Playing around with depth of field and I think I finally get it?

Started 4 months ago | Discussions
jlina
jlina Senior Member • Posts: 1,771
Re: Playing around with depth of field and I think I finally get it?

I think you did an amazing job I'm impressed! it puts my first attempt on here with depth of field to shame! A doll and a horse never could get that horse in focus! but I learned a lot of terminology and that it couldn't basically be done

Glad you're here and keep posting photos! Especially creative ones I love looking at those, I don't know if you watch the video but he does lighting through colanders for some special effects and also a couple of different white balance diffusers. Stuff like that makes it so much fun!

Take care,

Jacqueline

-- hide signature --

jlina

LillyRoseAvalos
OP LillyRoseAvalos Forum Member • Posts: 67
Re: Playing around with depth of field and I think I finally get it?
1

I discovered that when you use a really low F stop and really blur the image you can make images that look a bit like paintings. I cant quite put my finger on it but I really like the way it looks. It has a kind of painterly quality to it.

After tweaking contrast in post

-- hide signature --

Live in the sunshine where you belong

 LillyRoseAvalos's gear list:LillyRoseAvalos's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ70 Panasonic FZ80/FZ82 Sony a6000 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Canon EOS M100 +1 more
Mark Scott Abeln
Mark Scott Abeln Forum Pro • Posts: 16,745
Re: Playing around with depth of field and I think I finally get it?

LillyRoseAvalos wrote:

I discovered that when you use a really low F stop and really blur the image you can make images that look a bit like paintings. I cant quite put my finger on it but I really like the way it looks. It has a kind of painterly quality to it.

Congratulations! You discovered bokeh, or the quality of out-of-focus blur!

Different models of lenses have different out-of-focus blur renderings, and really good ones tend to command a good price.

The blur in front of the point of focus is often different from the blur behind the point of focus, so that might be worth investigating.

 Mark Scott Abeln's gear list:Mark Scott Abeln's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D7000 Nikon D750 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF Nikkor 28mm f/2.8D +4 more
LillyRoseAvalos
OP LillyRoseAvalos Forum Member • Posts: 67
Re: Playing around with depth of field and I think I finally get it?

I compared my 2000d using the Canon Ef s 24mm with the m100 using the Canon ef m 22. The 24mm stops at 2.8 while the 22 goes down to 2.0 so for posterity I took photos using both 2.8 and 2.0 with the 22. The circles are different and there are tiny holes in the circles on the 2000d. I took a second photo but the holes are still there.. what are they? Oh and I just noticed at 2.8 the circles are taking on a hectogon shape on the m100.

It looks like 24 has more blur at 2.8 compared to the 22 at 2.8 is that because of the focal length difference?

-- hide signature --

Live in the sunshine where you belong

 LillyRoseAvalos's gear list:LillyRoseAvalos's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ70 Panasonic FZ80/FZ82 Sony a6000 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Canon EOS M100 +1 more
bclaff Forum Pro • Posts: 11,527
Re: Playing around with depth of field and I think I finally get it?

LillyRoseAvalos wrote:

I compared my 2000d using the Canon Ef s 24mm with the m100 using the Canon ef m 22. The 24mm stops at 2.8 while the 22 goes down to 2.0 so for posterity I took photos using both 2.8 and 2.0 with the 22. The circles are different and there are tiny holes in the circles on the 2000d. I took a second photo but the holes are still there.. what are they? Oh and I just noticed at 2.8 the circles are taking on a hectogon shape on the m100.

It looks like 24 has more blur at 2.8 compared to the 22 at 2.8 is that because of the focal length difference?

You may find this interesting Optics Primer - Bokeh Ball Diameter

Don't agonize over the math.

-- hide signature --

Bill ( Your trusted source for independent sensor data at PhotonsToPhotos )

bclaff Forum Pro • Posts: 11,527
Re: Playing around with depth of field and I think I finally get it?

