Beginner Auto mode & ISO400 - a question for the landscape guys

[sparker]

Good afternoon,
Out this afternoon for an hour with my D3100 "trying" a landscape or two. When in Auto mode the camera was giving an ISO reading of 400. If I want to try shooting at ISO100, I believe I will need to take it out of Auto and shoot in one of the manual modes. Should I use the Aperture mode and let the camera sort out the shutter speed? I only have kit lenses, using the 18-55mm where should I start with the aperture size? I seem to remember "the bigger the f/stop the longer the depth of field".

Thank you in advance.

 

[-markie-]

Good afternoon,
Out this afternoon for an hour with my D3100 "trying" a landscape or two. When in Auto mode the camera was giving an ISO reading of 400. If I want to try shooting at ISO100, I believe I will need to take it out of Auto and shoot in one of the manual modes. Should I use the Aperture mode and let the camera sort out the shutter speed? I only have kit lenses, using the 18-55mm where should I start with the aperture size? I seem to remember "the bigger the f/stop the longer the depth of field".

Thank you in advance.

I wouldn't say ISO 400 is particularly high. Yes, the lower the better for dynamic range(generally speaking), but ISO 400 is OK.

It really depends on what you are trying to achieve, there isn't one setting that will fit all landscapes and scenarios.

For example, is there any movement in the scene at all i.e. water, traffic, wind turbines, are you shooting in to the sun etc Once you've decide, you then need to think do i want this motion in the picture or not?

Once you've determined that you can get some basic settings together.

Do you know how to change to manual and adjust the shutter speed, iso and aperture?

 

[sparker]

Do you know how to change to manual and adjust the shutter speed, iso and aperture?

Thanks for the reply. Yes I do know how but just not too sure where to start, trial and error I suppose.

 

[-markie-]

Thanks for the reply. Yes I do know how but just not too sure where to start, trial and error I suppose.

You've already made a good start on a few of the settings you need.

So you want an ISO of 100
Aperture, assuming front to back depth of field, focusing 1/3 of the way in - f11-f16 should work well.

The only thing left to determine is your shutter speed, look though your view finder and at the bottom you'll see this

It will likely be either all the way to the left or all the way to the right. You simply need to adjust your shutter speed until the bar is in the middle.

That's it.

Note: this is just some generic advice, you may need to over expose or under expose depending on the environment and the type of shot you're wanting. Again, i'm assuming there is nothing moving in the picture. Review the picture and make any changes you need i.e. if the image is too dark slow your shutter (the light meter will move into the over exposed section) and vice versa if the image is too bright.

NOTE 2: remember if you're hand held (no tripod) a general rule of thumb is keep your shutter speed the same as your focal length i.e. 30mm you'd want a min of 1/30second

 

[sparker]

Brilliant, thank you

 

[gad-westy]

There isn't a hard and fast rule for landscapes but you're right that most will probably be using base ISO (generally 100 or 200 depending on camera) and for a crop sensor like your's probably f/8 aperture. Much narrower than this (f/11, f/16 etc) and you would expect to see image quality start to degrade a little. Not particularly worth worrying about but worth a mention. The exceptions here come when we want a specific shutter speed, maybe a particularly fast shutter speed to freeze some motion (grass in the wind maybe) or a very slow shutter speed to blur motion. But for most stuff, f/8, iso 100 should serve you just fine. If you pop it into aperture priority mode (A) and spin the front dial to dial in f/8 and select ISO 100 from your back screen, you're good to go. Mark's example above is referring to full manual mode and I'm not sure that is really necessary here.

As @markgodley indicates, you need to be a little careful of very low shutter speeds. I struggle with anything much below 1/40 regardless of focal length but if you have VR, that will help massively or bracing yourself against something or controlling your breathing and shooting while you exhale. All those things can help, but the ultimate answer is a tripod. A tripod does a couple of things. Firstly it allows you to not really worry about slow shutter speeds at all (unless you're trying to freeze movement) and secondly it slows you down. You can take your time to get the camera pointing exactly where you want it. Get it focused exactly where you want it. Get the exposure perfect etc... Worth mentioning here, that the act of pressing the shutter can still create a fair bit of camera shake so worth using a remote time or the cameras self timer to avoid that.

