Gerald Poirier
Leading Member
I forgot to mention that these were taken with Coolpix 995, normal lens at focal 15.3 mm.
Gerald
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Digital 101---Depth of Field
- Thread starter MDTROUT
- Start date
Gerald
Jarrell Conley
Forum Pro
Looks like you guys are having a PARTY! Can I come?
MD, this is a good thing you've started.
My contribution to depth of field would be this:
it is also controlled by how close you are to your subject at any given aperature setting. If you're shooting at f8 and the subject is 3 feet away you'll have more dof than if your shooting the same subject at f8 from a 6 inches, as others have already said when talking about macros. In the picture of the lock
Depth of field is pretty narrow. The bricks behind the lock are completely out of focus and the wood closest to the camera is going out of focus. This was taken with a 990 and the 2x converter from about 2 feet away with the lens close to wide open.
So, we have two things that control depth of field... the fstop you're shooting at and how far you are from your main subject (the point your focused on in the picture). and the third factor is..........?
Jarrell
Jarrell Conley
MD, this is a good thing you've started.
My contribution to depth of field would be this:
it is also controlled by how close you are to your subject at any given aperature setting. If you're shooting at f8 and the subject is 3 feet away you'll have more dof than if your shooting the same subject at f8 from a 6 inches, as others have already said when talking about macros. In the picture of the lock
Depth of field is pretty narrow. The bricks behind the lock are completely out of focus and the wood closest to the camera is going out of focus. This was taken with a 990 and the 2x converter from about 2 feet away with the lens close to wide open.
So, we have two things that control depth of field... the fstop you're shooting at and how far you are from your main subject (the point your focused on in the picture). and the third factor is..........?
Jarrell
--
Jarrell Conley
The third factor in depth of field is how much starch your wife put in your undershorts. Sorry Jarrell just couldn't help myself. But since you are the originator of the How to Photograph a fat lady post I know you have a sense of humor.
Troutman
Troutman
Depth of field is pretty narrow. The bricks behind the lock are
completely out of focus and the wood closest to the camera is going
out of focus. This was taken with a 990 and the 2x converter from
about 2 feet away with the lens close to wide open.
So, we have two things that control depth of field... the fstop
you're shooting at and how far you are from your main subject (the
point your focused on in the picture). and the third factor
is..........?
Jarrell
--
Jarrell Conley
Jarrell Conley
Forum Pro
Wooooohhhhhh!. Starchy underwear....... would that shrink or expand your "depth of field"?
Don't answer that.
Jarrell
Jarrell Conley
Don't answer that.
Jarrell
--Troutman
Depth of field is pretty narrow. The bricks behind the lock are
completely out of focus and the wood closest to the camera is going
out of focus. This was taken with a 990 and the 2x converter from
about 2 feet away with the lens close to wide open.
So, we have two things that control depth of field... the fstop
you're shooting at and how far you are from your main subject (the
point your focused on in the picture). and the third factor
is..........?
Jarrell
--
Jarrell Conley
Jarrell Conley
To review several points discussed concerning dof in the last two days:
1. Depth of field is the distance between the nearest and farthest objects
that appear in focus in a picture. For a given lense each successively smaller
aperture increases the depth of field. Use small numbers f 16 for landscapes or large numbers f 2 for portraits so subject is in focus but background is blurred.
2. Depth of field can be controlled by several means: 1. Adjusting the aperature of the lense 2. Adjusting the angle of the camera ( if the angle is low and straight on you limit depth but if the camera is high and angles down dof will be greatly increased ) Try two landscapes one low and straight on and one high with camera angled down and compare the difference in area in focus.
3. Depth of field is effected by things such as distance to the subject. Closeups will have less dof versus a landscape shot. With digital when it is not possible to have two items in the picture in focus you can focus on both sections separately without moving the camera and take two images and paste them together on the same image. See Michael Freemans book on digital phottography.
4. Fourth and most important all rules are made to be broken although the unwritten rule of when you manually set white balance you must remember
to reset it back to auto or your pictures of the 4 lb, 22inch, trout you caught this morning will have a ugly blue cast cant be broken.
I dont want to get much past the basic elements of any subject to keep it simple and as easy to use as possbile and to have fun with it. There is only one way to get proficient with any aspect we discuss and thats practice.
So for the balance of the week practice and post the results and lets see many examples of dof.