FWIW, the design of those lenses is quite similar

Canon EF-M22mm f2 STM

Canon EF-S24mm f2.8 STM

Note that the rear element on both is aspherical and that can show as 'onion rings" on close examination of wide open bokeh.

The links take you to the PhotonsToPhotos Optical Bench where you can play with them further.

-- hide signature --

Bill ( Your trusted source for independent sensor data at PhotonsToPhotos )

LillyRoseAvalos
OP LillyRoseAvalos Forum Member • Posts: 67
Re: Playing around with depth of field and I think I finally get it?

Wow that's so cool seeing what the lenses look like inside I might attempt to decipher that link later afraid its all a bit over my head! Me and math don't mix! Love figuring out how things work though

-- hide signature --

Live in the sunshine where you belong

 LillyRoseAvalos's gear list:LillyRoseAvalos's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ70 Panasonic FZ80/FZ82 Sony a6000 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Canon EOS M100 +1 more
LillyRoseAvalos
OP LillyRoseAvalos Forum Member • Posts: 67
Re: Playing around with depth of field and I think I finally get it?
-- hide signature --

Looks like something under a microscope

 LillyRoseAvalos's gear list:LillyRoseAvalos's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ70 Panasonic FZ80/FZ82 Sony a6000 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Canon EOS M100 +1 more
tedolf
tedolf Forum Pro • Posts: 28,295
Respectfully....
3

Lilly, I am going to try to say this as respectfully as I can without getting this thread locked. I have read the responses but refrained from commenting until now as I wanted to see how things played out. As expected, you got some correct answers, some completely wrong answers and some confusing answers. This is what I have to add:

Photography is both a science and an art. The art of photography deals with composition, lighting, posing and timing (although some would argue that there is a science to those things as well). Things like exposure, focus, perspective distortion and depth of field are science, and many excellent articles and books have been written about them which have been proofread and edited by experts. The experiment you did to discover how "bokeh" works has been done a million times and with props better than yours.

Here is my suggestion: instead of spending hours trying to figure out how a scientific aspect of photography works, or coming here to the peanut gallery and getting conflicting answers why not read a book written by acknowledged experts recognized for their skill in teaching photography? What you struggled with in understanding depth of field you could have learned in looking at two pages of photo's and diagrams in probably five minutes. And you would have been positive that what you learned was correct.

I can't think of any better text on all aspects of interchangeable lens photography than Kodak's Guide to 35mm Photography:

https://www.amazon.com/Kodak-Guide-35mm-Photography-Techniques/dp/087985801X

Although written in the age of film, all of the basics are exactly the same. Just replace "ASA" with "ISO" and everything is correct.

Tedolph

 tedolf's gear list:tedolf's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 II R Samyang 7.5mm F3.5 Fisheye +9 more
bclaff Forum Pro • Posts: 11,527
Re: Respectfully....

tedolf wrote:

Lilly, I am going to try to say this as respectfully as I can without getting this thread locked. ... The experiment you did to discover how "bokeh" works has been done a million times and with props better than yours.

Here is my suggestion: instead of spending hours trying to figure out how a scientific aspect of photography works, or coming here to the peanut gallery and getting conflicting answers why not read a book written by acknowledged experts recognized for their skill in teaching photography? ...

On The Other Hand (OTOH) I applaud any effort that someone makes to learn by doing things hands on. So I think that's great but if more theory is desired then it should go hand-in-hand with good reference material. FWIW, sometimes the experts get it wrong.

Regards

-- hide signature --

Bill ( Your trusted source for independent sensor data at PhotonsToPhotos )

Bob
Bob Senior Member • Posts: 2,799
Re: Respectfully....

Very well written response.