Focus for landscape is a notoriously tricky subject and depends a lot on the scene. If you have a big vista with nothing particularly close up to the lens, the third of the way into the scene rule will generally work well. However, if you had a prominent foreground subject close to the camera, I'd be focusing on that as the image will never look right if your 'subject' appears soft. There are many other techniques for getting front to back sharpness but that's worthy of a whole other thread. By the way, without trying to get too heavy about it, it's worth having a play around with some numbers on here:

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

Just to get started with some examples:

With your lens at 18mm and f/8. If you were to focus on something 7ft from your camera, in theory everything from 3.4 ft to infinity would be acceptably sharp.
If you open the aperture up to f/4 and focus on the same object at 7ft, everything between 4.6 ft and 14.7 ft would be acceptably sharp.

You can see the effect the aperture is having. These numbers are very ball park by the way but a good guide to get started. Have a play with different focal length too and see how that effects things.

 

[woof woof]

My Canon DSLR's used to do this.

Anyway, I'd switch to Aperture priority and keep an eye on the shutter speed and ISO too but I do think that care needs to be taken when looking at DoF tables and doing things like taking hyperfocal focused / Merklinger method pictures as for example hyperfocal tables are for a stated picture size and viewing distance and this is something that people maybe sometimes forget.

The differences between focusing on a specific thing and hyperfocal / Merkinger shooting and how pictures are viewed and the effect on the final pictures are IMO things that should be experimented with to see what works for each of us, ditto exposing to the right and backing it off post capture and shooting raw and processing for best effect.

 

[ecoleman]

Generally in landscapes you would shoot in either manual or aperture priority mode. You want a high f-stop number (something like f11 to f16) to get a good depth of field, although what you choose really depends on the scene. ISO ideally at 100 to get a clean image, but unless it is a very bright sunny day which is normally when landscape photographers are at home in bed you would probably require a tripod to steady the camera as the shutter speeds will be longer than when you camera was in AUTO mode.

In aperture priority mode, you simply chose your desired f-stop, set your ISO and let the camera chose the correct shutter speed. You can use Exposure compensation to tweak the exposure if required.

 

[StewartR]

You've already made a good start on a few of the settings you need.

So you want an ISO of 100
Aperture, assuming front to back depth of field, focusing 1/3 of the way in - f11-f16 should work well.

The only thing left to determine is your shutter speed, look though your view finder and at the bottom you'll see this

It will likely be either all the way to the left or all the way to the right. You simply need to adjust your shutter speed until the bar is in the middle.

That's it.

I think advice could be improved on somewhat.

Firstly, focusing 1/3 of the way into the scene (whatever that means in practice) is not optimal for landscape photography. It's a rule of thumb that works OK for 'normal range' pictures, but for landscapes where you have extremely distant subjects hyperfocal technique is more useful.

Secondly, on modern DSLRs optimal sharpness is probably obtained around f/8, not f/11-f/16. With apertures as small as that you're going to start to see some softening due to diffraction.

Thirdly, I really don't see the point of putting the camera in Manual mode and then adjusting the shutter speed until the meter says the exposure is right. All you're doing is exactly what the camera would do in Aperture Priority mode, except more slowly and tediously. You'd be better off using Apeture Priority.

 

[sparker]

Thank you all for the replies.

 

[Slyelessar]

I think the posts covered pretty much all the ground. My only two cents would be to state that in no situation am I happy to use auto ISO. I can see why some people find it really useful, but it is one of the main elements I want control of when shooting anything.

All the best shooting dude - Sly.

 

[SFTPhotography]

I think advice could be improved on somewhat.

Firstly, focusing 1/3 of the way into the scene (whatever that means in practice) is not optimal for landscape photography. It's a rule of thumb that works OK for 'normal range' pictures, but for landscapes where you have extremely distant subjects hyperfocal technique is more useful.

