Tarn Hows

[JamWheel]

Sorry I haven't been very active for a while but I have been on a holiday in the Lake District.

 

I hired an EF 16-35mm f/2.8 MkII for the two weeks to try my hand at some landscape stuff which I am not very good at. This probably did some good things for my fitness as carrying around a camera bag with a couple of lenses, body and my tripod proved a great challenge whilst staggering up fells! This was my first time in the Lake District and I will definitely be going back for more - what wonderful landscape! I suppose it helped that we had mostly wonderful weather!

 

Anyway, this is a shot I took at Tarn Hows - I can't get over how clear the water was. What do you think? Thoughts on what I have done wrong or could have done better would be very useful for me.

 

Surprisingly, I found the lens frustrating - it is soft around the edges at 16mm at most apertures! I won't be buying one, although I suspect this is a common issue with lenses this wide on a full frame body - thoughts on this would be useful too. The below was taken at 16mm with f/11.

 

Click image to view large

 

Tarn Hows by James Wheeler Photography, on Flickr

 

 

[Black Pearl]

One of my favourite spots in one of my favourite places on earth.

 

I can see what you were trying to get with the shot and have taken many similar ones myself - it has a similar issue to many of mine in that there is a separation between the rocks and the surroundings making it almost look like tow images. 

A cheat might be to use Photoshops 'Content Aware Scale' to shove the two elements closer - mono might be good too.

[Leon]

Cracking shot, I have been there a few times, lovely place

[colinb]

Although very well taken I agree with BP maybe a simple edit would be to crop the sky back to the tree line?

[ChrisLumix]

Although very well taken I agree with BP maybe a simple edit would be to crop the sky back to the tree line?

 

I think you may have something there? Although I think it's a good strong shot anyway, I can see two other pictures within it:

1) From the top down to just short of the larger rock

2) From the tree line down to the bottom.

[THELONGMAN]

Absolute cracker of a picture, luv it, James. For what its worth I feel that if you did crop the sly the reflection the the water would have little significance,--best kept in for my pallet.

 

Geoff

[kev7d]

I really like it. Nice BIG foreground attraction in the rock. Had the reflection above the rock not been there I would have said get the camera lower to cut the middle area but the sky in the water gives plenty to look at. I guess the only slight detraction is the distortion with the trees leaning out at the top of frame. Might be just me mind you? But its a lovely image.

[JamWheel]

Thanks for the kind and insightful comments everyone. I will have a go playing around with the different crop suggestions - but now it has been mentioned, at least the top of the image would make a landscape format image of its own.

 

The trees leaning is after corrections for the distortion - I really am disappointed with the lens, or in my skills with it - does anyone else have similar issues with lenses this wide? On a crop body I imagine the distortion will be cropped out and not an issue.

[ChrisLumix]

The trees leaning is after corrections for the distortion - I really am disappointed with the lens, or in my skills with it - does anyone else have similar issues with lenses this wide? On a crop body I imagine the distortion will be cropped out and not an issue.

 

I saw your lips move James, but I have NO idea what you're talking about!!

[JamWheel]

I saw your lips move James, but I have NO idea what you're talking about!!

 

On a body with a cropped sensor (APS-C or APS-H for example) you lose the edges of the image which are retained on a full frame sensor - as a result, the distortions only seen at the very edges of the image will be absent as they are cropped out by smaller sensors. Any better? Sorry, I explain things terribly at times!

[Phil]

Do you have a landscape version?

[ChrisLumix]

(In reply to James - I got leapfrogged):

 

A full frame sensor is the size and dimensions of 35mm film, yes? So whenever an aspect ratio that is not 3:2 is used, there must be some cropping, is that what you're saying? This interests me, because I'm interested in getting a Lumix LX100 - part of the discussion is that although it contains a 4/3 sensor, it never uses the full 16MP because it offers 4 aspect ratios that all crop to the sensor's 'sweet spot' while offering the same field of view. I understand the diagrams better than the techie talk, TBH, but that's effectively what you're talking about, right?

[JamWheel]

This site has a good visual explanation of what I mean: http://www.cplc.ca/blog/should-i-buy-a-full-frame-camera/

 

Scroll to the third image on this link. The distorted non-sharp elements at the edge of the full frame shot, with the same lens on a cropped sensor are effectively cropped out. You can't get as wide as 16mm (or whatever the lens is as the focal length be 'effectively' longer - APS-C makes a 16mm 'effectively' 25.6mm as the sensor can only see the view that  a 25.6mm lens would have on a full frame body.

Do you have a landscape version?

 

Sadly not, Phil.

[Phil]

(In reply to James - I got leapfrogged):

 

Well, you will resort yo essays

[ChrisLumix]

This site has a good visual explanation of what I mean: http://www.cplc.ca/blog/should-i-buy-a-full-frame-camera/

 

Scroll to the third image on this link. The distorted non-sharp elements at the edge of the full frame shot, with the same lens on a cropped sensor are effectively cropped out. You can't get as wide as 16mm (or whatever the lens is as the focal length be 'effectively' longer - APS-C makes a 16mm 'effectively' 25.6mm as the sensor can only see the view that  a 25.6mm lens would have on a full frame body.

 

Thanks for that James - I understand better now. 

 

I was never a DSLR owner (went straight from SLR system to being 'disabled with a superzoom') so I never had to learn all that. Interestingly, he says DSLR full-frame owners often carry a point-&-shoot as a 2nd camera? I'd say these days - I don't know when that article was written - it's equally likely that someone might buy direct into a mirrorless system, and carry a high-end 'enthusiast's' pocket camera, like a Fuji X100 or Lumix LX7, as their 2nd.

[JamWheel]

I have two dslrs and an x100s which fits in my work bag when commuting, the dslr bodies are too heavy and bulky for that :)

[ChrisLumix]

To be honest, after seeing that B&H video Fuji posted, from a professional photographer who used mirrorless, I've not even been tempted to go down the DSLR route. Back when I had an 35mm SLR, everything was "full format" but we'd be lucky to get a decent print much bigger than 10x8". (I don't print now).

 

That's why I'm thinking of upgrading from a superzoom (1/2.3" - who came up with these crazy fractions??) to a 4/3" which will have a sensor 10 times the area, even if it's only a quarter the area of full frame. The best results I've seen from 4/3 are only fractionally less good than those from full frame, so I guess the difference in quality as you 'go larger' is a gently flattening curve.