Deep vs. shallow DOF

[Veijo Vilva]

There has been quite a lot of talk about the "excessive" DOF of most digital cameras. In my view a shallow DOF is a fault made virtue, i.e. a limitation of the lens used creatively. However, a shallow DOF makes certain kinds of picture compositions impossible, and always some information is irrevocably lost in the blur. A deep DOF imposes no limitations as you can compose your picture the way you like AND afterwards remove the information you don't want to retain in the picture.It is quite simple to simulate a shallow DOF using e.g. PS or Gimp. Here is a quick example where I didn't bother to remove the hint of smearing from below the neck of the foal. On the left the original, on the right the simulated shallow DOF:



Below are two pictures which would have been impossible with a shallower DOF. In the first one, you can shift your eyes from the floor via the altar to the top of the vault, and see things as you would in reality. In the second one, you wouldn't be able to have both the iron grating and the far end of the cathedral in focus, the picture wouldn't allow you to see the whole.





Both pics were taken at f/2.8, the first one at 1/25s, the second one at 1/6s.

Finally a test photo where the DOF of the 505 was inadequate as I would have liked to have more of the ambient if focus, at least the person on the left and the carvins on the wall on the right. Even the chair behind the bowl is out of focus. The camera is setting limits on what I can express (of course, here I wasn't trying to express anything, I was just testing).



--Veijo

 

[Ulysses]

Big V -

Your viewpoint and research are always a breath of fresh air. I don't know if I've ever thanked you for your DOF charts and tables.

Your comments remind me that often it is not the camera that is the delimiting factor; it is the mind and our usage many times. Confining ourselves to the "rules" simply because others impose them is oftentimes stifling to creativity.

 

[Dave fnjbliil]

While I agree that shallow DOF can be "created" it is not a very covenient way of achieving the desired results and can introduce into the image it's own set of problems. Fine hair being one of them in that masking them off is difficult to impossible. Also most if not all digicams produce "haloing" around subjects to create sharpness and this in turn if part of the blurred area can look like the subject is glowing.

Having said that I have done quite a bit of this and have started to achieve good results thru trial and error of different techniques. It also works best on simpler subjects (easier to mask off)

 

[Ulysses]

While I agree that shallow DOF can be "created" it is not a very
covenient way of achieving the desired results and can introduce
into the image it's own set of problems. Fine hair being one of
them in that masking them off is difficult to impossible. Also most
if not all digicams produce "haloing" around subjects to create
sharpness and this in turn if part of the blurred area can look
like the subject is glowing.

Having said that I have done quite a bit of this and have started
to achieve good results thru trial and error of different
techniques. It also works best on simpler subjects (easier to mask
off)

I think that his point may have been not that we should always resort to PS to obtain a shallow DOF, but rather that having a long DOF is not necessarily a handicap. It's taken for granted that shallow DOF such as achieved in 35mm cameras is the only way to express an image creatively.

 

[Dave fnjbliil]

I think that his point may have been not that we should always
resort to PS to obtain a shallow DOF, but rather that having a long
DOF is not necessarily a handicap.

I agree. I do a lot of work in my digital darkroom to achieve the desired effects but you know as well as i do it's not always as simple as a few clicks to get the picture you want.

It's taken for granted that
shallow DOF such as achieved in 35mm cameras is the only way to
express an image creatively.

No, it's only a traditional way to express creatively. I think it's great that we have available a variety of means to achieve the final look we want. I think it's great that digicams have such a long DOF in that it does allow us to have more info. than what may be needed in the final result and that it allows us to control the final composition. Let's just not make it sound simpler than it is to achieve the end results.

Dave

 

[Ulysses]

I agree. I do a lot of work in my digital darkroom to achieve the
desired effects but you know as well as i do it's not always as
simple as a few clicks to get the picture you want.

No, it's not. That's why guys like you and me get paid the big bucks.

If it were "click-clickety-click-click... I'm done!!", then I'd be in trouble!

Let's just not make it sound simpler than it is to achieve the end results.

Nope, if you know anything about me, then you also know that my posts are almost never meant to imply that's it's all simple.

But we digress.

I "simply" like the point that Veijo makes about the ability to express with long DOF, making it as valid as a shallow DOF.

We're not in disagreement at all. And I didn't mean to sound argumentative.

Text.... hate it sometimes. I wish you could just read my brain waves.

And finally: I need a broadband connection!!!!!!

 

[Pondria]

... In my view a shallow DOF is a fault made
virtue, i.e. a limitation of the lens used creatively.

This is a great one ! I'll remember it for long. Thank you !

 

[Dave fnjbliil]

I agree. I do a lot of work in my digital darkroom to achieve the
desired effects but you know as well as i do it's not always as
simple as a few clicks to get the picture you want.

No, it's not. That's why guys like you and me get paid the big
bucks.

If it were "click-clickety-click-click... I'm done!!", then I'd be
in trouble!

It makes me laugh when I watch TV shows or movies that shows someone click on a part of a picture and the whole thing comes into complete focus or it automatically maskes off an entire region with no effort.

Let's just not make it sound simpler than it is to achieve the end results.

Nope, if you know anything about me, then you also know that my
posts are almost never meant to imply that's it's all simple.

But we digress.

I "simply" like the point that Veijo makes about the ability to
express with long DOF, making it as valid as a shallow DOF.

I didn't mean to imply you were implying that the process is simple I thought the wording that Veijo used could be taken that way.

We're not in disagreement at all. And I didn't mean to sound
argumentative.

Hey it's people such as yourself, Andreas and Pondria that have inspired me to start posting. I enjoy debates and even some arguements as long as people don't take up a personal vendetta which is something I've never seen you guys engage in doing.

Text.... hate it sometimes. I wish you could just read my brain
waves.

Me too.

And finally: I need a broadband connection!!!!!!

Ya, I just looove my broadband. Someday your area will grow up.

Dave

 

[Travis]

Hi, thanks for the great post!

What you have clearly demonstrated is that digicams and 35 mm film camera's both have their uniqueness in terms of DOF. Depending on your desired end result, one type of camera may produce the desired depth of field easier than the other. For example, portrait photographers may find it easier to blur the background with a film camera. As you have demonstrated, however, the effect can be duplicated in photo editing with a digicam.

On the flip side, a digicam has no problem keeping a relatively large depth of field in many shooting circumstances. It's much easier to blur the areas you don't want detailed than it is to recover detail that was blurred in the original photograph (in my experience anyway). Applying a filter to blurred parts of a photo can have very mixed results and is usually only effective for slightly blurred details. But applying a filter to in-focus parts of a photo can easily emulate the shallow DOF that you see with film camera's. I've done this in PS Elements for some of my portrait work. Reducing depth of field in the background draws your eye toward the person in the photo. And although it takes more than a few clicks, I find that in general it really isn't that much work...

Travis

 

[Veijo Vilva]

Let's just not make it sound simpler than it is to achieve the end results.> > > > Nope, if you know anything about me, then you also know that my> > posts are almost never meant to imply that's it's all simple.> > > > But we digress.> > > > I "simply" like the point that Veijo makes about the ability to> > express with long DOF, making it as valid as a shallow DOF. > > I didn't mean to imply you were implying that the process is simple> I thought the wording that Veijo used could be taken that way.

Sorry about the wording. Well, the process is simple, in principle, but tends to get rather involved and quite labourous if you want good results. Hairs are almost impossible, but working pixel by pixel at 16x magnification...

Of course, you can do other things besides manipulating the apparent DOF, c.f. a further development of my example:



Veijo

 

[Ulysses]

Ya, I just looove my broadband. Someday your area will grow up.

OK, now you've got me going, here.

In my family, I've always been the most technologically advanced. It's the nature of my work, and my area of interest besides. My folks are elderly, my brother only recently began a career in programming for mainframes. So I've been "the man".

Well, guess what?

My brother writes me from afar to tell me that he has a new e-mail address. What's he using? Broadband access via a cable modem.

My sister calls me up from several states away my folks to ask "is this service in our area cable, or is it DSL?" Well, how the hoo-hah should I know?? It's her service. Naturally, she e-mails me four days later to inform me that she now has a cable modem, and she and my parents new address is.....

I go to my neighbor who needs help setting up their first computer purchased in about eight years. Yep, EIGHT years. They got it for their elementary school kids. Great kids. They like Nickelodeon Channel. They want to get Nick.com online. And they need to get it the fastest that they can get it. Guess what [again]? They want to get some sort of broadband access.

Good GAWWD!!! Am I the ONLY guy in the U.S. of A. that doesn't have it yet???

This has got to be the closest thing to raw jealousy that I've ever felt. Not even someone else's camera has done this to me. And I think my head is going to explode.

But I'm under control.... really. Due to some very good economic considerations , I am on track to pick up broadband access in about a month. I'm going to hold on for a month. Until that time comes, be gentle with me. I'm a pot just waiting to boil, here.

 

[Dave fnjbliil]

Ulysses,

Now that I have picked myself up off my floor from laughing so hard I'll try to make you feel better and continue off topic as well.

Top Ten Things I hate about broadband:

10. looking at too many pitchas flying by at incredible speed makes me dizzy

9. looking at too many pitchas makes my ass hurt ( my wife stole my nice comfy chair, waa)
8. spend too much time reading too much crap because I can
7. forget to eat anything but junk food
6. forget to sleep
5. does not make me rich so I can forget about work
4. I still have to pay for it
3. It doesn't make me better looking
2. I've gained 10 lbs. since getting it
1. Get "it" less because I'm online too long

Dave

Ya, I just looove my broadband. Someday your area will grow up.

OK, now you've got me going, here.

In my family, I've always been the most technologically advanced.
It's the nature of my work, and my area of interest besides. My
folks are elderly, my brother only recently began a career in
programming for mainframes. So I've been "the man".

Well, guess what?

My brother writes me from afar to tell me that he has a new e-mail
address. What's he using? Broadband access via a cable modem.

My sister calls me up from several states away my folks to ask "is
this service in our area cable, or is it DSL?" Well, how the
hoo-hah should I know?? It's her service. Naturally, she e-mails me
four days later to inform me that she now has a cable modem, and
she and my parents new address is.....

I go to my neighbor who needs help setting up their first computer
purchased in about eight years. Yep, EIGHT years. They got it for
their elementary school kids. Great kids. They like Nickelodeon
Channel. They want to get Nick.com online. And they need to get it
the fastest that they can get it. Guess what [again]? They want to
get some sort of broadband access.

Good GAWWD!!! Am I the ONLY guy in the U.S. of A. that doesn't have
it yet???

This has got to be the closest thing to raw jealousy that I've ever
felt. Not even someone else's camera has done this to me. And I
think my head is going to explode.

But I'm under control.... really. Due to some very good economic
considerations , I am on track to pick up broadband access in about
a month. I'm going to hold on for a month. Until that time comes,
be gentle with me. I'm a pot just waiting to boil, here.

 

[TraceyS]

Good GAWWD!!! Am I the ONLY guy in the U.S. of A. that doesn't have
it yet???

If you are the only guy - i'm the only girl!

I'm seriously trying to figure out what to do in this area.... i could dump our fax line for it, but would still have to pay more a month... and then i'd have to use one of those annoying switch things.

Sigh, i'll just go to my dad's and save the $$ for MS's!!!!!!!!!

44k and loving it in CA -
Tracey

 

[Todd Meyers]

Cool deal. Just a quick note on the horse DOF simulation, you can get a better effect if you vary the amount of blur in relation to the distance. For example, apply a mask with a gradient using less effect at the bottom area of the image.

Todd

 

[Marcel-Etienne56998]

Hi Veijo,

Thanks for your wise contributions to this forum, and even more thanks for your beautiful pictures of the cathedral (I'm an art historian, and passionate about architecture, so you can guess how much I appreciated them).

BTW, could you please let me know in which church you took them? I didn't identify it (shame on me!) and I don't think you mentioned the place.
Marcel-Etienne )

There has been quite a lot of talk about the "excessive" DOF of
most digital cameras. In my view a shallow DOF is a fault made
virtue, i.e. a limitation of the lens used creatively. However, a
shallow DOF makes certain kinds of picture compositions impossible,
and always some information is irrevocably lost in the blur. A deep
DOF imposes no limitations as you can compose your picture the way
you like AND afterwards remove the information you don't want to
retain in the picture.
It is quite simple to simulate a shallow DOF using e.g. PS or Gimp.
Here is a quick example where I didn't bother to remove the hint of
smearing from below the neck of the foal. On the left the original,
on the right the simulated shallow DOF:



Below are two pictures which would have been impossible with a
shallower DOF. In the first one, you can shift your eyes from the
floor via the altar to the top of the vault, and see things as you
would in reality. In the second one, you wouldn't be able to have
both the iron grating and the far end of the cathedral in focus,
the picture wouldn't allow you to see the whole.