Secondly, on modern DSLRs optimal sharpness is probably obtained around f/8, not f/11-f/16. With apertures as small as that you're going to start to see some softening due to diffraction.

Thirdly, I really don't see the point of putting the camera in Manual mode and then adjusting the shutter speed until the meter says the exposure is right. All you're doing is exactly what the camera would do in Aperture Priority mode, except more slowly and tediously. You'd be better off using Apeture Priority.

People say there is a slight softening at F11 compared to F8. In normal practice you don't see it out in the field, you do at F16 but its acceptable but in my view not beyond F16.

Most lenses are actually sharpest around one to two stops from wide open - well maybe in the centre but not in the edges in my experience and I tend to find stopped down a little beyond F8 the corner sharpness more closely matches the centre sharpness.

Sharpness front to back is important, but it is also important side to side and shooting at wider apertures runs the very real risk of mushy corners. Stop them down to around F11 is perfectly fine and ensures a more uniform sharpness accross the frame, side to side and front to back.

 

[droj]

Steve you should try a pinhole camera.

I might be joking. But sharpness doesn't always have to be the holy grail of photography. Sometimes it can be too clinical. Blur can be interesting.

 

[Lemaildetom]

I read before that hyperfocal is to obtain a sharpness which is "acceptable" at a certain print size but with today high mega pixel camera and pixelpeeping habits acceptable isn't good enough. The argument was actually you get a better result by focusing on the object which is the furthest away at around f11.

PS: Although there is a way to emulate hyperfocal without using a chart. With the camera on tripod and in live view with the depth of field button pressed. Zoom to infinity and focus from close up until the back become sharp that should give you a great depth of field.
Again this is not something i do but something i have seen online. I do not really do landscape photography and if i do and do not use a tripod.... So i;m the wrong guy to talk really.

 

[SFTPhotography]

Steve you should try a pinhole camera.

I might be joking. But sharpness doesn't always have to be the holy grail of photography. Sometimes it can be too clinical. Blur can be interesting.

If you want the blur great- shoot wide open. Not all of us want blurred out hard to see details. I find it annoying when you compose an image in a specific way then one side is blurrier than the other due to misalignment of the lens elements. Or the corners where there are some trees on a hillside are blurry because they are near the edge but the ones in the middle are sharp.

It was put than shooting at F8 and wider in a landscape is optimal for lens sharpness, I was simply countering the debate that it wasn't always when you look at the frame edges.If you want mushy corners in your large prints, go ahead, not all of us do

 

[Craigus]

Steve you should try a pinhole camera.

I might be joking. But sharpness doesn't always have to be the holy grail of photography. Sometimes it can be too clinical. Blur can be interesting.

It is in Landscapes though, which is what this post is about. If it's focus on a leaf at f/2 then fine, but again, that is not what is being discussed here.

 

[john.margetts]

It is in Landscapes though, which is what this post is about. If it's focus on a leaf at f/2 then fine, but again, that is not what is being discussed here.

Not in many of my landscapes. In thick fog, nothing at all is sharp which is how I like it. Even in sunny weather, differential focus is important to isolate and emphasise where necessary. I have never understood the 'one size fits all' approach.

 

[Craigus]

Not in many of my landscapes. In thick fog, nothing at all is sharp which is how I like it. Even in sunny weather, differential focus is important to isolate and emphasise where necessary. I have never understood the 'one size fits all' approach.

Read my post again, differential focus is a different thing to what is being discussed, you wouldn't be using hyperfocal calculations if you were intending to use differential focus, the only reason to use hyperfocal is to get everything sharp.

 

[SFTPhotography]

Not in many of my landscapes. In thick fog, nothing at all is sharp which is how I like it. Even in sunny weather, differential focus is important to isolate and emphasise where necessary. I have never understood the 'one size fits all' approach.

