Reading mode: Light Dark

How to get a shallow depth-of-field (DOF)?

Go to last post
C

Carmel

Active member
Messages
89
Reaction score
0
Location
Haifa, IL
Shallow depth-of-field (DOF) enables a very nice effect of sharp subject and blurry background. I understand that it is very hard to get in compact cameras. I thought that this is due to the slow lenses being used, and hoped to achieve shallow DOF with the new crop of compacts with F=2.0 (Canon S90 and S95, Pana LX3 and LX5) or even F=1.8 (TL500/EX1).

However reading the DPR review about TL500 I found that "...Its relatively small compact camera sensor means, though, that what the bright lens gains you is mainly the ability to shoot in low light, rather than any particularly great control over depth-of-field." Too bad..

My questions are:

1. Will it be possible in the near future (say 3 yrs) to get shallow DOF in compact cameras?
2. What is the best setting to get it in current compacts?
 
Carmel said:
Shallow depth-of-field (DOF) enables a very nice effect of sharp subject and blurry background. I understand that it is very hard to get in compact cameras. [snip]
2. What is the best setting to get it in current compacts?
Click to expand...
You need the maximum possible aperture (lowest f number). Set the camera to Aperture Priority (if you can) and set the f number to the minimum.

To help blur the background have as great a distance as possible between the subject and the background.
--
Chris R
 
Chris R-UK said:
Carmel said:
2. What is the best setting to get it in current compacts?
Click to expand...
You need the maximum possible aperture (lowest f number). Set the camera to Aperture Priority (if you can) and set the f number to the minimum.

To help blur the background have as great a distance as possible between the subject and the background.
Click to expand...
..... and shoot at the longest focal length (maximum zoom) available on the camera.... which may mean moving further away from your subject.
--
Regards,
Baz

Well, I'll see your Cher, and your Streisand... and I'll raise you an Alice Babs!
 
Carmel said:
My questions are:

1. Will it be possible in the near future (say 3 yrs) to get shallow DOF in compact cameras?
Click to expand...
Compact camera means the smallest useable sensor. Smallest useable sensor means that the mm focal length of the camera is like 6mm actual optical focal length. 6mm actual optical focal length will NOT give you shallow DOF. If you ever fit a big sensor into the camera so that you can fit a real 50mm lens, then it is no longer a compact camera.
Carmel said:
2. What is the best setting to get it in current compacts?
Click to expand...
smallest f/no and longest mm focal length. Even then, for compacts, you might not get the shallow DOF unless you are taking a photo of a flower close up

--



Ananda
http://anandasim.blogspot.com

'There are a whole range of greys and colours - from
the photographer who shoots everything in iA / green
AUTO to the one who shoots Manual Everything. There
is no right or wrong - there are just instances of
individuality and individual choice.'
 
AnandaSim said:
If you ever fit a big sensor into the camera so that you can fit a real 50mm lens, then it is no longer a compact camera.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't think so, because that's just how you define 'compact'. If you take the new Pany, Sony and Oly ILS systems, and put a nice pancake 25mm on that (equals about 50mm on a fullframe), you have a VERY portable system that could easily pass as 'compact'. Sure, If you're fitting it with a 70-300 zoom lens, it's a different story.
 
Barrie Davis said:
Chris R-UK said:
Carmel said:
2. What is the best setting to get it in current compacts?
Click to expand...
You need the maximum possible aperture (lowest f number). Set the camera to Aperture Priority (if you can) and set the f number to the minimum.

To help blur the background have as great a distance as possible between the subject and the background.
Click to expand...
..... and shoot at the longest focal length (maximum zoom) available on the camera.... which may mean moving further away from your subject.
Click to expand...
No, that one won't work, or rather is only indirectly beneficial. For any given subject framing and f number, depth of field is the same regardless of focal length. The out-of-focus objects will look different because of the different angular view and different amount of background included, but the actual depth of field will not change. In other words, changing the focal length won't buy any less of the subject being in the range of acceptable focus. But the things that are out of focus may look softer and more pleasing.

