#Login Register
Digital Photography Forums
ISO 1600 and f 45
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average

Jun 28, 2011, 12:17 #1
Zig Posting Freak *****
Status: Offline Posts:2,123 Threads:352 Joined:Aug 2005 Reputation: 1
Yes, that is an aperture of f45(forty-five).
Obviously it is usually only longer focal length lenses or macros that have these very small apertures so as to maximise depth of field.
The trade-off is that by the time diffraction has not just set in but bought the house and let out rooms, "image quality" nominally suffers.
And I say "nominally", as some photographers find this lo-fi and low-resolution stuff has its own unique effect.
Coupling this phenomenon with a really crunchy high ISO setting has the immediate advantage of allowing small apertures to be used handheld...the resulting noise can be quite grain-like, depending on the sensor one's camera has.
My relatively ancient 1Ds2 can be whacked up to 3200 but its normal high is 1600, so I thought I'd try an experiment:
I knew that sharpness would not be present(!) yet all manner of textural goodies might be, so in these shots of poppy fields I aimed for a more, er, impressionist style, relying on tones, colour and composition to stand in the stead of resolving power: cos, let's face it, a maxed-out ISO'd IDs at f forty-five doesn't have any! Tongue

As you can imagine, being freed up from any temptation to stick with optimum aperture in order to pixel-peep, is very liberating...also oddly "focusing" in a way: one knows that detail will be supplanted by texture...so one's eyes are being trained to look at the textural and wider swathes of compositional interest.
And given that last point, then, that's not a bad thing for any aspiring shooter.

In this case, "post-processing" is again a matter of trying to work with the front end: attempts to retain sharpness when downrezzing are a bit redundant, so all manner of tonal experiments can be freely explored....I had a play with saturation, given that subliminal feeling of impressionism or even pointillism(yes, the noise is that whacky!)
For the icing on the cake of course, shooting thus at one's absolutely worse focal length is a must...so of course I went to 280mm wherever possible! Big Grin

[Image: 1957Web.jpg]

[Image: 1974web.jpg]

[Image: 1975panoWeb.jpg]

[Image: 1978web.jpg]

[Image: 1980Web.jpg]

Jun 28, 2011, 14:23 #2
NT73 Posting Freak *****
Status: Offline Posts:3,291 Threads:306 Joined:Jan 2006 Reputation: 0
Ooh those poppies are hurting my eyes. Not so much in the last one though. Smile

Lumix LX5.
Canon 350 D.+ 18-55 Kit lens + Tamron 70-300 macro. + Canon 50mm f1.8 + Manfrotto tripod, in bag.

Jun 29, 2011, 07:49 #3
nia Posting Freak *****
Status: Offline Posts:1,529 Threads:220 Joined:Jun 2009 Reputation: 0
No.2 and 4 are my best. The colours are so strong, but so nice too. Especially the mist in no.4 fascinated me, but the colours of the poppies are not the original colours of them, aren't they? If they would be original, would be more impressive with the mist behind the trees... Just an idea. Thank you dear Zig,

with my love,

Jun 29, 2011, 15:07 #4
Toad Posting Freak *****
Status: Offline Posts:5,739 Threads:264 Joined:Aug 2004 Reputation: 2
To be honest, I'm not sure what to think about these. I find the effect kind of interesting - and I think it works really well in #1 and #4 - or possibly, the combination of other processing and the technique works well. I particularly like the brushed vignettes and color mods in #4.

The gradient sky in #1 also is quite effective - as it cools down the heat that the rest of the photo generates. In #3 and its crops, I find the noise in the skies a bit distracting. Your vignetting in #4 masks that quite nicely.

Its an interesting technique and I can see how it would be a nice one to have in your bag of tricks for the right photo. So what lens of yours goes to F45?

Jun 29, 2011, 16:07 #5
matthew Shuttertalker *****
Status: Offline Posts:3,036 Threads:253 Joined:Jun 2005 Reputation: 3
Interesting approach, and a good example of the difference between actual peak sharpness, typically a couple stops down from wide open, and the extensive visual information from an image with massive depth of field from working at the other end of the aperture range. If nothing else, it does show that diffraction isn't something to be avoided at all costs – there are plenty of times when the trade-off is worth making.

(On a completely different tangent, I've taken more photos at f/45 than at f/2.8 with my 85mm PC-E tilt-shift 'macro' lens, although both are a tiny fraction of the total photos that I've used it for.)

Jun 30, 2011, 09:26 #6
Zig Posting Freak *****
Status: Offline Posts:2,123 Threads:352 Joined:Aug 2005 Reputation: 1
I shot myself in the foot rather, as I really should have overcome my laziness and had a grey card and some front-end calibration going, as things went a bit nuts even with "straight" conversions; still, like the curate's egg, good in parts.
Toad, it was the 70-200 that went to f45....or f45.3 should I say. It was news to me, I have to say!

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)