Some of us like clarity and the feeling of it. I avoid fog like the plague but like crisp clear mornings instead.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Guys, I'm not sure we're helping the OP here.

To the OP - sometimes you can't get enough depth of field to get everything in focus. In that situation identify the 'subject' or point of greatest interest in your picture and make sure that is sharp. Remember that crisp focus can be taken away in processing, but not added back.

Also know your lenses. Some will give excellent sharpness just one stop down, while some need stopping down much more, and only practice will tell you which.

 

[john.margetts]

Read my post again, differential focus is a different thing to what is being discussed, you wouldn't be using hyperfocal calculations if you were intending to use differential focus, the only reason to use hyperfocal is to get everything sharp.

Hyperfocal calculations allow you to get a controlled range of distances in focus. For instance, if I use my G. Zuiko 50 mm, f/1.4 lens (I have chosen that lens simply because it is currently on my camera), the hyperfocal distance at f/8 is 10 metres and gives a focal range of 5 metres to infinity - not everything. At f/11, hyperfocal distance is close to 7 metres and gives a focal range of 3 metres to infinity, again not everything.

Even if you are using hyperfocal focusing, you can still control depth of field to produce the focus range you want rather than just aiming at 'everything'.

 

[john.margetts]

Guys, I'm not sure we're helping the OP here.

I think we are. If we attempt to learn photography from YouTube and photography forums, it is too easy for the novice to get the impression that he has to do certain things in all situations. Understanding that there are other, frequently better, techniques is helpful in the long term.

 

[DG Phototraining]

I tend to choose one aspect of the landscape and focus my and my viewer's attention on that by focusing on it and shooting at f2.8 or below

If I really want max DoF then I use whatever f-stop is meant to be the sharpest for that lens and focus stack them; pretty much all my lenses are less sharp at the edges even at their 'optimum' f-stop so if the image really needs edge to edge sharpness I shoot a little wide and crop - this level of faffing about is only worth bothering with when aiming for a really big print IMHO

As StewartR says the focusing 1/3 into the scene is a meaningless 'rule', so if not going for that huge print I just use the Hyperfocal distance too

Dave

 

[StewartR]

Hyperfocal calculations allow you to get a controlled range of distances in focus. For instance, if I use my G. Zuiko 50 mm, f/1.4 lens (I have chosen that lens simply because it is currently on my camera), the hyperfocal distance at f/8 is 10 metres and gives a focal range of 5 metres to infinity - not everything. At f/11, hyperfocal distance is close to 7 metres and gives a focal range of 3 metres to infinity, again not everything.

Yeah, but no, but ...

The problem I have with the concept of hyperfocal focusing is that by definition the "acceptably sharp" zone extends to infinity, but only just. (You know what I mean.) So you're depending on a depth-of-field calculation which you may or may not understand yourself, and probably have not empirically verified, to get the distant landscape sharp. If you have a more demanding requirement than the standard definition of "acceptably sharp", then hyperfocal focusing is a bit risky and you're safer focusing some way beyond the hyperfocal point to guarantee that the distant features are sharp.

 

[SFTPhotography]

I tend to choose one aspect of the landscape and focus my and my viewer's attention on that by focusing on it and shooting at f2.8 or below

If I really want max DoF then I use whatever f-stop is meant to be the sharpest for that lens and focus stack them; pretty much all my lenses are less sharp at the edges even at their 'optimum' f-stop so if the image really needs edge to edge sharpness I shoot a little wide and crop - this level of faffing about is only worth bothering with when aiming for a really big print IMHO

As StewartR says the focusing 1/3 into the scene is a meaningless 'rule', so if not going for that huge print I just use the Hyperfocal distance too

Dave

I always compose to take away the extreme edges, just good practice and helps offset against vingetting - something I hate which shooting stopped down helps too

 

[ancient_mariner]

I think we are. If we attempt to learn photography from YouTube and photography forums, it is too easy for the novice to get the impression that he has to do certain things in all situations. Understanding that there are other, frequently better, techniques is helpful in the long term.

