What do you think about this photo?Do you have questions or curiosities about this image? Do you want to ask something to the author, give him suggestions for improvement, or congratulate for a photo that you really like?
You can do it by joining JuzaPhoto, it is easy and free!
There is more: by registering you can create your personal page, publish photos, receive comments and you can use all the features of JuzaPhoto. With more than 242000 members, there is space for everyone, from the beginner to the professional.
| sent on September 03, 2020 (11:06) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
Great fire on the trunk (even the trunks, if they have "personality", are nice subjects), but the rest is all blurry.
If the subject wasn't the trunk, you could change your position, like left and back, using it to guide your gaze to an element of greater interest. Right now he's pointing to the trees. Ottimo fuoco sul tronco (anche i tronchi, se hanno "personalità", sono dei bei soggetti), ma il resto è tutto sfocato.
Se invece il soggetto non era il tronco, potevi cambiare tu posizione, tipo a sinistra e indietro, usandolo per guidare lo sguardo verso un elemento di maggior interesse. In questo momento sta puntando verso gli alberi. |
| sent on September 03, 2020 (11:09) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
You're right about the blurring, in the car I didn't realize that a 7.1 diaphragm wasn't enough to get everything in focus (or almost) Hai ragione per lo sfocato, in macchina non mi sono accorto che un diaframma 7.1 non fosse sufficiente per ottenere tutto a fuoco (o quasi) |
| sent on September 03, 2020 (12:03) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
even here the most obvious thing is the reduced depth of field. Except in certain particular situations, most landscapers use very closed diaphragms to obtain hyperfocal or, alternatively, more shots to blend together. So watch out for the diaphragm! If you take a ride you will see that rarely opens more than f/16-f/11 anche qui la cosa più evidente è la ridotta profondità di campo. Tranne che in certe situazioni particolari, la maggior parte dei paesaggisti utilizzano diaframmi molto chiusi per ottenere l'iperfocale o, in alternativa, più scatti da fondere insieme. Quindi attento ai diaframma! Se ti fai un giretto vedrai che raramente si apre più di f/16-f/11 |
| sent on September 03, 2020 (12:18) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
To use hyperfocals you had to put fire on a more advanced point of the trunk.
Ad f11 (perhaps even f16) would have been blurred, with that focus point.
Recognises that targets work better at certain openings. You may have diction problems if you close the diaphragm too much. The same applies, in the case of zooms, for the focal length: the intermediate ones make on average better. Learn about the limits of your goals.
Per usare l'iperfocale dovevi mettere il fuoco su un punto più avanzato del tronco.
Ad f11 (forse anche a f16) sarebbe stata sfocata, con quel punto di messa a fuoco.
Ricorda inoltre che gli obiettivi lavorano meglio a certe aperture. Potresti avere problemi di diffrazione se chiudi troppo il diaframma. Stesso dicasi, nel caso degli zoom, per la lunghezza focale: quelle intermedie rendono mediamente meglio. Impara a conoscere i limiti dei tuoi obiettivi.
|
| sent on September 03, 2020 (12:33) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
... otherwise you will change your frame. Having so much blurry, practically half lake and all the mountains, is not pleasant ...altrimenti cambi inquadratura. Aver così tanto sfuocato, praticamente metà lago e tutte le montagne, non è gradevole |
|
Publish your advertisement on JuzaPhoto (info) |
![[retina]](shared_files/layout/retina_badge.jpg){kind=icon}
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.
24.0 MEGAPIXEL
Resize to fit window
