800 feet will give you a DOF around 720 to 860 feet, which would give you more control. For extra fun, the hyperfocal distance of a 500mm lens (the point beyond which everything appears in focus) is about 6,060 feet at f/7.1, and a whopping 10,800 feet at f/4!
But let's be realistic here. If you're shooting from a hot air balloon with a 500mm lens, good luck trying to get a picture that doesn't look traumatized by shaking and motion blur! :[
@gurry - fair comment Mr Gary Sir, and it is at this moment that perhaps I have learnt more then I am capable of in one day. Lucky there are only 3.5hours left in this one.
Can you share your equation with us in how you get these figures? I might be able to get my head around it a bit more if I stuff some of my own numbers in...
@bobfoto Hah, there was no way I was calculating them in my head! This puppy is the hyperfocus calculator. It tells you all sorts of neat things. Just pick your camera model (as sensor size plays an important factor as well), then focal length of your lens, f-stop, and how far away your subject is, and blam! Science magic. http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
@gurry thanks for explaining the focus ring. I will definitely try stepping back on that next time. it was locked on something at the time. And someone else came to tell me that my kit lens isn't all that sharp to start, which since getting my 50mm for Christmas, I never really noticed. Maybe the distance was just the lens. Im going to play around with it some more and see. I haven't really taken my 50mm off the camera since I got it so I haven't actually compared the two lenses. I don't actually take too many landscape shots right now because Im at home all day with 2 small kids but maybe one day I'll get out to take more. :)
And thanks for letting me tag you for questions. Im sure I'll have more! maybe even dumb ones but I'll be sure to give you a shout out to ignore the post if I do. LOL. Oh, and thanks for the cool link! Im going to have to completely clear my brain before I plug anything in so that I can learn something though!
@spiralgrooves thanks Neil. Hot air balloons move as fast as the wind they are being carried by. We weren't moving all too fast on that particular day. I would love to blame the blur on the lens/camera, but it is more likely something I did or didn't do. ;)
@bobfoto thanks Jason. The focusing makes so much sense. Must have had a duh moment! Is that how you always focus when doing landscape shots? I really have no experience with them so this is very helpful for me! Mostly Im taking photos of my kids and in the rare times when I get out to do landscapes, I'de love to have a clue what Im doing!
@katiebrenkert - I'm not that good at landscapes... they scare me a bit so I am not the best person to ask for advice. I do believe though, that you need to ask yourself what you intend the viewer to focus on, or look for. I think landscapes can tell a story and conceal secrets. I have one or two that I am proud of, but they're not my forte....
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
They say in landscapes you should shoot at f11 and above, but I don't. Aperture mode and f3.5 works for me... and I have scored some cool depth to my images...
@bobfoto I never thought to back off the f-stop. I thought that was supposed to be larger when taking landscapes to keep more in focus? Although I guess at 800+ ft away from the subject the focal distance is far enough that that doesnt matter? When is the larger f-stop appropriate vs. using the 3.5 ish?
@sparkle I had no idea 3.5 was the way to go. I was using my kit lens and it only goes to 5.6 so I get get all the way down to 3.5 but its worth a shot at the smaller end then I guess!
@moirab Thanks for the fav!!!!
You were using auto focus, right? Did you see if the focus ring was maxed out or at infinity? If that happens, dialing it back a little bit can help the sharpness, especially when shooting at such extreme distances.
Based on a little science, the hyperfocal point (or a point of focus beyond which everything appears in focus) for ƒ3.5 is about 125 feet. For ƒ7.0, it's about 75 feet. Now, it's obviously impossible to measure such distances from a hot hair balloon, but assuming that focusing at "infinity" is beyond those particular distances (or that your AF was locking onto something at 800 feet away, which is also beyond those distances), dialing the focus back a little bit might help add to the sharpness, as you're focusing closer to those sweet spots.
That's how I see it, at least. Hope it helps.
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperfocal_distance
@bobfoto @sparkle Could you explain this suggestion a little bit more? If I'm missing something obvious, I'd very much like to know :) From 800 feet, I figured an aperture between ƒ8-14 would produce sharper results than ƒ3.5. But, I could be wrong...
No science to it. I in fact like your answer better, I just struggle to turn that into reality.
If the fog were super heavy and only one tree was sticking up through the fog, then yeah, you'd want that tree to be sharp. But this image doesn't need that, IMO.
I like it as shot. Nicely done.
With that said, I was doing a little reading just now and stumbled about another bit of science (!!!) and camera testing. I love me some science.
Apparently, each sensor has something calle a DLA (Diffraction Limited Aperture) that indicates at which aperture the sharpness of a photo is compromised for a wider depth of field. It's mostly negligible outside of viewing at full size, but it exists. Since we're getting into the nitty gritty, I thought I'd bring it up just to be thorough.