I had in mind the discussion of pinhole cameras and an arguement about blur, rather than hyperfocal distance etc.

 

[DG Phototraining]

Yeah, but no, but ...

The problem I have with the concept of hyperfocal focusing is that by definition the "acceptably sharp" zone extends to infinity, but only just. (You know what I mean.) So you're depending on a depth-of-field calculation which you may or may not understand yourself, and probably have not empirically verified, to get the distant landscape sharp. If you have a more demanding requirement than the standard definition of "acceptably sharp", then hyperfocal focusing is a bit risky and you're safer focusing some way beyond the hyperfocal point to guarantee that the distant features are sharp.

Spot on for me too

The fact that some calculation says the far distance is 'acceptably' sharp only holds true for me in A4 ish prints, much bigger and its just not as good as focusing on the far distance is - hence stacking seems to solve those problems for me, though it can create a few others

Dave

 

[Craigus]

Hyperfocal calculations allow you to get a controlled range of distances in focus. For instance, if I use my G. Zuiko 50 mm, f/1.4 lens (I have chosen that lens simply because it is currently on my camera), the hyperfocal distance at f/8 is 10 metres and gives a focal range of 5 metres to infinity - not everything. At f/11, hyperfocal distance is close to 7 metres and gives a focal range of 3 metres to infinity, again not everything.

Even if you are using hyperfocal focusing, you can still control depth of field to produce the focus range you want rather than just aiming at 'everything'.

I know how hyperfocal works, but why would anyone bother using it in any other way than to get everything in the frame sharp? I'm not asking for hypotheticals, real world examples. It would be pointless.

With landscapes, you either want everything as sharp as possible, or to completely isolate something. You wouldn't want some trees in the distance or at the edge of the frame to be 'slightly' blurry.

As above, I don't want to de-rail this (though its maybe too late) but this comment is in relation to the pin-hole camera comment and not always wanting everything sharp.

 

[john.margetts]

I know how hyperfocal works, but why would anyone bother using it in any other way than to get everything in the frame sharp? I'm not asking for hypotheticals, real world examples. It would be pointless.

In order to have the far vista in focus without having the immediate foreground intruding. To use the immediate foreground as a frame (as in through trees, perhaps) that is not itself dominant.

With landscapes, you either want everything as sharp as possible, or to completely isolate something. You wouldn't want some trees in the distance or at the edge of the frame to be 'slightly' blurry.

or, perhaps, very blurry as in framing.

As above, I don't want to de-rail this (though its maybe too late) but this comment is in relation to the pin-hole camera comment and not always wanting everything sharp.

There are many routes to achieving excellence - following arbitrary rules is rarely the best route.

 

[Craigus]

In order to have the far vista in focus without having the immediate foreground intruding. To use the immediate foreground as a frame (as in through trees, perhaps) that is not itself dominant.

Why use Hyperfocal for that, just focus on the distant objects and the foreground will be out of focus.

But going all the way back to my original point that you commented on, you said that sometimes you want differential focus. Neither of us is denying that, but the original point made by @droj seemed to be saying that sometimes an out of focus shot is better, or that imperfections in the image make it more compelling. That is what I disagree with, in that instance being sharp and in focus will always be better, if it is not the intention of the photographer to blur something in the frame.

 

[john.margetts]

Why use Hyperfocal for that, just focus on the distant objects and the foreground will be out of focus.

So I can control how close is in focus. If, using the lens I mentioned above, I focus on infinity at f/8, the closest that will be in focus is 10 metres. If I use hyperfocal focusing, the closest in focus is 5 metres - change that to f/11 and the closest is 3 metres - both with the foreground out of focus.

 

[john.margetts]

That is what I disagree with, in that instance being sharp and in focus will always be better, if it is not the intention of the photographer to blur something in the frame.

Yes, being in focus is better you don't want things to be blurred. A bit tautological, though.

 

[Craigus]

A bit tautological, though.

You're telling me...

 

[sparker]

This landscape photography is easy then............. Thank you to all contributors.

