[John Hoepfner]

See if this comes through and please critique

Thanks John Hoepfner

[EnglishBob]

Well it came through, but is very small on my monitor, running 1920 x 1080.

Your image looks to be around 320 x 200. Could I suggest you choose a size nearer 800 x 600 or slightly larger.

Hard to critique the image as I can't see detail, but from a composition stand point I would suggest not "bullseyeing" or centering the subject. Pictures are usually more visually pleasing with the main subject off set. This is know as the rule of thirds, and while some images look spactacular ignoring it, it does generally make for a more pleasing image.

[Rolf]

I agree with Craig... John, image really is too small to see properly... I did try to increase the size but all that did was tear everything so far apart that definition was totally lost... Did you focus at the hyperfocal distance for the lens/aperture you used?
You don't give that detail so I assume that you would use a wide angle? Normal to wide-angle lenses (50mm and shorter lenses on 35mm cameras and less on a crop sensor digital) are good candidates for hyperfocal distance focusing. These lenses have a relatively short hyperfocal distance when set to larger f-numbers. For example, the hyperfocal distance for a 28mm lens set to f/16 on a 35mm (That would be full frame digital... 24x36mm) camera is about 5.5 feet. Everything from 2.75 ( half the DoF) feet to infinity will be sharp in a photograph taken with this lens focused at the hyperfocal distance. I mention this because the image seems unsharp generally. I would also not have centred the main element... taken a closer crop to lose the earth strip foreground and, again as Craig said... position the hill in one of the imaginary thirds of the frame. You could always think about an interesting feature as a foreground to lead the eye to the back ground?

There are charts that you can download for Hyperfocal distance for a given lens/aperture rather than work it out and get into the realms of Circles of Confusion of which hyperfocal distance is a function!

Try to resend the image a little larger - but within the parameters of the site?

Thanks for the share too!

Kind regards

Rolf

[John Hoepfner]

I agree with Craig... John, image really is too small to see properly... I did try to increase the size but all that did was tear everything so far apart that definition was totally lost... Did you focus at the hyperfocal distance for the lens/aperture you used?
You don't give that detail so I assume that you would use a wide angle? Normal to wide-angle lenses (50mm and shorter lenses on 35mm cameras and less on a crop sensor digital) are good candidates for hyperfocal distance focusing. These lenses have a relatively short hyperfocal distance when set to larger f-numbers. For example, the hyperfocal distance for a 28mm lens set to f/16 on a 35mm (That would be full frame digital... 24x36mm) camera is about 5.5 feet. Everything from 2.75 ( half the DoF) feet to infinity will be sharp in a photograph taken with this lens focused at the hyperfocal distance. I mention this because the image seems unsharp generally. I would also not have centred the main element... taken a closer crop to lose the earth strip foreground and, again as Craig said... position the hill in one of the imaginary thirds of the frame. You could always think about an interesting feature as a foreground to lead the eye to the back ground?

There are charts that you can download for Hyperfocal distance for a given lens/aperture rather than work it out and get into the realms of Circles of Confusion of which hyperfocal distance is a function!

Try to resend the image a little larger - but within the parameters of the site?

Thanks for the share too!

Kind regards

Rolf

[John Hoepfner]

I agree with Craig... John, image really is too small to see properly... I did try to increase the size but all that did was tear everything so far apart that definition was totally lost... Did you focus at the hyperfocal distance for the lens/aperture you used?
You don't give that detail so I assume that you would use a wide angle? Normal to wide-angle lenses (50mm and shorter lenses on 35mm cameras and less on a crop sensor digital) are good candidates for hyperfocal distance focusing. These lenses have a relatively short hyperfocal distance when set to larger f-numbers. For example, the hyperfocal distance for a 28mm lens set to f/16 on a 35mm (That would be full frame digital... 24x36mm) camera is about 5.5 feet. Everything from 2.75 ( half the DoF) feet to infinity will be sharp in a photograph taken with this lens focused at the hyperfocal distance. I mention this because the image seems unsharp generally. I would also not have centred the main element... taken a closer crop to lose the earth strip foreground and, again as Craig said... position the hill in one of the imaginary thirds of the frame. You could always think about an interesting feature as a foreground to lead the eye to the back ground?
Hey Thanks..I told Ed I was done....I thought you all were hooked up to ShutterStock.com...sorry about that. John Hoepfner
There are charts that you can download for Hyperfocal distance for a given lens/aperture rather than work it out and get into the realms of Circles of Confusion of which hyperfocal distance is a function!

Try to resend the image a little larger - but within the parameters of the site?

Thanks for the share too!

Kind regards

Rolf

[John Hoepfner]

I agree with Craig... John, image really is too small to see properly... I did try to increase the size but all that did was tear everything so far apart that definition was totally lost... Did you focus at the hyperfocal distance for the lens/aperture you used?
You don't give that detail so I assume that you would use a wide angle? Normal to wide-angle lenses (50mm and shorter lenses on 35mm cameras and less on a crop sensor digital) are good candidates for hyperfocal distance focusing. These lenses have a relatively short hyperfocal distance when set to larger f-numbers. For example, the hyperfocal distance for a 28mm lens set to f/16 on a 35mm (That would be full frame digital... 24x36mm) camera is about 5.5 feet. Everything from 2.75 ( half the DoF) feet to infinity will be sharp in a photograph taken with this lens focused at the hyperfocal distance. I mention this because the image seems unsharp generally. I would also not have centred the main element... taken a closer crop to lose the earth strip foreground and, again as Craig said... position the hill in one of the imaginary thirds of the frame. You could always think about an interesting feature as a foreground to lead the eye to the back ground?
Hey Thanks..I told Ed I was done....I thought you all were hooked up to ShutterStock.com...sorry about that. John Hoepfner
There are charts that you can download for Hyperfocal distance for a given lens/aperture rather than work it out and get into the realms of Circles of Confusion of which hyperfocal distance is a function!

Try to resend the image a little larger - but within the parameters of the site?

Thanks for the share too!

Kind regards

Rolf

Thanks. But I am done. I thought you all were connected to ShutterStock. com