More depth...

C

Chris@sabor

Senior Member
My question is will better or faster lenses give my landscapes more depth? I'm not referring to DOF, rather the visual depth of the photo.

Thanks in advance.

D7000
18-55 vr2
 
D

Don Kuykendall_RIP

RIP :(
Chris@sabor said:
My question is will better or faster lenses give my landscapes more depth? I'm not referring to DOF, rather the visual depth of the photo.

Thanks in advance.

D7000
18-55 vr2
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by visual depth. Better lenses will give you better image quality. The 18-55 is not the best lens on the market. I had it with my D5100 and it looked good but when I moved up to the D7000 it really did not look good at all. I moved up to the 18-105 and got better IQ

Now the $1,000 question. Since you have a D7000 and it has lenses that need to be dine tuned have you fine tuned your 18-5 yet. That might make a BIG difference in how your lens performs.

Why do you think your camera/lens is not up to what you think it should be. Be specific in your explanation. Depth is just Depth of field. So are you talking about contrast? Softness? Lack of detail?
 
cwgrizz

cwgrizz

Senior Member
Challenge Team
I am going to make a guess that you are looking for the answer to getting a landscape photo to "pop". In other words so it doesn't appear "Flat". I don't really have your answer to this if that is what you are looking for as I am still trying to accomplish that end of it also. I think a lot will be accomplished in post processing, but of course you have to have something to start working with.

I will be hanging out, waiting for the answers from the pros.
 
C

Chris@sabor

Senior Member
This morning I was shooting across an arroyo with mountains a few miles behind. When I look at it I can see the distance or depth of the seen. When I review my images they don't reflect what I see by eye. Things look shortend and somewhat flat. So I'm wondering if better glass will bring a more 3 dimensional quality to my images. I hope I explained it better...

Thanks
 
D

Don Kuykendall_RIP

RIP :(
Chris@sabor said:
This morning I was shooting across an arroyo with mountains a few miles behind. When I look at it I can see the distance or depth of the seen. When I review my images they don't reflect what I see by eye. Things look shortend and somewhat flat. So I'm wondering if better glass will bring a more 3 dimensional quality to my images. I hope I explained it better...

Thanks
Click to expand...

I can give you the answer very easily. No.

What you are missing is technique in shooting and mainly in Postprocessing.
What were the lighting conditions?
Were you shooting into the sun or was the sun to your back?
Are you shooting in RAW?
What settings are you using in your shooting?
What post processing programs are you using?


Post the photo here with all the EXIF data and we can help a lot more. MAke sure you resize the photo to 1000px on the long side so the EXIF data will be kept.
 
C

Chris@sabor

Senior Member
DSC_1104.jpg
 
D

Don Kuykendall_RIP

RIP :(
Chris@sabor said:
I am basically using Ken Rockwell's settings on my U1...
Click to expand...

That is your first problem. Don't read Ken Rockwell. Now we don't know what setting those are. So give us all the info in my previous comment and we can help you. I can tell you that there is no single setting that can do it all that is why I don't like photographers that say shoot this my way when they are not there. I just got back from shooting scenes like you are talking about for two weeks. We were in Zion National park, Bryce Canyon, Arches, Canyon Land, Dead Horse State Park and The Grand Canyon. I can tell you that out of the 1,000s of photos I took although many were the kind of scene you are talking about no two of them fit into a fixed setting.
 
D

Don Kuykendall_RIP

RIP :(
Chris@sabor said:
Working now....I'll get the info soon. Thanks
Click to expand...


I just went to your website and looked at your photos. I think you have the same problem I had up to a few months ago. You are exposing for the darker areas and you tend to overexpose your skies. I have a professional photographer that I have been working with recently in building part of his website. In return he is helping me with my photography. Expose for the sky. Look at your histogram and make sure you have just a little room on the dark side so that you will be able to recover the shadow area. It does not take much at all for this. Blown out highlights can never be recovered.
 
C

Chris@sabor

Senior Member
Wow Don, you really nailed it! I studied my photos and you were so right.

In looking at the histograms it didn't appear that I had pegged the highs. I was able to lower the exposer in Light room by about -.7 and the photos were much improved. The depth that I was looking for was greatly enhanced!

Another question, if I have overexposed a shot but the histogram is not pegged, have I lost any IQ?

You are a true gentleman, taking the time to visit my portfolio and giving such spot on advice and critique, just awesome.
Thank you very much!
 
D

Don Kuykendall_RIP

RIP :(
A photographer named Kevin Michael Snyder did the same thing for me and still does help me weekly. I think I am a decent photographer but I have never been quite to the level I want to be kevin is helping me get to that level. I think you are probably in that same boat with me. It does not matter what you shoot but in the next few days go out and shoot anything keeping in mind looking at the histogram Shoot the shot over but this time a full stop under and then go home and see which one looks better once you do post processing on each one of them


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Top