 

[GTG]

There are online depth of field calculators you can use on your smartphone.

But you need a laser rangefinder to determine how far your focus point is.

So you just put in the aperture, focal length and focus point distance and it will tell you how far in front of and behind your focus point will be in focus.

Pain in the bum but it gives you a very good idea of what will be in focus or not.

You don't need to be an expert with years of experience, your phone will tell you the exact depth of fiend figures.

Or you can use dof preview but I find it useless

 

[Phil V]

This landscape photography is easy then............. Thank you to all contributors.

In so far as your question; it’s a piece of cake. The ‘technical’ aspects of photography are just a few simple concerns, the key is to understand that early on and move on. Some experienced photographers are still obsessing over sharpness and exposure when they should be planning field trips, studying weather forecasts, looking at art and generally thinking about making great pictures.

 

[woof woof]

I think it helps to start at the end result and work backwards from that as the end result you want will very likely decide the kit and settings you use.

Maybe "all" you want is a picture to view on screen at normal viewing distances, maybe all you want is a 6x4 picture or maybe one to fill an A4 sheet, or an A3. Once you decide what you want you can use the kit and settings to get you that end result. Decide that you want an A3 print and proceed accordingly and you'll likely get what you want but if you start with a vague notion or maybe even no idea what end result you want you could end up disappointed with the A3 print and disappointed that it only really looks good as a 6x4.

 

[Phil V]

I think it helps to start at the end result and work backwards from that as the end result you want will very likely decide the kit and settings you use.

Maybe "all" you want is a picture to view on screen at normal viewing distances, maybe all you want is a 6x4 picture or maybe one to fill an A4 sheet, or an A3. Once you decide what you want you can use the kit and settings to get you that end result. ...

The only problem with that strategy is the inevitable ‘mission creep’ that besets most projects and is coming over this hill with sirens.

The OP decides they only want to view on a screen, and a budget compact is sufficient, then they take a picture, they’re so impressed with, they want a massive wall print, and then they’re back with questions about getting it upsized and sharpened, and how to get rid of the banding...

Most of us have gear that far outstrips the quality required for our ‘normal’ use, and for good reason.

Just clarifying it was vaguely covered in your last sentence, but we rarely know where our images might end up.

 

[woof woof]

You've sort of hit my nail on it's head.

The reason I went for the A7 and have some nice lenses for it is that it gives me the chance of getting a really nice A3 print to frame and mount on a wall which will also probably satisfy the obsessive pixel peeper in me when I can't resist the urge and it's compact enough to take with me and use in more places.

Start off with a compact/bridge or even an entry level DSLR/mirrorless and almost give away lens, shoot in a way which could lead to less than optimal results and expect gallery quality wall filling prints and you're possibly heading for disappointment. Shoot with humble basic kit less optimally, print 6x4 or whatever and view normally and be overjoyed That's my point. Start at the end result you want and that'll decide what kit you need and the settings too.

 

[sk66]

I read before that hyperfocal is to obtain a sharpness which is "acceptable" at a certain print size but with today high mega pixel camera and pixelpeeping habits acceptable isn't good enough. The argument was actually you get a better result by focusing on the object which is the furthest away at around f11.

I would agree with this, although maybe not f/11. Once the camera is focused at HFD the far limit of acceptable focus will always be infinity. And no matter how far beyond HFD you focus, the near limit of acceptable focus will always be (very nearly) the HFD... so focus on your primary point of interest so that it is *actually* in focus.

IMO, the other option is to use HFD, but *only* when there is something nearer than the HFD that is at least as important to the image.

Unless you're going to get out calculators, understand and know how to use COC's, and use tape measures, then using hyper-focus is a bit of a SWAG at best. The problem with "acceptable focus" is that the standards (COC's) are quite lax for a lot of the ways images are viewed these days.

In regards to the original question, if ISO is your main concern take it away from the camera (disable auto or set the max to your limit). If aperture is your next main concern, use A/Av mode.