I took this photo tonight using a Nikon D7200, 50mm f/1.8 lens for 8 to 10 seconds on the shutter. I took about 30 pics adjusting the focus ring each time looking for a sharp photo. As you can see it's not sharp but the best of all the rest. I set the camera up before dark focusing on one area of the yard. As my luck would have it they chose another area to rest.
nightdeer by mikesgm, on Flickr
When I shoot at night I'm typically shooting a landscape and want everything in focus so first I close the aperture down to f8 and smaller (higher F stop number) depending on the situation and set the focus for infinite focus using a depth of field calculator. If you'd like to keep the narrow depth of field you can still use a depth of field calculator to calculate how much will be in focus given the camera/lens/aperture/subject distance.
Once I know where I want my focus to be I will auto focus on something bright enough to lock the focus onto, that is at my focus distance, and then switch my camera/lens into manual focus so the focus doesn't change, then compose my shot and get the exposure how I want it. Usually I find something to focus on and walk off the distance I need based on what the DOF calculator has given me.
I hope that made sense and helps. This is a DOF calculator, unfortunately their images no longer work but hopefully it will help some.
https://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
If you Google I'm sure you can find some more, this is just the one I've always used.
Thanks for the info. I was shooting with the lens wide open, f/1.8. I didn't think about the shallow depth of field for this aperture vs stopping the lens down. f/1.8 gives me about 21 feet DOF. At f/11 I'll get about 155 feet. I had the camera in manual focus but didn't think about using manual focus on the lens. I will next time. Thanks for the reply.
No problem, glad to help. Keep shooting and trying things, you'll find what works for you.
Here is a shot from several years ago that I used the above described technique, still one of my favorites (5 shots stitched together, taken with my old D90 and 50mm at f8 1.0sec 200iso)
Detroit by Gary, on Flickr
Nice. Between the 5 shots did you change just the shutter speed for each photo and leave the ISO and aperture the same? I"m assuming you stitched them together in one of the adobe products. I'm looking into getting and using some ND filters for landscape photography. Maybe this summer after tax season and all the sales of bass fishing equipment os over.
I was thinking about this while eating breakfast. Because you used the term "stitched" I believe you made a panorama of the scene and stitiched them together using software product. Not changing any settings on the camera. Am I right?
Yes, you are correct in the fact that I stitched the photos together using Adobe Photoshop to create a panoramic image vs layering to create a HDR (High Dynamic Range) image. I set my exposure and shot all pictures with the same settings, I use manual exposure for this so nothing is adjusted or changed by the camera when composing each shot.
At that time I was manually stitching each picture together in Photoshop, now I typically will just have Lightroom automatically stitch the image together. 9 times out of 10 Lightroom does a good job, but sometimes I will have Lightroom align the images the best it can then continue the edit in Photoshop where I will tweak each image position and manually blend each image together using layer masks.
ND filters are nice, I have a few standard ND filters as well as a gradient ND filter. Other than those I also have a circular polarized filter.
One tip when buying filters, buy the largest you will need and then step-up rings to adapt that filter onto your smaller lenses. For example, my current filter set is 76mm, if I recall correctly. Then I use a few different step-up rings to adapt that filter size onto my smaller lenses with say a 52mm thread and 72mm thread. By buying one larger set of filters, yes the larger filters do cost more, you are able to spend less money overall by only having 1 set of filters vs having a set of filters for each thread size you own. It's also nicer when packing your gear, less space and less weight.
When buying a polarizer do I need to get the largest one I need then step-up rings for the smaller lens? Thanks!Originally Posted by gary_fritz
I wouldn't say you "need" to but I do feel it is a more economical way of doing it and a better investment.
Buy one larger diameter filter now and the step-up rings needed both now and as your lens lineup changes in the future versus buying a polarized filter for each lens you own now and in the future.
My preferred filter brand is B+W, great quality but they aren't exactly cheap.
Reply With Quote