LillyRoseAvalos
OP LillyRoseAvalos Forum Member • Posts: 67
Re: Playing around with depth of field and I think I finally get it?
3

Oh no me who has never read a single book in her life Just to add there are probably a hundred a thousand subjects topics that has been discussed on this website on this forum repeatedly and hey on the internet as a whole. If I can be philosophical for a moment that's life. Its cyclical and I very much doubt that this habit only belongs to the newbies. Yes we can chase after anything that remotely resembles repetition but what is the point? If this repetition annoys you I think partly its because you misunderstood what this thread is about. I have read plenty of articles on depth of field and I enjoyed reading every one of them but only by experimenting did I feel that I truly understood how it works.

I think this is true for a lot of people and not just for photography. Now Yes I could just give up on life and just read up on everything forget experiments and just do what the experts say but what if I told you I don't want to? I want to live my life as if it was new. I don't want a game plan.

I was so floored at the moment that I was in control I was in control of my camera look at what I did mom! that I made a thread on dpreview. I'm very sorry if this offends you. Hopefully this response will be adequate because I don't want to quarrel with you. I have two types of interest in cameras one is photography one is technical I like knowing how the camera works basically. This is it not perfectly in balance I admit I sometimes see the forest for the trees.

And I also want to say that I don't share your opinion about this thread contributors.

I have nothing but respect and kindness towards them. They been very helpful  and have been nice enough to view my pictures and if I had never posted my bad examples I would never have met them.

Anyway

Prior to reading this thread so I forced myself out into the morning cold. Here are couple photos I took on my short adventure outside

My first attempt was this flower thingy I didn't get it in focus though I thought if I manually focused on the ice the whole thing would be in focus. its probably cause I was shooting at 2.0.

On my way back I took revenge on my badly focused shot and now the sun had come up which was nice.

-- hide signature --

Live in the sunshine where you belong

 LillyRoseAvalos's gear list:LillyRoseAvalos's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ70 Panasonic FZ80/FZ82 Sony a6000 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Canon EOS M100 +1 more
tedolf
tedolf Forum Pro • Posts: 28,295
Re: Respectfully....

bclaff wrote:

tedolf wrote:

Lilly, I am going to try to say this as respectfully as I can without getting this thread locked. ... The experiment you did to discover how "bokeh" works has been done a million times and with props better than yours.

Here is my suggestion: instead of spending hours trying to figure out how a scientific aspect of photography works, or coming here to the peanut gallery and getting conflicting answers why not read a book written by acknowledged experts recognized for their skill in teaching photography? ...

On The Other Hand (OTOH) I applaud any effort that someone makes to learn by doing things hands on. So I think that's great but if more theory is desired then it should go hand-in-hand with good reference material. FWIW, sometimes the experts get it wrong.

There are efficient and effective ways to learn, and inefficient and ineffective ways to learn. I am recommending the former.

That is why we have things called schools, colleges and universities, and why the use things called "books".  We have found these things to be extremely efficient and effective.

Regards

Tedolph

 tedolf's gear list:tedolf's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 II R Samyang 7.5mm F3.5 Fisheye +9 more
bclaff Forum Pro • Posts: 11,527
Re: Respectfully....
1

tedolf wrote:

...

There are efficient and effective ways to learn, and inefficient and ineffective ways to learn. I am recommending the former.

That is why we have things called schools, colleges and universities, and why the use things called "books". We have found these things to be extremely efficient and effective.

My experience is that not everyone learns in the same way.
I think perhaps you are projected your style of learning onto others.

For example, some people must attend every lecture and take copious notes while others can skip the lectures and simply do the reading.
Some people can absorb information simply by reading prose and others are more visually oriented and benefit from a visual presentation.

Regards

-- hide signature --

Bill ( Your trusted source for independent sensor data at PhotonsToPhotos )

LillyRoseAvalos
OP LillyRoseAvalos Forum Member • Posts: 67
Re: Respectfully....
2

I am myself a very visual person that's why I struggle so much with math and  for the longest time I thought I was just stupid but I realized that math can be way way to abstract for a visual person  like me to comprehend. Saying that there is one effective method of learning is wholly inaccurate. I used to swallow books whole as a kid I loved imagining other places making up other worlds And I love love languages.