The great thing about digital is see what you get now and try it again principal. Have a good week and next week we can discuss the one thing that it is critical to good images exposure. I shoul;d have discussed it this week but needed time to prepare.
troutman
1. Depth of field is the distance between the nearest and farthest objects
that appear in focus in a picture. For a given lense each successively smaller
aperture increases the depth of field. Use small numbers f 16 for landscapes or large numbers f 2 for portraits so subject is in focus but background is blurred.
2. Depth of field can be controlled by several means: 1. Adjusting the aperature of the lense 2. Adjusting the angle of the camera ( if the angle is low and straight on you limit depth but if the camera is high and angles down dof will be greatly increased ) Try two landscapes one low and straight on and one high with camera angled down and compare the difference in area in focus.
3. Depth of field is effected by things such as distance to the subject. Closeups will have less dof versus a landscape shot. With digital when it is not possible to have two items in the picture in focus you can focus on both sections separately without moving the camera and take two images and paste them together on the same image. See Michael Freemans book on digital phottography.
4. Fourth and most important all rules are made to be broken although the unwritten rule of when you manually set white balance you must remember
to reset it back to auto or your pictures of the 4 lb, 22inch, trout you caught this morning will have a ugly blue cast cant be broken.
I dont want to get much past the basic elements of any subject to keep it simple and as easy to use as possbile and to have fun with it. There is only one way to get proficient with any aspect we discuss and thats practice.
So for the balance of the week practice and post the results and lets see many examples of dof.
The great thing about digital is see what you get now and try it again principal. Have a good week and next week we can discuss the one thing that it is critical to good images exposure. I shoul;d have discussed it this week but needed time to prepare.
troutman
ISOMatrix
Senior Member
My vote is for Focal Length of the lens! lol
Wide angle...wider depth of field.....Telephoto....shorter depth of field.
Ken Leonard
Veteran Member
I was asked to submit the following photo I took this weekend in Oxnard, CA as an example of good dof. The truth is I made no concious effort to optimize dof in this photo as it was taken in full auto mode. I did however take the object (the 1896 Queen Ann home) from the perspective of some flower pots in the forground.
Ken
Ken
Bern Caughey
Senior Member
Don't forget about the "Circle of Confusion" since Depth of Field is related directly to the size of the final enlargement.
Generally stated, the greater the final image is enlarged than the less depth of field it will retain. An image enlarged to 4"x6" is going to have greater depth of field than if it was enlarged to 12"x18".
Sorry for the brief response, but I don't have the time to elaborate right now.
Generally stated, the greater the final image is enlarged than the less depth of field it will retain. An image enlarged to 4"x6" is going to have greater depth of field than if it was enlarged to 12"x18".
Sorry for the brief response, but I don't have the time to elaborate right now.
Bern Caughey
Senior Member
I agree with your philosophy of keeping it simple but I have correction that is important.
Tilting the lens does not increase the depth of field but alters the plane of focus. Sometimes this can be benifial. If you worked extensively with large format photography than you know how complicated this can become. When you alter the plane of focus you can have unwanted results such as unsharp objects you would normally have in focus.
Say you are shooting subject in front of a tall building. Suppose you tilt the lens so that the plane of focus is on the subject's face & the top of the building at the same time. If you have insuffient depth of field than the top of the building will be sharp & the bottom will be out of focus. The same problem can happen to the subject in front of the building.
This shouldn't be a major issue with the smaller cameras being used here, however it is a important.
Sorry for not keeping it simple, but I wasn't the one who first mentioned lens tilt.
Tilting the lens does not increase the depth of field but alters the plane of focus. Sometimes this can be benifial. If you worked extensively with large format photography than you know how complicated this can become. When you alter the plane of focus you can have unwanted results such as unsharp objects you would normally have in focus.
Say you are shooting subject in front of a tall building. Suppose you tilt the lens so that the plane of focus is on the subject's face & the top of the building at the same time. If you have insuffient depth of field than the top of the building will be sharp & the bottom will be out of focus. The same problem can happen to the subject in front of the building.
This shouldn't be a major issue with the smaller cameras being used here, however it is a important.
Sorry for not keeping it simple, but I wasn't the one who first mentioned lens tilt.
Yes, I have worked extensively with large format and I do know how it works. I am trying to keep things simple for those that do not have that level of experience. I have found that my suggestions work very well for me with 35mm, 645 and digital. I do not see a need to get bogged down in the physics of why something works, it is often enough to just accept that it does. Plane of focus is an advanced concept that I feel is beyond the intent of this discussion, and I wrote my offering accordingly.
I would not try this technique with a tall building, not so much for the reasons you suggest, but because what lens tilt would do to the perspective of the building, which is why I chose the example I did. I agree with you that this technique would not work well in all situations, but nothing does! I merely offered a simplified version of an advanced technique and said to try it. That's how we learn. I try new things all the time, some work, some don't but you don't know till you try!
I would not try this technique with a tall building, not so much for the reasons you suggest, but because what lens tilt would do to the perspective of the building, which is why I chose the example I did. I agree with you that this technique would not work well in all situations, but nothing does! I merely offered a simplified version of an advanced technique and said to try it. That's how we learn. I try new things all the time, some work, some don't but you don't know till you try!
john mcswain
Forum Enthusiast
Auto, F-6.1, 1/344.5, Focal len-23.1, ISO 100, CP 995, About three feet away. 995 can lock in if there is not a lot to confuse it.
http://www.pbase.com/image/2129100/large
http://www.pbase.com/image/2129100/large
Ken Leonard
Veteran Member
Sorry, here are the particulars:
auto mode
shutter speed: 1/184 second
aperture: f4.4
focal length 7.10 mm
auto mode
shutter speed: 1/184 second
aperture: f4.4
focal length 7.10 mm
I was asked to submit the following photo I took this weekend in
Oxnard, CA as an example of good dof. The truth is I made no
concious effort to optimize dof in this photo as it was taken in
full auto mode. I did however take the object (the 1896 Queen Ann
home) from the perspective of some flower pots in the forground.
Ken
Bern Caughey
Senior Member
I did not mean to imply thet you haven't used or understand large format techniques.
But if this is intended to be a "101" class you need to get the basics correct. Saying that tilting the lens increases the depth-of-field is not correct. If you had written something along the lines of "cheating" or "fooling" the depth of field, then I would not have felt compelled to ellaborate.
We are all aware how carefully we need to word statements of fact in these forum.
I was also surprised to find no mention of the "circle of confusion". It is a very important basic concept that is part of understanding depth of field.
I salute your efforts in this ongoing project.
I do have one question. Why did you choose the Nikon Forum for this series of posts? Are you trying to limit it's participants to a workable number? Otherwise I would consider the "Open Talk" forum, where more people could learn from your method.
But if this is intended to be a "101" class you need to get the basics correct. Saying that tilting the lens increases the depth-of-field is not correct. If you had written something along the lines of "cheating" or "fooling" the depth of field, then I would not have felt compelled to ellaborate.
We are all aware how carefully we need to word statements of fact in these forum.
I was also surprised to find no mention of the "circle of confusion". It is a very important basic concept that is part of understanding depth of field.
I salute your efforts in this ongoing project.
I do have one question. Why did you choose the Nikon Forum for this series of posts? Are you trying to limit it's participants to a workable number? Otherwise I would consider the "Open Talk" forum, where more people could learn from your method.
Depth of field looks great to me. Very nice photo.auto mode
shutter speed: 1/184 second
aperture: f4.4
focal length 7.10 mm
I was asked to submit the following photo I took this weekend in
Oxnard, CA as an example of good dof. The truth is I made no
concious effort to optimize dof in this photo as it was taken in
full auto mode. I did however take the object (the 1896 Queen Ann
home) from the perspective of some flower pots in the forground.
Muriel Sulli
--
Muriel Sulli
Please re-read my original post carefully. You will find the leading statement to be: "Camera angle? Yep! You can "fool" your 35mm or DC into thinking it's a view camera! " In the interest of keeping things simple, sometimes you have to let go of details.
I didn't start this thread, just participate in it. We are mostly Nikon users here and I feel there is merit to keeping these discussions here. Nikon CP's share features that differ from those of other makers. While the principles of photography apply equally in general, it makes sense to me to keep things close to home, as it were, and deal with how to get the most out of our Nikons.
I didn't start this thread, just participate in it. We are mostly Nikon users here and I feel there is merit to keeping these discussions here. Nikon CP's share features that differ from those of other makers. While the principles of photography apply equally in general, it makes sense to me to keep things close to home, as it were, and deal with how to get the most out of our Nikons.
Jarrell Conley
Forum Pro
Baywing is correct in trying to keep it simple for that was the original idea. Circle of Confusion gets into how far the plane of focus can be shifted without going out of focus or unsharp, a physical attribute that happens inside the camera and while it is related to out of focus areas in pictures, it may be unnecessary to muddy the water in a 101 type discussion.
Jarrell
Jarrell Conley
Jarrell
--
Jarrell Conley
Icarusfree
Forum Enthusiast
MDTrout and friends:
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU for this wonderful initiative. I have read with great interest this post and I am looking forward for new topics, as well as practical exercises we novice can do on a weekly basis to complement our learning.
Being a complete novice in photography, who recently got a CP 995 the learnings I had from this forum are invaluable! I encourage you to keep helping us and generously sharing your knowledge. By explaining complex physics and optics concepts in simple way you are the best teachers one may want. (BTW, I think sometimes a little of the theory is great to fully understand the concept).
Please keep posting, sharing knowledge and expanding this forum!!! Thank you again.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU for this wonderful initiative. I have read with great interest this post and I am looking forward for new topics, as well as practical exercises we novice can do on a weekly basis to complement our learning.
Being a complete novice in photography, who recently got a CP 995 the learnings I had from this forum are invaluable! I encourage you to keep helping us and generously sharing your knowledge. By explaining complex physics and optics concepts in simple way you are the best teachers one may want. (BTW, I think sometimes a little of the theory is great to fully understand the concept).
Please keep posting, sharing knowledge and expanding this forum!!! Thank you again.
GLB
Leading Member
--auto mode
shutter speed: 1/184 second
aperture: f4.4
focal length 7.10 mm
--Why didn't you stop down more unless you weren't using a tripod? Depth of field is great for f4.4 ... Troutman 101 has me curious about every shot for DOF. Fantastic shot and no parallel correction needed.I was asked to submit the following photo I took this weekend in
Oxnard, CA as an example of good dof. The truth is I made no
concious effort to optimize dof in this photo as it was taken in
full auto mode. I did however take the object (the 1896 Queen Ann
home) from the perspective of some flower pots in the forground.
Ken
George L
ISOMatrix
Senior Member
Here is hopefully another example of breaking the rules. Though there is nothing special with these images, I hope they do illustrate MDTrouts point of using digital processing techniques to break the boundaries of Depth of Field physics.
Here is the original image shot at f5 1/241 7.7mm. Although I had enough available shutter to have opened up the aperture for more shallow a depth of field........I didn't...lol.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following image has less depth of field and hopefully draws attention to the glove a bit more. I did this digitally in photoshop.
The reduced depth of field was done using a gaussian blur. I first duplicated the original layer (making sure it was the top layer.) I then selected the glove w/ the Magnetic Lasso, then inverted the selection so that everything EXCEPT the glove was selected.
I DID NOT APPLY A GAUSSIAN BLUR AT THIS POINT HOWEVER! I then created a layer mask and used a linear gradient to make a gradual fade so that the top layer faded from the fence to close to the glove (100% to 0% opacity). Only then did I try various amounts of gaussian blur. By doing this I had hoped to create a natural blurring effect that was most severe at the distant objects of the photo and fading to no blur at the central subject (glove). I then tried to finish things off by manually using the blur tool to try to eliminate the "hard edge" of the blurred/non-blurred border.
Although clearly I could've done a better job w/ the faded blur effect, at least I hope it helps to illustrate a possible technique to achieve more natural looking Digital Depth of Field adjustments.
-cp5000, om2n
Here is the original image shot at f5 1/241 7.7mm. Although I had enough available shutter to have opened up the aperture for more shallow a depth of field........I didn't...lol.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following image has less depth of field and hopefully draws attention to the glove a bit more. I did this digitally in photoshop.
The reduced depth of field was done using a gaussian blur. I first duplicated the original layer (making sure it was the top layer.) I then selected the glove w/ the Magnetic Lasso, then inverted the selection so that everything EXCEPT the glove was selected.
I DID NOT APPLY A GAUSSIAN BLUR AT THIS POINT HOWEVER! I then created a layer mask and used a linear gradient to make a gradual fade so that the top layer faded from the fence to close to the glove (100% to 0% opacity). Only then did I try various amounts of gaussian blur. By doing this I had hoped to create a natural blurring effect that was most severe at the distant objects of the photo and fading to no blur at the central subject (glove). I then tried to finish things off by manually using the blur tool to try to eliminate the "hard edge" of the blurred/non-blurred border.
Although clearly I could've done a better job w/ the faded blur effect, at least I hope it helps to illustrate a possible technique to achieve more natural looking Digital Depth of Field adjustments.
-cp5000, om2n
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum