Critique Scotland West Coast, Pentax MX, wide angle, hyperfocal attempts with Portra 160

[ChrisR]

I've not used wide angle lenses very much, and I wasn't quite sure how to compose with them for best effect. I had a thread in the Landscape section, and the general advice seemed to be to include foreground interest. It seems best to have interest right through the frame. That seems to imply a very deep field of focus, so using the hyperfocal distance seemed like a good idea. I've not really tried this much, so the aim was to stick the Pentax-M 28mm f/3.5 or the Pentax-M 35mm f/2 on my colour MX, and shoot some Portra 160 when we went for a few days to the West Coast of Scotland (staying at Taynuilt near Oban, and Crinan). I don't think I've cracked it, although I very much enjoyed trying. I would really appreciate some comments on these (not necessarily the "best" because of the pernicious influence of POTY14!).

1) Loch Etive, an early attempt



2) Ducks in Oban harbour. I really wanted them 30 seconds earlier when they were better positioned, but that's manual cameras and new techniques for you!



3) Oban's folly from the big pier



4) Big plant and trees... cropped a bit. I wanted to capture the strong shapes of the foreground plant and the trees at the back but it doesn't seem to have achieved what I wanted



5) Clump of seaweed and some islands... it's not really enough to have a bit of foreground and some misty stuff behind!



6) Ganavan near Oban... not really got the hyperfocal thing right here I think?



In the above I used the depth of field hints on the lenses themselves as my guide when focusing. So if it was f/11, set the infinity sign on 11 and check the 11 on the other side for closest focus... occasionally infinity looked so much out when viewed wide open that I would use the MX's stop down preview (pushing the timer setting lever towards the lens mount). For the darker shots, say at f/5.6 I felt it was tricky to see where the infinity symbol actually was (it's quite wide as inscribed). I think I should have changed speed more often, but it's one of the trickier manouevres for me.

Comments and suggestions welcomed

 

[pjm1]

Well Chris... I'm a bit of a beginner so my comments may not be worth very much but hey, here goes...

1) Loch Etive, an early attempt
Exposure looks pretty spot on to me. Cloud detail is nice without being "wow" - no blowing which is good.
Focus and DOF is certainly good at the front but weaker at the back... perhaps you've focused a bit too near the front, leaving infinity OOF? Either that or it's very misty (which is always possible up this way)
Composition, IMO, needs a bit more planning - good to get FG, MG and BG but each of them has to be worth including for their own reasons. The FG is quite ordinary (especially the rubble on the left) and the MG is just brown sandy sludge. The BG needs more pop - clarity or contrast or maybe a touch more saturation. Was it raining?

2) Ducks in Oban harbour. I really wanted them 30 seconds earlier when they were better positioned, but that's manual cameras and new techniques for you!
IMO the ducks are too small. They're also crammed into the BR corner whereas it may be stronger to put them on a third somewhere (not by moving the ducks obviously, but by recomposing!!) The pink roof of Ee-Usk (actually from that angle it's got to be the Piazza) is quite "hot" and certainly grabs the eye... this can either be a feature or a distraction. In terms of composition, there's no real MG here as the houses & shops (nice ice cream shop in the middle right BTW) really become BG. More contrast & clarity in the sky might help liven that up.
Focus looks a touch soft all over?

3) Oban's folly from the big pier
A more interesting pic for sure, but what's the subject here - the boat or the folly? IMO one is detracting from the other. There's a lot to look at here for me.

4) Big plant and trees... cropped a bit. I wanted to capture the strong shapes of the foreground plant and the trees at the back but it doesn't seem to have achieved what I wanted
I'm guessing the sun was in front of you (but overcast)? Tough shooting but you do get the benefit of a hazy effect if that's what you're after. There's certainly plenty of saturation (pumped up a bit perhaps?) but otherwise I'm looking for something else within the picture to grab me. The balance of the picture is, for me, theoretically pretty good but what's the story?

5) Clump of seaweed and some islands... it's not really enough to have a bit of foreground and some misty stuff behind!
You've said it! Funnily enough, with the right light etc., this could be the strongest shot of the lot for me. Unfortunately you don't have it, but with more contrast in the sky it could certainly be more interesting. The "bit of foreground" isn't really meaningful enough to keep the attention - other than trying to work out what it is! Horizon looks pretty straight which is good.

6) Ganavan near Oban... not really got the hyperfocal thing right here I think?
Soft background to me again. Again, this could be an interesting enough shot (would benefit from a decent rock or two in the foreground, mind) but really needs the right light. And obviously sharp focusing throughout!

The images look quite "out of camera" to me, i.e. RAWs which could do with a contrast lift. Feel free to push the processing a bit further - it might help make them pop a bit more. However, I think the main work is thinking about the photo before pressing the shutter (something I struggle with a lot!) What is the actual subject and why are you taking a photo? What's the story? The best bit of advice I received a while back was to concentrate on just the subject - apart from sky or surroundings take everything else out of the image. Oversimplify. If you can get a good picture with just a subject (and perhaps a sky) then you've got the composition bang on in difficult circumstances. I know that sounds contradictory when I've talked about FG, MG and BG, but I found it was easier to get things right one step at a time. Get the FG right - in the right place, the right lighting and working. Then the BG - sky detail, balance of photo with FG etc. Then add MG to provide context, further balance and a place for the eyes to travel to.

Don't feel constrained to shoot landscapes with WA though. It definitely does force you to think harder about the scene because there's simply more in it. Details (like the ducks) can become quite small and relatively insignificant, which is why even FG interest often needs to be big and unsubtle.

Most importantly of all, just keep experimenting, posting and receiving crit! Good luck.

 

[ChrisR]

Paul, thanks for those detailed thoughts, which I pretty much agree with! In relation to your penultimate para, the idea with this roll (of actual film) was to experiment with the wider angles; in the past I've mostly shot landscapes with a 50mm, and recently quite often my 85mm!

Your point about thinking about the subject is spot on; I tend to think more in terms of the "scene" or "view" that grabs me, and still not enough about the subject and the compositional devices to show it best. I'm often quite constrained in time to take shots, and the extent to which I can move to frame better, due to being "officially" walking around with my wife and taking photos as an optional extra activity, but I still need to learn to perform better within those constraints.

Focus is clearly an issue. It's tricky when you can't see what you've done until a week or two later. No chimping for us! As time went on I was cranking down my estimates at the depth of field. Sometimes I suspected I was accidentally shifting the focus between adjusting the lens and getting the camera back to my eye to recompose; the focus ring is not very stiff.

The "raws" here were commercial scans of C41 negatives on Portra 160, shot at box speed (just read an interesting post suggesting halving box speed for colour neg film, so 80, which seems a bit extreme but might get me a bit more saturated colours). They've all had a basic level of tweaking in Aperture, but I'm not very skilled in that department.

I've another roll taken immediately after this one, this time Velvia 50, same lenses but this time with grad filter, that I'll put up shortly. Isle of Seil, Crinan etc. Trying to work ot how to deal with the colour casts from home-scanning the Velvia, which is a pig!

Anyway, thanks again for these detailed and very helpful comments.

 

[pjm1]

Doh sorry Chris... I accessed this thread from the "New Posts" section and hadn't realised you were shooting on film

Sorry! I saw Aperture on the EXIF when I looked at the metadata and just assumed...

But for film shots they do look a bit flat to me... I'm now delving into my memory banks from years gone by, but have you tried other brands/types of film or even... erm.. (shock) slide? Sorry if that's a real no no in the "real" (aka film) photography world!

The issue I have had with photos and digital is that snapping is easy (and free)... which leads to lots of poor photos. Holding back from the shutter release is the best way I've found to improve my photos... which you shouldn't need because you're shooting "properly"!

Anyway, enjoy taking lots more and please keep posting!

 

[skysh4rk]

I've not used wide angle lenses very much, and I wasn't quite sure how to compose with them for best effect. I had a thread in the Landscape section, and the general advice seemed to be to include foreground interest. It seems best to have interest right through the frame. That seems to imply a very deep field of focus, so using the hyperfocal distance seemed like a good idea. I've not really tried this much, so the aim was to stick the Pentax-M 28mm f/3.5 or the Pentax-M 35mm f/2 on my colour MX, and shoot some Portra 160 when we went for a few days to the West Coast of Scotland (staying at Taynuilt near Oban, and Crinan). I don't think I've cracked it, although I very much enjoyed trying. I would really appreciate some comments on these (not necessarily the "best" because of the pernicious influence of POTY14!).

1) Loch Etive, an early attempt



2) Ducks in Oban harbour. I really wanted them 30 seconds earlier when they were better positioned, but that's manual cameras and new techniques for you!



3) Oban's folly from the big pier



4) Big plant and trees... cropped a bit. I wanted to capture the strong shapes of the foreground plant and the trees at the back but it doesn't seem to have achieved what I wanted



5) Clump of seaweed and some islands... it's not really enough to have a bit of foreground and some misty stuff behind!



6) Ganavan near Oban... not really got the hyperfocal thing right here I think?



In the above I used the depth of field hints on the lenses themselves as my guide when focusing. So if it was f/11, set the infinity sign on 11 and check the 11 on the other side for closest focus... occasionally infinity looked so much out when viewed wide open that I would use the MX's stop down preview (pushing the timer setting lever towards the lens mount). For the darker shots, say at f/5.6 I felt it was tricky to see where the infinity symbol actually was (it's quite wide as inscribed). I think I should have changed speed more often, but it's one of the trickier manouevres for me.

Comments and suggestions welcomed

Hi Chris, I'd say there's a lot happening in these pictures, but not necessarily a clear focus in any. I'd remember that wide angles aren't really about getting more into the frame, but more about getting intimate with your subjects. As it stands, there's quite a bit of distance between you and these scenes.

Consider this: a telephoto lens allows you to photograph your subject and do so from afar. With a wide angle, the framing of your subject wouldn't necessarily be much different (i.e., it should be a similar size on the frame), but you can now do so from much closer and include more of the subject's environment. Here's an example I've found on the web of what I'm talking about:

See how the framing of the subject stays the same regardless of focal length (i.e., subject fills the same amount of the frame)? With wide angle lenses, you really need to identify your subject and then get up close and personal to that subject to maintain this framing, otherwise they get lost in the clutter (just look at how much more of the surrounding area is included in the 24mm compared to just the 100mm). So, find and emphasise your subject by getting intimate with it/them when working with a wide angle.

Anyway, that's how I would approach working with a wide angle, but I find them difficult myself and I usually prefer to have a little more working distance. In fact, I don't own anything wider than 75mm in medium format. Others might have a different opinion on this though, so take my advice with a grain of salt and consult other sources.

 

[ChrisR]

Doh sorry Chris... I accessed this thread from the "New Posts" section and hadn't realised you were shooting on film

Sorry! I saw Aperture on the EXIF when I looked at the metadata and just assumed...

But for film shots they do look a bit flat to me... I'm now delving into my memory banks from years gone by, but have you tried other brands/types of film or even... erm.. (shock) slide? Sorry if that's a real no no in the "real" (aka film) photography world!

The issue I have had with photos and digital is that snapping is easy (and free)... which leads to lots of poor photos. Holding back from the shutter release is the best way I've found to improve my photos... which you shouldn't need because you're shooting "properly"!

Anyway, enjoy taking lots more and please keep posting!

No problem, Paul, your comments were really helpful. They are indeed a bit flat, partly the light I think, partly that Portra sometimes needs a boost for landscape. The next roll was indeed a slide film, Velvia, with plenty of contrast but an unfortunate magenta colour cast (largely an artefact of scanning) that I'm trying to correct.

With these two rolls I was trying to learn more about wide angle for landscape (within the constraints mentioned above). Your points about a clear subject, and thinking through the FG, MG and BG, are both important and helpful. Thanks!

 

[ChrisR]

Hi Chris, I'd say there's a lot happening in these pictures, but not necessarily a clear focus in any. I'd remember that wide angles aren't really about getting more into the frame, but more about getting intimate with your subjects. As it stands, there's quite a bit of distance between you and these scenes.

Thanks RJ, you're right (like the Capa quote "if your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough!"), with a caveat; I didn't make clear that I'm specifically trying to learn how to use wide angle for landscape, here. As such, an element of distance is necessary, but what I was trying to do, unsuccessfully, was to link together the foreground and the background. As Paul says, I need to be more conscious of the middle ground as well, and I'm clearly not managing here to get a sufficiently interesting foreground, nor to get it close enough. I'm struggling a bit with the question of how I get a really interesting foreground without making IT the subject, rather than the landscape!

Consider this: a telephoto lens allows you to photograph your subject and do so from afar. With a wide angle, the framing of your subject wouldn't necessarily be much different (i.e., it should be a similar size on the frame), but you can now do so from much closer and include more of the subject's environment. Here's an example I've found on the web of what I'm talking about:

See how the framing of the subject stays the same regardless of focal length (i.e., subject fills the same amount of the frame)? With wide angle lenses, you really need to identify your subject and then get up close and personal to that subject to maintain this framing, otherwise they get lost in the clutter (just look at how much more of the surrounding area is included in the 24mm compared to just the 100mm). So, find and emphasise your subject by getting intimate with it/them when working with a wide angle.

Anyway, that's how I would approach working with a wide angle, but I find them difficult myself and I usually prefer to have a little more working distance. In fact, I don't own anything wider than 75mm in medium format. Others might have a different opinion on this though, so take my advice with a grain of salt and consult other sources.

This is a really useful example (although I can't quite get away from the feeling the girl was Photoshopped into the shots; I'd have expected different perspective effects within her face and body between the first and last!). Where there is a real subject like that, I also prefer a bit more distance, and would usually use 50mm (equivalent to your 75mm, I think), unless there was a group and insuffient distance available

 

[pjm1]

Chris - some sort of leading line can be an effective FG and MG - such as river or a path - and it also has the benefit of leading you into a scene.

 

[ChrisR]

Here's one with a stronger foreground, although still no middle ground (subject: decaying jetty on Loch Etive):