Tedolf says he don't want this thread locked but I have read the things he wrote  carefully I have  also read the comment he made after his original post. It seems pretty inflammatory to me. And frankly several of the contributions Tedolf has made to other threads falls into the same category.  Overly critical  with no constructive criticisms to be found anywhere. That is just my own observation however.

Maybe dpreview should just close the beginner section of dpreview and tell any newbie that comes here to go read a book? What topics are worthy of being discussed in the beginner section only wholly original ones? And who will we appoint the judge? Will the other sections of this forum have to follow the same stringent standards on originality?

Anyway I think what Bill says is mostly correct. For me having been able to make these experiments and share them with you all have given me a kind of insight that I would never have had otherwise. I mean I would never have stumbled upon Bills wonderful website if I didn't bore you all with my picture's   Hopefully that's all that needs to be said on this topic.  But  If Ted has more he wishes to share on this topic I respectfully suggest that he make his own thread. Have a nice Saturday everyone 

-- hide signature --

Live in the sunshine where you belong

 LillyRoseAvalos's gear list:LillyRoseAvalos's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ70 Panasonic FZ80/FZ82 Sony a6000 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Canon EOS M100 +1 more
J A C S
J A C S Forum Pro • Posts: 18,143
Re: Respectfully....
2

I am not sure what you learned with your experiments. First, you said that you cropped them and you did not say how much. Cropping changes the apparent DOF. Next, what you posted initially is near macro. Fine, if this is what you are shooting but very misleading if you want to get an idea of DOF when shooting portraits or landscapes, etc.

Learning from examples is kind of OK if those examples are well chosen but the funny thing is that choosing them well requires to know more; and then you are not learning from examples only. On the other hand, if you have rich experience, you are likely to see enough examples and hopefully you will be able to draw the right conclusions from them... This is not what you are doing here though.

LillyRoseAvalos
OP LillyRoseAvalos Forum Member • Posts: 67
Re: Respectfully....
1

First of all I did crop  a couple images  in one post but I told everyone I had cropped them and that was again in one single post. Making it out like I cropped all my photos is dishonest.

Second I reviewed them prior to cropping them me doing that slight crop didn't change the DOF in a perceptible way. So my macro shots don't give you a realistic example of depth of field in landscape photography. When did I ever say I was solely concentrated on landscape photography?

If you want the uncropped battery pictures you could just have asked me. You seem to think my experiments were poorly chosen because you had the wrong idea about them to begin with I could have given you the uncropped experiment if you wanted it and you could have told me my experiments are not representative across all types of photography much earlier. Putting all of this into one single post on page three right after I had another guy complain about how I don't read enough books makes your comment seems kind of petty.

And lastly maybe you should ask me what I want to get out of these experiments? Your confusion is wholly unwarranted. I don't bite

-- hide signature --

Live in the sunshine where you belong

 LillyRoseAvalos's gear list:LillyRoseAvalos's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ70 Panasonic FZ80/FZ82 Sony a6000 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Canon EOS M100 +1 more
J A C S
J A C S Forum Pro • Posts: 18,143
Re: Respectfully....
1

LillyRoseAvalos wrote:

First of all I did crop a couple images in one post

All of them in the OP: "Fyi these are all cropped", and I am talking about the OP.

but I told everyone I had cropped them and that was again in one single post. Making it out like I cropped all my photos is dishonest.

See above. It is dishonest to twist my words like that.

Second I reviewed them prior to cropping them me doing that slight crop didn't change the DOF in a perceptible way.

We did not know how much you cropped them and I did say that.

So my macro shots don't give you a realistic example of depth of field in landscape photography. When did I ever say I was solely concentrated on landscape photography?

Logic 101 failure. I did not say "solely". But then you did not say "solely macro" either.

