Landscape Photography and Shutter Speed

[clarence]

I apologise if this has already been discussed somewhere, and would really appreciate it if someone could direct me to that particular thread.

Several large enlargements I made from 6x6 shots I took a while ago showed what seemed like blurring in the parts where the branches of trees were shot against the sky. As buildings on the same plane of focus seemed relatively sharp, I ruled out the possibility of inaccurate focusing.

The shutter speed might have been about 1/8th of a second or less. The camera was mounted on a Manfrotto / Bogen 3021 tripod and 168 head, and the exposures were made with a TLR and a cable release. The only thing that could have affected the photograph was motion blur from the subject itself.

I would like to know how you decide what shutter speed you have to use to stop motion in a landscape photograph.

Thanks.

Clarence

 

[sf]

Thee are some issues to consider.

One is certainly shutterspeed.

Another is how well the film handles very high contrast. I've seen some films that don't do well with branches against bright skies. Where the image is sharp everywhere, but where we have line lines of black against bright sky, definition is lost. This might be development process as well. Or even the lens. Flare around sharp edges of contrast.

And another is what your printing method was. Scanners will have a hard time with branches against bright skies. If I'm not careful, the Multi Pro will make trouble for branches too.

When I shoot a landscape, I generally never shoot smaller than F/16 . . .at least not until I got the RF645 which handles F/32 remarkably well. I also never shoot with my shutterspeed below 1/30. Just as a general rule. Unless i want the fuzzy effect from grasses or water or clouds.

Generally, I have not had any trouble shooting with PanF or Neopan Acros at f/11 or f/16 and finding decent shutterspeeds.

 

[clarence]

Another is how well the film handles very high contrast. I've seen some films that don't do well with branches against bright skies. Where the image is sharp everywhere, but where we have line lines of black against bright sky, definition is lost. This might be development process as well. Or even the lens. Flare around sharp edges of contrast.

And another is what your printing method was. Scanners will have a hard time with branches against bright skies. If I'm not careful, the Multi Pro will make trouble for branches too.

This is very interesting, George, and it's new to me.

What you say about contrast along fine lines is important for me because I like shooting skeletal trees against skies. 75% of my landscape shots are of this particular subject matter.

I must conduct more research on this. Thanks.

Clarence

 

[sf]

This is very interesting, George, and it's new to me.

What you say about contrast along fine lines is important for me because I like shooting skeletal trees against skies. 75% of my landscape shots are of this particular subject matter.

I must conduct more research on this. Thanks.

Clarence

Trouble for me is determining whether the film, lens, development or scanning/printing process is to blame.

I know that scanners will have trouble with such contrast lines if not done properly, and that some lenses do. As far as the film. . . .not sure about it. A guess a lens (enlarger or camera) has to be very sharp to discern those very small, high contrast edges well.

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

Some people like to freeze movement and some like to show movement, even exagerate it with very long exposures.

Check out http://www.hoopersgallery.co.uk/johnblakemore.htm

 

[JimG]

Was it windy that day?

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

Or try http://www.zeroimage.com and look in 'Gallery'. I especially like Zernike Au's work there.

Two minutes seems to be a 'typical' exposure, but some by other photographers are over an hour long.

 

[sf]

If I'm shooting on a breezy day, I try to keep my shutterspeeds where you'd expent to have them for shooting sports. 1/250th at the very slowest. I shoot with faster films sometimes - like Neopan 400 or 1600 or DElta 3200, so getting a high shutterspeed is not a problem.

 

[wdenies]

Shutterflower,
Maybe this trick can help you to determine the source of the high contrast problem:
Put the negs in a slide projector or enlarger (if you still have one) and project very,very large. If it seems Ok than the digital part of your workflow needs investigation.

With digital cameras a source of this problem is overexposure.

Wim

 

[clarence]

Jim, it was not very windy. I can't give the speed, but nothing was flapping in the wind, and it was quite still, actually. I didn't expect the motion to cause any blur, but it was a very tall tree, so there might have been more movement at the top.

Clarence

 

[Theo-Prof]

This could possibly be an optical issue. You might be getting color fringing, where all the colors of the spectrum do not line-up at the film plane (this is visible whether you use color or B&W film). This is particularly noticable with fine lines (such as tree branches) against a bright sky where it looks like there are multiple images of fine lines. Look at other thin elements in the image that would not likely be moving, such as an antena or guy wires or something, to see if these are sharp. If they are then the problem is movement. If you see the same effect with these then movement is not the problem.

Kevin

 

[vicmortelmans]

I happened to be confronted with the same effect just the other day.
See the picture here:
http://users.pandora.be/vicmortelmans/tmp/200512_0005_Toon_Stad_03.tif_norm.jpg

I don't remember the shutter speed, but don't expect it to be slower than 1/60 and don't remember it to be a very windy day either...

I must admit it's one of the first rolls of film that I developed myself, since I reactivated the dark room recently. That may have contributed. I apply continuous agitation, which seems to be a non-regular approach.

Groeten,

Vic

 

[rvaubel]

I noticed that effect before myself. It seems logical to use trees as subjects for informal resolution tests, but the results always seem to indicated the lens isnt quite right....or something. I never really analysed why, just stopped using tree as test subjects.
Like many of you on this forum, I have a large collection of brick wall pictures.

Rex

 

[DougK]

I normally try to keep my landscape exposures above 1/30 of a second whether I'm shooting handheld or on a tripod unless I'm specifically looking for motion blur in water or something like that or if the weather conditions are absolutely calm. That seems to have done the trick for me.

 

[sf]

This could possibly be an optical issue. You might be getting color fringing, where all the colors of the spectrum do not line-up at the film plane (this is visible whether you use color or B&W film). This is particularly noticable with fine lines (such as tree branches) against a bright sky where it looks like there are multiple images of fine lines. Look at other thin elements in the image that would not likely be moving, such as an antena or guy wires or something, to see if these are sharp. If they are then the problem is movement. If you see the same effect with these then movement is not the problem.

Kevin

there you go - this is a certainly possible explanation. Some optics do this. The Sigma lenses do it on SLRs while the Nikons don't so much. It might be architecture or glass quality, who knows.

 

[pvdhaar]

Don't forget that trees are high. Even if it feels completely silent at ground level, there's some wind at 20 feet and higher. This is a real sharpness killer, especially as the level of detail you're trying to record is at the limit of the capabilities of the lens/film.

Another factor is that at 1/8, you may even introduce camera shake through the cable release. Use a long cable, and have it hanging with a lot of slack. This will avoid 'pulling' the camera while pushing the plunger..