Dave
--
http://www.pbase.com/dsjtecserv
 
joey_B said:
AnandaSim said:
If you ever fit a big sensor into the camera so that you can fit a real 50mm lens, then it is no longer a compact camera.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't think so, because that's just how you define 'compact'.
Click to expand...
A compact is something that girls use to keep their face powder and applicant sponge in.
joey_B said:
If you take the new Pany, Sony and Oly ILS systems,
Click to expand...
The thinnest of these is the Sony NEX. The Sony NEX is barely a compact without lens - if you slide it into your shirt pocket or suit pants, there will be a bulge. Fitting even the pancake lens that camera would produce a bulge enough to convince a girl you're glad to see them.
joey_B said:
and put a nice pancake 25mm on that (equals about 50mm on a fullframe),
Click to expand...
The 25mm is not a 50mm lens. I said a 50mm lens because that's about when you'd get some shallow DOF for a portrait on an APS-C size sensor at say f/2.8 or f/2. A 25mm on an APS-C camera is better than a 5mm lens on a small sensor camera but it still doesn't give you dramatically shallow DOF even at f/2.8
joey_B said:
you have a VERY portable system that could easily pass as 'compact'. Sure, If you're fitting it with a 70-300 zoom lens, it's a different story.
Click to expand...
The NEX with the Sony supplied 16mm lens is a very portable system for a 24mm wide angle but in no way would I think that it is compact or light enough to shove into a shirt pocket without an obvious bulge.

--



Ananda
http://anandasim.blogspot.com

'There are a whole range of greys and colours - from
the photographer who shoots everything in iA / green
AUTO to the one who shoots Manual Everything. There
is no right or wrong - there are just instances of
individuality and individual choice.'
 
AnandaSim said:
joey_B said:
AnandaSim said:
If you ever fit a big sensor into the camera so that you can fit a real 50mm lens, then it is no longer a compact camera.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't think so, because that's just how you define 'compact'.
Click to expand...
A compact is something that girls use to keep their face powder and applicant sponge in.
Click to expand...
Hardly any space left then to fit a sensor, I suppose... :)
AnandaSim said:
AnandaSim said:
If you take the new Pany, Sony and Oly ILS systems,
Click to expand...
The thinnest of these is the Sony NEX. The Sony NEX is barely a compact without lens - if you slide it into your shirt pocket or suit pants, there will be a bulge. Fitting even the pancake lens that camera would produce a bulge enough to convince a girl you're glad to see them.
Click to expand...
My Canon Powershot definitely goes as a 'compact', and that doesn't fit in my pants pockets... Where is the border between big and small? Something that fits your pocket?
AnandaSim said:
AnandaSim said:
and put a nice pancake 25mm on that (equals about 50mm on a fullframe),
Click to expand...
The 25mm is not a 50mm lens. I said a 50mm lens because that's about when you'd get some shallow DOF for a portrait on an APS-C size sensor at say f/2.8 or f/2. A 25mm on an APS-C camera is better than a 5mm lens on a small sensor camera but it still doesn't give you dramatically shallow DOF even at f/2.8
Click to expand...
Maybe not for portraits from 5 meters away, but for closeups it surely does. See the review for Oly's 25mm 2.8 here: http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/albums/olympus-25mm-f2-8-pancake-review-samples/slideshow

Anyway, DOF mostly depends on the f-number, not the focal distance. If you use a 50mm instead of a 25mm, you have to be twice the distance away from your subject to get the same framing. Only thing that changes is the relative distance between objects, the depth of your sharp area doesn't change that much... there is a calculator on http://www.cambridgeincolour.com , try it.
AnandaSim said:
AnandaSim said:
you have a VERY portable system that could easily pass as 'compact'. Sure, If you're fitting it with a 70-300 zoom lens, it's a different story.
Click to expand...
The NEX with the Sony supplied 16mm lens is a very portable system for a 24mm wide angle but in no way would I think that it is compact or light enough to shove into a shirt pocket without an obvious bulge.
Click to expand...
But again, what compact you CAN shove into your shirt that doesn't create a bulge? Only the ones that have little chips and tiny lenses. The more high-end compacts are too bulky.

If I had to choose between high-end compact and ILS, it would be ILS all the time. low-end compact users shouldn't mind too much about DOF, that's just out of their range.
 
Greg Nut said:
Bottom line: get a DSLR with a fast (e.g. f/1.8) lens.
Click to expand...
So no free meals!.. This is clear and definitely fair.

Many thanks to all the responders. It was an interesting and very useful lesson.

BTW Does somebody know if it is possible to get the shallow-DOF effect using Photoshop Elements (or any other software for that matter)?
 
Hi

Forget the mumbo jumbo answers.

Here is what to do:
1. Zoom in a lot.
2. Put the subject really close to your camera.
3. Make sure the background is fa away from your subject.
4. Adjust your setting to an f/value with a small number.

Voilá, the background is blurred.
Compact or not. It works.

No need for fancy equipment.
Knowledge is superior to any expensive equipment.

--
5D mk2
17-40 f/4L
50 f/1,4
50 f/1,2L
24-105 IS f/4L
70-200 IS f/2,8L
70-300 IS f/4-5.6 USM
100 macro IS f/2,8L
Canon EF 2x II Extender
Canon EF 25 II Extension tube
Speedlite 580
MT-24EX
BG-E6

http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcusaxlund/
 
Carmel said:
Carmel said:
BTW Does somebody know if it is possible to get the shallow-DOF effect using Photoshop Elements (or any other software for that matter)?
Click to expand...
Of course it is possible, e.g.

http://www.adobe.com/designcenter/photoshopelements/articles/blurring/pib_pse_blurring.pdf
Click to expand...
OK, you answered your own question. That's good!
Carmel said:
Hopefully soon it will be an in-camera feature!
Click to expand...
Probably not possible. How would you tell the camera what scene elements should be blurred?

With blurring in PP, the "right" way to do it is to blur objects in background differently depending on how war they are in the distance.

--
Charlie Davis
Nikon 5700, Sony R1, Nikon D50, Nikon D300
HomePage: http://www.1derful.info

"If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."
-Samuel Adams, 1776
 
joey_B said:
Maybe not for portraits from 5 meters away, but for closeups it surely does. See the review for Oly's 25mm 2.8 here:
Click to expand...
joey_B said:
Anyway, DOF mostly depends on the f-number, not the focal distance.
Click to expand...
There is no "mostly". DOF depends on the actual optical focal length, the f/no, the distance and the CoC. We know that.
joey_B said:
But again, what compact you CAN shove into your shirt that doesn't create a bulge? Only the ones that have little chips and tiny lenses. The more high-end compacts are too bulky.
Click to expand...
Yes
joey_B said:
If I had to choose between high-end compact and ILS, it would be ILS all the time. low-end compact users shouldn't mind too much about DOF, that's just out of their range.
Click to expand...
Yes. That was what I interpreted the OP was asking.

BTW, thin compacts don't have to be low end. For example
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Sony/sony_dsctx5.asp
is not exactly cheap

--



Ananda
http://anandasim.blogspot.com

'There are a whole range of greys and colours - from
the photographer who shoots everything in iA / green
AUTO to the one who shoots Manual Everything. There
is no right or wrong - there are just instances of
individuality and individual choice.'
 
dsjtecserv said:
No, that one won't work, or rather is only indirectly beneficial. For any given subject framing and f number, depth of field is the same regardless of focal length. The out-of-focus objects will look different because of the different angular view and different amount of background included, but the actual depth of field will not change. In other words, changing the focal length won't buy any less of the subject being in the range of acceptable focus. But the things that are out of focus may look softer and more pleasing.
Click to expand...
Since it "maximised blur" in the out of focus zones that people mean when they talk about getting "shallowest Depth of Field"... it is not wrong to advise their
separating the background with distance and using a long lens from further away.

Doing so magnifies the background relative to a constant subject size, and the apparent blur of any zones outside DoF gets magnified along with it.

In other words, it DOES work to the best degree possible, even if nothing works to blur backgrounds very much when small sensor cameras are in use.
--
Regards,
Baz

Well, I'll see your Cher, and your Streisand... and I'll raise you an Alice Babs!
 
chuxter said:
Carmel said:
chuxter said:
BTW Does somebody know if it is possible to get the shallow-DOF effect using Photoshop Elements (or any other software for that matter)?
Click to expand...
Of course it is possible, e.g.

http://www.adobe.com/designcenter/photoshopelements/articles/blurring/pib_pse_blurring.pdf
Click to expand...
OK, you answered your own question. That's good!
chuxter said:
Hopefully soon it will be an in-camera feature!
Click to expand...
Probably not possible. How would you tell the camera what scene elements should be blurred?
Click to expand...
Trivia warning!

I think one camera is already enhancing out of focus image areas by making them MORE out of focus.... presumably it does this by identifying which zones are sharp and which are not.

Considering that AF systems do that already, it's not a huge leap, I'm thinking... any more than are the internal algorithms identifying edges for sharpening, that similarly leave plain tones alone.

Selective processing of different image zones is the coming thing, it seems.

Sorry, Chas. This time I cannot recall which camera it was offered shallower apparent DoF as a "scene" option, but it was a pretty recent compact model. If it comes to me, I'll get back here.
--
Regards,
Baz

Well, I'll see your Cher, and your Streisand... and I'll raise you an Alice Babs!
 
Barrie Davis said:
chuxter said:
Carmel said:
Barrie Davis said:
BTW Does somebody know if it is possible to get the shallow-DOF effect using Photoshop Elements (or any other software for that matter)?
Click to expand...
Of course it is possible, e.g.

http://www.adobe.com/designcenter/photoshopelements/articles/blurring/pib_pse_blurring.pdf
Click to expand...
OK, you answered your own question. That's good!
Barrie Davis said:
Hopefully soon it will be an in-camera feature!
Click to expand...
Probably not possible. How would you tell the camera what scene elements should be blurred?
Click to expand...
Trivia warning!

I think one camera is already enhancing out of focus image areas by making them MORE out of focus.... presumably it does this by identifying which zones are sharp and which are not.

Considering that AF systems do that already, it's not a huge leap, I'm thinking... any more than are the internal algorithms identifying edges for sharpening, that similarly leave plain tones alone.

Selective processing of different image zones is the coming thing, it seems.

Sorry, Chas. This time I cannot recall which camera it was offered shallower apparent DoF as a "scene" option, but it was a pretty recent compact model. If it comes to me, I'll get back here.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'd like to know which one and check to see how decent a job it does. Thanks for the "trivia"...

--
Charlie Davis
Nikon 5700, Sony R1, Nikon D50, Nikon D300
HomePage: http://www.1derful.info

"If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."
-Samuel Adams, 1776
 
Barrie Davis said:
dsjtecserv said:
No, that one won't work, or rather is only indirectly beneficial. For any given subject framing and f number, depth of field is the same regardless of focal length. The out-of-focus objects will look different because of the different angular view and different amount of background included, but the actual depth of field will not change. In other words, changing the focal length won't buy any less of the subject being in the range of acceptable focus. But the things that are out of focus may look softer and more pleasing.
Click to expand...
Since it "maximised blur" in the out of focus zones that people mean when they talk about getting "shallowest Depth of Field"... it is not wrong to advise their
separating the background with distance and using a long lens from further away.

Doing so magnifies the background relative to a constant subject size, and the apparent blur of any zones outside DoF gets magnified along with it.

In other words, it DOES work to the best degree possible, even if nothing works to blur backgrounds very much when small sensor cameras are in use.
--
Click to expand...
Well, I'm not sure that "maximized blur" should be equated with "shallowest depth of field" whether people think that's what they want or not! I agree that there is value in using that factor in order to optimize the aesthetic quality of that which is truly out of focus, so it was certainly worth pointing out. I would just suggest putting it in the context of the apparent quality of the background blur, rather than actually accomplishing reduced DoF.

Even where beginners don't fully understand the question they are asking -- or its implications -- I think its a good idea to not perpetuate a misapprehension, even for the sake of simplicity. You and the other regulars in this forum do a great job of explaining things, but this one stood out as one that could possibly be misleading without further explanation.

Dave
--
http://www.pbase.com/dsjtecserv
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top