Both pics were taken at f/2.8, the first one at 1/25s, the second
one at 1/6s.

Finally a test photo where the DOF of the 505 was inadequate as I
would have liked to have more of the ambient if focus, at least the
person on the left and the carvins on the wall on the right. Even
the chair behind the bowl is out of focus. The camera is setting
limits on what I can express (of course, here I wasn't trying to
express anything, I was just testing).



--
Veijo

 

[Veijo Vilva]

Hi Veijo,
Thanks for your wise contributions to this forum, and even more
thanks for your beautiful pictures of the cathedral (I'm an art
historian, and passionate about architecture, so you can guess how
much I appreciated them).
BTW, could you please let me know in which church you took them? I
didn't identify it (shame on me!) and I don't think you mentioned
the place.

Hi and thanks.

The church is Turku Cathedral in Finland. The Swedish name of Turku is Åbo and the corresponding old Latin form of the name is Aboa, which I used to identify the directory containing the pics.
Veijo

 

[Veijo Vilva]

While I agree that shallow DOF can be "created" it is not a very
covenient way of achieving the desired results and can introduce
into the image it's own set of problems. Fine hair being one of
them in that masking them off is difficult to impossible. Also most
if not all digicams produce "haloing" around subjects to create
sharpness and this in turn if part of the blurred area can look
like the subject is glowing.

Here is an example of both the impossible fine hair and haloing. I didn't bother with the hair as I had to work with scaled down pictures due to insufficient memory in my home computer. The top picture is the original, and the mid picture clearly shows the halo around the foal. The easiest way to get rid of the halo is to use a different background - quite often it doesn't matter what the background is as you are blurring it, anyway. Besides, quite often you can choose a much nicer background



The masking in the pictures isn't very accurate as I just wanted to prepare a demonstration set. With a little bit more care, the last pic would be quite nice.
Veijo

 

[Veijo Vilva]

It's taken for granted that
shallow DOF such as achieved in 35mm cameras is the only way to
express an image creatively.

Here are three photos taken with my 505 at full tele, wide open, 1/6s:



In the bottom picture, there are actually two bottles in a row although this fact isn't very easily discernible in this scaled down pic. All the pics would have been quite different if taken with a 35mm camera, different pics and quite different expressions.

In my eyes, a shallow DOF picture is like a still-life abstracting from the world, while a long DOF pic is more like a 17th century painting, where everything is meticuously in focus, everything is part of the expression, and the viewer can wander around in the pictured world.
These pics may also demonstrate why I don't use a flash.
Veijo

 

[Andrew Hadik]

Awesome thread folks! Very informative and thought provoking. This is one set of posts I've really enjoyed. Cheers, Andrew

 

[arthur53821]

Gosh. I wish it were that simple. My exerience has been that making a decent mask is over 99% of the work, unless you had the foresight to shoot against a blue screen (facilitating mask by color) - in which case you would not have a distracting background you wanted to blur out.

The whole dof issue has been an eye opener since I started getting into digital photography. I've come to the opinion that 35mm became the standard not just because of a nice compromise between image quality and lens size and cost, but also because of the dof issue. With 35mm you usually have enough exposure options to choose between large or small dof. If I had a large format camera I bet I'd be stuck with very short dof, and with too many digitals I'm stuck with very long dof.

I now wish all the reviews would explicity give a focal length multiplier value.

I think that his point may have been not that we should always
resort to PS to obtain a shallow DOF, but rather that having a long
DOF is not necessarily a handicap.

I agree. I do a lot of work in my digital darkroom to achieve the
desired effects but you know as well as i do it's not always as
simple as a few clicks to get the picture you want.

It's taken for granted that
shallow DOF such as achieved in 35mm cameras is the only way to
express an image creatively.

No, it's only a traditional way to express creatively. I think it's
great that we have available a variety of means to achieve the
final look we want. I think it's great that digicams have such a
long DOF in that it does allow us to have more info. than what may
be needed in the final result and that it allows us to control the
final composition. Let's just not make it sound simpler than it is
to achieve the end results.

Dave