Why slow shutter in desert in broad daylight?

The following picture was screen grabbed from Adam Barker's gorgeous set of pics advertising the z1000. (http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/gallery/fz1000/Adam_Barker/index.html)

My question starts at the F8.0. Since the fz1000 is F4 even at the long end, I assume this means he used an ND filter to stop down the aperture (please correct if I'm using wrong terminology) so that he can use a slow shutter speed of 1/50.

But what does he get out of that slow shutter speed? Is it depth of field-related?

Thanks,

pete

It seems like you started learning too fast. Thinking about ND filters first requires good understanding of exposure (aperture, shutter speed and ISO).

The FZ1000's lens has a maximum aperture of f/2.8 when it's set to the shortest focal length, and f/4 at the longest. That only denotes the maximum aperture available (smallest f-number). When one uses either Aperture Priority (A on the mode dial) or Manual (M on the mode dial) exposure modes, the aperture can be changed simply by turning a dial on the camera. So with a simple rotation of one dial, you could go from f/2.8 or f/4 to f/11 (the smallest aperture available on the FZ1000), with 1/3-stop increments.

That alone doesn't require any filters. What is does is determine depth of field, as the aperture is one of the variables that influence the depth of field, and the only one that is also part of the exposure triangle. If you want to learn a bit about depth of field, read Cambridge in Colour's tutorial.

I believe he used the lowest ISO of the camera's normal range (not the extended range, which is basically the same as changing the brightness of the image in processing), to get the cleanest output from the sensor. I don't know exactly what he did, but I assume the shutter speed was either chosen automatically by the camera to get proper exposure, or he did the same manually.

It doesn't look like broad daylight, either. Judging by the long shadows going sideways, it's probably early morning or late evening. You won't get that at noon.

Ido Scharf said:

Aperture Priority

Click to expand...

Yep, brain fart. I understand this part.

Ido Scharf said:

I believe he used the lowest ISO of the camera's normal range (not the extended range, which is basically the same as changing the brightness of the image in processing), to get the cleanest output from the sensor. I don't know exactly what he did, but I assume the shutter speed was either chosen automatically by the camera to get proper exposure, or he did the same manually.

Click to expand...

Okay, I think I'm getting the line of reasoning here. The slow shutter speed is a consequence of his desire for a smaller aperture. The smaller aperture is desirable for a landscape because he wants the entire picture in focus (large depth of field).

Yes?

The slow shutter speed is a result of the smaller aperture AND low ISO, Presumably for DOF and IQ.
--
Good luck and happy shooting!

sheldor said:

Okay, I think I'm getting the line of reasoning here. The slow shutter speed is a consequence of his desire for a smaller aperture. The smaller aperture is desirable for a landscape because he wants the entire picture in focus (large depth of field).

Yes?

Click to expand...

Looks to me like he simply set the aperture as he wanted (for depth of field, mostly, and perhaps other reasons such as lens performance—different lenses have different "sweetspots" for sharpness and other optical qualities) and set the ISO as he wanted (lowest, for cleanest image possible). A certain shutter speed wasn't necessary, I guess—both fast and slow would produce the same effect, as it seems to me like there aren't any moving elements in the scene, so shutter speed was only used here to balance the other two variables and give good exposure.

Small aperture like F8 increases the depth of field (areas of the image which can be in focus) and especially cheap lens produce sharper details, if you use small apertures and can decrease other optical defects too.

Lowest ISO usually allows the sensor to produce its highest technical image quality.

Both small aperture and lowest ISO need more light than larger aperture and higher ISO. Slower shutter speed gives more light. That is one solution, if the scene does not have enough light with other settings.

Relatively slow shutter speeds like 1/50 make a delay of 20 milliseconds until the camera completes the photo image. Motion can affect the scene while camera is exposing the image because every change will be recorded in the same image. Usually these changes are seen as motion blur. That is a side effect of using slower shutter speed.

I don't think that slower shutter speed is used for increased motion blur (flying sand?) in that desert photo, so the shooter probably just wanted more light in the camera sensor.

sheldor said:

The following picture was screen grabbed from Adam Barker's gorgeous set of pics advertising the z1000. (http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/gallery/fz1000/Adam_Barker/index.html)

My question starts at the F8.0. Since the fz1000 is F4 even at the long end, I assume this means he used an ND filter to stop down the aperture (please correct if I'm using wrong terminology) so that he can use a slow shutter speed of 1/50.

But what does he get out of that slow shutter speed? Is it depth of field-related?

Thanks,

pete

Click to expand...

Most lens are sharpest at around f/8. This is probably why the settings for this picture were selected. I typically will purposefully shoot between f5.6 and f/8 for most of my photographs unless there is a specific reason for me to vary from this setting as all of my lens perform the best in this aperture range.

Very interesting. Thanks, guys.

sheldor said:

The smaller aperture is desirable for a landscape because he wants the entire picture in focus (large depth of field).

Click to expand...

A lens can focus properly at only one distance. This is called the plane of focus (although it usually is slightly curved). Any object nearer or further than the plane of focus can't be in focus; it will be slightly blurred (or out of focus, OOF).

However, our eyes can accommodate a certain amount of OOF blur so we are happy to accept pictures that look acceptably sharp even though not all in perfect focus. Depth of field is defined as the zone from near to far that is acceptably sharp.

It might seem picky to distinguish "in focus" from "acceptably sharp" but it is important when deciding how to control DOF. There are many DOF calculators such as this http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html The near and far limits of DOF depend on the distance to the focus plane so it's important to understand what that means.

Note that DOF calculations are based on a number of assumptions, so the results are never better than a guide. Fortunately, it's usually a reasonably good guide.

To offer an explanation for the low EV (Exposure Value): It does appear lower than it should be. It may have been shot early/late, but those shadows are just too short and the haze too strong to suggest very first (or last) light.

However, the shadows are not that dark, therefore one possibility is that Adam exposed for them, then post-processed to reduce the highlights.

sheldor said:

My question starts at the F8.0. Since the fz1000 is F4 even at the long end, I assume this means he used an ND filter to stop down the aperture (please correct if I'm using wrong terminology) so that he can use a slow shutter speed of 1/50.

Click to expand...

Are you confusing f/4 as being the minimum aperture on the FZ1000? It's f/8. Sadly the internet has a lot of misinformation. eg: DPreview's statement that the camera has an aperture range of f2.8-4

sheldor said:

But what does he get out of that slow shutter speed?

Click to expand...

1/50 - The shutter speed is quite standard for a landscape subject and would be hand-holdable, though Adam was possibly using a tripod. Therefore irrelevant.

sheldor said:

Is it depth of field-related?

Click to expand...

f/8 - Everything in the frame is a fair distance away, therefore controlling DOF is not that relevant

ISO 125 - for the purposes of this promotion (ie as a websized image) it would have looked as good at 800ISO

So, the figures you're presented with are all fairly arbitrary. (the focal length, location coordinates and time of day would have been far more useful information)

EXIF data isn't often that relevant (it rarely is these days)

If you're learning photography then don't waste too much time over-analyzing (other people's) EXIF or gear. Just get out and get shooting your own pictures instead! It's a far better way to develop an understanding of these things.

svcook said:

Most lens are sharpest at around f/8.

Click to expand...

Perhaps better expressed as "most lenses are sharpest mid-aperture". On the FZ1000 f/8 is the minimum aperture.

svcook said:

This is probably why the settings for this picture were selected. I typically will purposefully shoot between f5.6 and f/8 for most of my photographs unless there is a specific reason for me to vary from this setting as all of my lens perform the best in this aperture range.

Click to expand...

Most experienced photographers' instinct is to avoid the extremes of the apertures. Anything else is fair game and selected according to the control they want over DOF/shutter speed. They seldom worry about finding the sweet-spot every time.

svcook said:

Most lens are sharpest at around f/8.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by "most" lenses? Cheap lenses peak around f/8; as they are sold in large numbers there are probably more individual lenses of those types. But good lenses, of which there are probably more models but less individual copies, typically peak rather earlier.

I own six modern lens, of which three peak at f/4 and three at f/5.6.

He also may have been using a polarizer, which can block a stop or two of light. I use mine as a weak ND filter.

Gerry Winterbourne said:

svcook said:

Most lens are sharpest at around f/8.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by "most" lenses? Cheap lenses peak around f/8; as they are sold in large numbers there are probably more individual lenses of those types. But good lenses, of which there are probably more models but less individual copies, typically peak rather earlier.

I own six modern lens, of which three peak at f/4 and three at f/5.6.

--
---
Gerry
___________________________________________
First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne
[email protected]

Click to expand...

I mean most of my experience has been that lens general perform best for the results I like around f/8 or "mid-aperture" as someone else suggest. It seem like much of the reading I do also supports my experience. But maybe I've always used cheap equipment and don't know any better. Ignorance is bliss. . . . I guess.