- Messages
- 23,774
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
as stated above toby it goes totally over the top of my head , at my age I fully realise that different subjects need different approaches ,but what I don't need is to fill my head full of gobbledygook and maths equations ,I go out (if and when fit enough ) fire off a few snaps ,sometimes there excellent other times not .
it matters not to me ,as long as I get a sharp shot of my subject matter then thats great . I don't need to know what D.O.F or F.O.V its taken at/with just is it a pleasing to me result
Yep we all have our own ways of doing things, none are wrong as long as we get the results we intended. For 'grab shot' landscapes when I'm out walking the dog etc I tend to shoot at f11 on FF or f5.6 on MFT and focus roughly where I think it's going to give me the best DOF, as long as it's reaching infinity I don't mind too much whether I have an extra 2 feet or whatever in focus in the foreground..... Understanding the differences at such an intense level of detail has never got in the way of me getting the shot I intended. That's the beauty of shooting fully Manual-mode on a mirrorless WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) camera and helped further by shooting on high quality zoom lenses.
I do respect that serious landscape photographers tend to get extremely serious about the detail to the Nth degree. As my subjects are alive and kicking wildlife and on the move, it is less important to me. Besides, I don't think scientifically about anything much in life.
If I'm doing landscapes 'properly' I have made a chart for the hyperfocal distance at different focal lengths and apertures so that I have as much in focus as possible, but I haven't been out to take a dedicated landscape for a long time now and I can't actually remember where said chart is