I never thought to photograph a building at f2.0 in broad daylight. Logic would tell me that I have lots of light, could use a modest ISO and still be able to get a shutter speed that would freeze any camera motion at a range of apertures; any of which might get me deeper depth of field and greater lens correction.
But today I was exploring the edges of the gear. What happens if we shoot everything at ISO 50? How do the files look? Are they very different than all the stuff we usually shoot at ISO 100 or 200?
What happens if we photograph buildings with an aperture of f2.0 instead of f5.6 or 8.0? Will the entire building be in focus? Is the lens sharp enough when used at its maximum aperture?
After working with both the Leica SL and SL2 I have a small theory about sharpness and image stabilization. I think it may be a good idea to turn it off when you don't need it and see if that actually improves the work you might be doing at 1/1,600th of a second or so. Surely, with a static subject that's a fast enough shutter speed to freeze just about any camera movement or shutter shock. And an engaged image stabilization feature in combination with high shutter speeds may create more problems than it solves. If you don't test it you won't know, right?
This was f2.0, 1/1600 shutter speed, and ISO 50. Jpeg with a little saturation boost in the shooting. Click on it and look at it bigger. See if I learned anything or if it's just another building shot.
3 comments:
As an architect, I usually dislike those f/16 (or more) big film format pictures of any buildings ! Those weren't designed to be seen as on tracing paper (or 3D models), but to be discovered in the cityscape at different scales and levels (the city's plinth).
More often I prefer pictures shot at f/1.8, f/2.0 or even f/2.8, as they induce a very small blur in front or behind the focus plane (at those distances DoF is quite large).
As you said about Cartier-Bresson's picture of the Pope, sharp focus is often overrated, specially in "modern" buildings mostly made of glass ans steel that are already quite sharp to our eyes.
There is often a confusion between a documentary shot and a cityscape one. The first try to represent the dream (or ego) of the designer, while the second is more about what the people feel about it...
Looks good to me and my astigmatism, maybe a little soft on the foreground awning near the frame edge, but that’s low contrast and dark so it’s hard to tell if it’s perfect or not. Maybe even better if it’s not perfect.
On the techie side, I’ve seen in-lens IS cause all kinds of goofy problems with long lenses, especially right around 1/250th shutter speed, which is pretty much where I try to stay. Below 1/125th it’s usually fine, and over 1000th it’s okay, but sometimes I’ll notice odd-looking iris patterns in the out-of-fucus areas. Too often it just doesn’t work - or makes things worse by adding motion blur - around 1/250th. I usually don’t use it unless I’m hand-holding a long lens, or I’m using a tripod but shivering from the cold. Thom Hogan goes into gory detail on the topic on his dslrbodies blog.
Meet a photographer a few years ago who shot everything at F/2.8 and ISO 1600.
He did have some good images but being rigid that way they were somewhat limited.
Post a Comment