If you want the uncropped battery pictures you could just have asked me. You seem to think my experiments were poorly chosen because you had the wrong idea about them to begin with I could have given you the uncropped experiment if you wanted it and you could have told me my experiments are not representative across all types of photography much earlier. Putting all of this into one single post on page three right after I had another guy complain about how I don't read enough books makes your comment seems kind of petty.

If you really want to learn something, you should lose that attitude first.

And lastly maybe you should ask me what I want to get out of these experiments?

We are on p.3 and you are still hiding it? Spill the beans!

LillyRoseAvalos
OP LillyRoseAvalos Forum Member • Posts: 67
Re: Respectfully....

"First, you said that you cropped them and you did not say how much. Cropping changes the apparent DOF. "

Anyone who reads this without going through the thread will think I cropped all my photos which is dishonest. Nowhere do you state which post you are referring to.

You never asked me how much I cropped them with. And your surprised you don't know? First of all why would I use crops of photos if the crops clearly show a change in DOF? You think I would do that?

And again you could just have asked me how much I cropped them by but instead you complain. Which says it all really. Nobody else is getting worked up over this except you. And its completely unnecessary. If it bothered you so much ask me? Instead of crying about it on page three.

To clarify. You say my macro photography does not apply to other types of photography. I have never said it does. You made that assumption. Now you picking apart one word one single word I used which is frankly just silly.

What's wrong with my attitude? You have had plenty of opportunity to ask me how much I cropped that one experiment. You have had plenty of opportunity to tell me Hey you do realize your experiments don't apply to all kinds of photography right? But instead of doing this so you drop all of this into my lap on page three. Using semantics to prop up your assumptions.

I want to finish with this just as an example of what I mean.

Here is what I wrote

"

And lastly maybe you should ask me what I want to get out of these experiments? Your confusion is wholly unwarranted. I don't bite "

You respond with only quoting " and lastly maybe you should ask me what I want to get out of these experiments"

And answer it with this

We are on p.3 and you are still hiding it? Spill the beans!

You are clearly trolling or your have no idea how to carry a constructive conversation please don't bother me anymore.

-- hide signature --

Live in the sunshine where you belong

 LillyRoseAvalos's gear list:LillyRoseAvalos's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ70 Panasonic FZ80/FZ82 Sony a6000 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Canon EOS M100 +1 more
J A C S
J A C S Forum Pro • Posts: 18,143
Re: Respectfully....
1

LillyRoseAvalos wrote:

"First, you said that you cropped them and you did not say how much. Cropping changes the apparent DOF. "

Anyone who reads this without going through the thread will think I cropped all my photos which is dishonest. Nowhere do you state which post you are referring to.

No, this is incorrect. I should have said that I was referring to your OP and you should have corrected me, fine, but calling me dishonest is over the top.

You never asked me how much I cropped them with. And your surprised you don't know? First of all why would I use crops of photos if the crops clearly show a change in DOF? You think I would do that?

I do not know, would I? I see enough people now knowing that even in the Open Forum.

And again you could just have asked me how much I cropped them by but instead you complain. Which says it all really. Nobody else is getting worked up over this except you. And its completely unnecessary. If it bothered you so much ask me? Instead of crying about it on page three.

I am not crying. Please stay civil.

To clarify. You say my macro photography does not apply to other types of photography. I have never said it does. You made that assumption.

Another formal logic mistake. I did not made the assumption that you said that. You may very well know it or not but this does not change the fact that it was not stated and it may mislead whoever reads that.

Now you picking apart one word one single word I used which is frankly just silly.

What's wrong with my attitude? You have had plenty of opportunity to ask me how much I cropped that one experiment. You have had plenty of opportunity to tell me Hey you do realize your experiments don't apply to all kinds of photography right?

Well, this is what I did, but in a more polite way...

But instead of doing this so you drop all of this into my lap on page three. Using semantics to prop up your assumptions.

I do not understand your frustration. You could just say that you were aware of all that and move along. Why all the anger?

BTW, what did (you think) you learn from all that?

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads