Robert Mielke
New member
I was visiting the Vista House on top of the mountain as I took this shot of the Columbia River Gorge. The air was so clear that the sky was incredible, along with the red clay formations that make up the banks of the gorge.
-
Please use real names.
Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed
Firstname Lastname
Register
We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know! -
Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!
Oregon - Columbia River Gorge
- Thread starter Robert Mielke
- Start date
Charles L Webster
pro member
Love the picture, though it's too big for me to see all of, but I hate the frame, sorry.
I have driven past Vista House several times, each time regretting that I didn't have time to stop and shoot.
I have driven past Vista House several times, each time regretting that I didn't have time to stop and shoot.
Nathaniel Alpert
Member
Robert,
That's a nice travel photo and well exposed. Usually, the forums suggest 800 or 1000 pixels max for the width of a landscape. What season was this taken? I am struck by how brown everything is and yet there isn't that much snow on the mountains. The photograph also seems quite soft in focus; was that intended? What would you think about cropping off the bottom, so as to eliminate the road?
Robert Mielke
New member
Unkown to me this photo is out of focus. It's embarrasing to see it after posting it. I put the original RAW image back in Elements and used the magnifier to see that everything was out of focus. My Nikon D40X utilizes autofocus lenses. I can't explain why this happened only on this shot. I'll keep a closer eye on my photos from this point forward.
Regarding the frame, I was practicing the creation of frames in Photoshop Elements 6.0 and attached my first attempt to this photo. Sorry if y'all hated it. I'll lose the frames.
Regarding the frame, I was practicing the creation of frames in Photoshop Elements 6.0 and attached my first attempt to this photo. Sorry if y'all hated it. I'll lose the frames.
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Hi Robert,
A possible rescue. Maybe go back to the original, working in 16 BIT make a LAB version. Sharpen the L channel and then blend only that 60% of that that back with your original RGB image and reduce in size to 1800 pixels wide. Add an S curve. Flatten, Sharpen 150% 0.4 would be enough and the reduce once more to 600 pixels wide, convert to 8 BIT and sRGB and compress at 10 as a jpg.
Just an idea.
Asher
A possible rescue. Maybe go back to the original, working in 16 BIT make a LAB version. Sharpen the L channel and then blend only that 60% of that that back with your original RGB image and reduce in size to 1800 pixels wide. Add an S curve. Flatten, Sharpen 150% 0.4 would be enough and the reduce once more to 600 pixels wide, convert to 8 BIT and sRGB and compress at 10 as a jpg.
Just an idea.
Asher
Scott Buttrick
New member
Hi Robert,
Asher gave good advice. Remember that all digital images need to be sharpened a bit to compensate for the anti-aliasing filter over the sensor. I use a capture sharpen routine on all of my images.
Asher gave good advice. Remember that all digital images need to be sharpened a bit to compensate for the anti-aliasing filter over the sensor. I use a capture sharpen routine on all of my images.
Robert Mielke
New member
Thanks all. In this case it's easier & more fun to return to the Vista House & reshoot the scene. My bad for trusting autofocus.
Barry Johnston
New member
Focusing issues...
Hello Robert,
Fortunately, you can always trim off the frame and start again until you find something you like.
Regarding the OOF (Out of Focus), it is always important to know how to focus, please no disrespect intended here. But generally it is not a good idea to use auto-focus on any landscape scene. The auto focus will take the lens to infinity, which will have direct reduction consequences for the depth of field. As a rule of thumb, you should use the smallest aperture possible and focus around one third into the scene. This is called 'Hyperfocal distance'. The other way is to focus on infinity, try to see the nearest object on focus, and refocus on that object.
Understanding Hyperfocal distance - Click here for more info....
One other thing I would highly recommend is the use of a really good tripod.
Hope this helps...
Regards,
Barry
Hello Robert,
Fortunately, you can always trim off the frame and start again until you find something you like.
Regarding the OOF (Out of Focus), it is always important to know how to focus, please no disrespect intended here. But generally it is not a good idea to use auto-focus on any landscape scene. The auto focus will take the lens to infinity, which will have direct reduction consequences for the depth of field. As a rule of thumb, you should use the smallest aperture possible and focus around one third into the scene. This is called 'Hyperfocal distance'. The other way is to focus on infinity, try to see the nearest object on focus, and refocus on that object.
Understanding Hyperfocal distance - Click here for more info....
One other thing I would highly recommend is the use of a really good tripod.
Hope this helps...
Regards,
Barry
Doug Kerr
Well-known member
Hi, Barry,
The suggestion to focus at the hyperfocal distance is a good one. but:
1. For a scene going to infinity, what would "one third into the scene" mean?
2. What do you mean, "focus around one third into the scene. This is called 'Hyperfocal distance' "? That certainly doesn't match the definition of hyperfocal distance I am familiar with.
The suggestion to focus at the hyperfocal distance is a good one. but:
1. For a scene going to infinity, what would "one third into the scene" mean?
2. What do you mean, "focus around one third into the scene. This is called 'Hyperfocal distance' "? That certainly doesn't match the definition of hyperfocal distance I am familiar with.