Digital BW, The Print

Mark, it sounds to me that you are letting the DOF control you rather than
controlling IT! Bruce mentioned that it is one of the tools and I'd like to
elevate it to one of the most important tools. Even as David suggest that
many modern user will use PS to control blur these days, and for many
reasons that is not a bad approach, but it sounds like you need to work out
some of that vision before you ever sit down at the computer. A problem with
selective DOF on a landscape is making it work, and making it work in this
case is going to take some good thinking. You'll be fighting that notion
that landscape does indeed need to convey the image sharp from that first
rock to the last twig on the furthest branch; that constant fight between
large format shooters and grain lovers. 

 

AS for digital being best at mid range apertures, some of that comes from
the difference in format to focal length and not a sea change in thinking.
It also comes from an aesthetic that smaller aperture allows for longer
exposure and not ONLY related to DOF. 

 

Eric

 

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street

Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

http://e.neilsen.home.att.net

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

Skype ejprinter

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
markleewebb
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 9:05 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Depth of Field and Landscapes

 

I've got a question about fine b&w landscapes. I've been working with 
a dedicated infrared dslr and getting good results with exposure, 
focus, and lighting but I'm having trouble with the final image and 
how I composed them in the field. I did an experimental study of 
images of trees around a pond. The problem is with a DOF that puts 
everything virtually in sharp focus 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]