Anyway, point is the Canon XSi DLA is ƒ8.3. Based on this, shooting at ƒ7 should have a minimal affect on sharpness, other than slowing down the shutter speed and in turn causing blurriness.
@katiebrenkert ƒ7 is all good! :)
@gurry ok, moron part of me speaking now. You are saying maxing out the focus ring? What exactly does that mean? I was using the kit lens in auto focus because I suck at manual focus. If you don't mind explaining a little more, that would be great!
Your scientific info does help explain why f7 should have worked. i'll just try other f-stops I guess and see what else works but it's good to know I was on the right track anyway. Im just going to start coming to you with questions so you can read all the technical stuff and spit it back out in normal language. Ha.
@mikehamm thanks Mike. Im just annoyed that I can't seem to get a crisp focus. user error that I can't seem to fix!
Also, your shutter speed was 1/400, so any blurriness can't really be caused by motion. In other words, I'm stumped. This must boil down to the lens itself, and it's probably just because it's a kit lens shooting from 800 feet :)
By maxing out the focus ring, I mean turning it allll the way to the furthest point, which would be infinity. So, if your AF locked, and you couldn't turn your ring anymore, that means it's already focusing on infinity. If that was the case, my suggestion (which was a guess, a total shot in the dark) was to pull the focus back just a smidge so that it wasn't at infinity, but at a point somewhere in the 800 feet between you and your subject -- preferably on or near the hyperfocal distance.
But really, with that much distance, I'm not sure if it would make any difference, and I'm more inclined to say that it ultimately wouldn't matter at all. Regardless, it might be worth testing out. Just to see. (For the sake of science!)
That, and maybe trying another lens. The 50mm f/1.8 is sharp as ever, and dirt cheap. I'm not suggesting you pick it up specifically for aerial photography, but I've seen side by side comparisons of the 50mm at f/8 and the 18-55mm at 50mm at f/8, and the 50mm prime wins every time.
Feel free to tag me in any questions of yours. So long as it's not a goofy question, I won't tease you with goofy answers :)
@gurry @bobfoto @sparkle good discussion, it's got me thinking. I can't really figure it out either. I did a quick bit of reading and for the kit lens f5.6-10 is the sweet spot up to 55mm where it's f8-10. So at 55mm and 7.1 it should be roughly good and 1/400 should not give camera shake. Possibly stupid question but how fast do hot air ballons go? Maybe the blur is relative motion between ground and balloon overcoming the 1/400 shutter??
Balloons move as fast as the wind will take them, but they move up and down as quick as the pilot will allow, remembering that he doesn't want to blow sinuses in rapid changes of altitude not that a balloon can go that quick.
I should pull out some of my balloon shots and see what kinda exif data they have... but they're on another PC.
It is true that a lens has a sweet spot and a preferred f-stop. I'm a super lazy photographer and I rarely mess around with settings. I mentioned focusing on that first band of trees not really for focus reasons, but more that because they are in the first third of the image, I think a sharp focus on them would give the field more depth. Focusing on the solo tree at the back to me feels like the photo is a bit flat, I mean as a viewer, what am I drawn to?
Now, if you were using a 500mm lens, you'd have more control of the DOF. 500mm at f/7.1 and focusing at 800ft will give you a DOF that extends from 720 to 900 feet, but obviously the focal length of the lens would produce an entirely different shot.
Just for fun, a 500mm at f/4 focusing on 800 feet will give you a DOF around 720 to 860 feet, which would give you more control. For extra fun, the hyperfocal distance of a 500mm lens (the point beyond which everything appears in focus) is about 6,060 feet at f/7.1, and a whopping 10,800 feet at f/4!
But let's be realistic here. If you're shooting from a hot air balloon with a 500mm lens, good luck trying to get a picture that doesn't look traumatized by shaking and motion blur! :[
@spiralgrooves @katiebrenkert
Can you share your equation with us in how you get these figures? I might be able to get my head around it a bit more if I stuff some of my own numbers in...
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
And thanks for letting me tag you for questions. Im sure I'll have more! maybe even dumb ones but I'll be sure to give you a shout out to ignore the post if I do. LOL. Oh, and thanks for the cool link! Im going to have to completely clear my brain before I plug anything in so that I can learn something though!
@spiralgrooves thanks Neil. Hot air balloons move as fast as the wind they are being carried by. We weren't moving all too fast on that particular day. I would love to blame the blur on the lens/camera, but it is more likely something I did or didn't do. ;)
@bobfoto thanks Jason. The focusing makes so much sense. Must have had a duh moment! Is that how you always focus when doing landscape shots? I really have no experience with them so this is very helpful for me! Mostly Im taking photos of my kids and in the rare times when I get out to do landscapes, I'de love to have a clue what Im doing!