Depth of Field

[coppertop]

The easiest way to manipulate depth of field is through the aperature on the lense. But when I printed film photographs, I could manipulate it somewhat through the darkroom enlarger.

I use Photoshop Elements to edit my digital photos. Is there any way to manipulate depth of film through this program?

 

[HE]

What I have done to create the feel of a shallow depth of field - if that is what you are trying to do - is to use the mask tool to select the area that you want to remain sharp (play with the "feathering" for personal taste). Once you have made the selection, choose the "inverse" selection under the "Select" pull down menu. This changes the mask to select everything except the area you want sharp. Once done, apply "gaussian blur" under Filter> Blur> Gaussian Blur. Adjust the level of blur once again for personal tast. Hope this helps.

The easiest way to manipulate depth of field is through the
aperature on the lense. But when I printed film photographs, I
could manipulate it somewhat through the darkroom enlarger.

I use Photoshop Elements to edit my digital photos. Is there any
way to manipulate depth of film through this program?

--
Mark E

 

[Barrie Davis]

The easiest way to manipulate depth of field is through the
aperature on the lense.

That is a statement I don't understand. You do not usually have a free choice of aperture in any shooting situation. There is always the constraint of matching with shutter speed, light levels and ISO rating -- in order to get correct exposure. And the limit on controlled blur is always the maximum aperture size of the lens, whilst the limit on sharpness is always the minimum aperture size of the lens.

But when I printed film photographs, I could manipulate it somewhat > through the darkroom enlarger.

Huh? That's a new one on me! How did you manage to manipulate DoF with an enlarger?

I use Photoshop Elements to edit my digital photos. Is there any
way to manipulate depth of film through this program?

Yes, by careful manipulation of selective blurring. It is slow and fiddly, but the results can be excellent. Strictly speaking there is much more control than there is with the aperture of the taking lens, but it takes time, effort, and a good deal of skill, to apply it.

For the ultimate in DoF control in post processing, Photoshop CS has a special 'lens blur' filter with masses of variable controls. The results are really good -- really convincing simulations of reduced DoF with "depth maps" and everything! But again, you have to set it up right.

Regards,
Baz

P.S. I AM intrigued as to how you control Depth of Field in the enlarger. Do you use some form of double printing technique? Or selective diffusion, maybe?

 

[Aaron Bredon]

The easiest way to manipulate depth of field is through the
aperature on the lense.

But when I printed film photographs, I could manipulate it somewhat > through the darkroom enlarger.

Huh? That's a new one on me! How did you manage to manipulate DoF
with an enlarger?

I can think of one way it can be done.

With film photographs, depth of field is continuously variable - the size of the blur decides whether something is considered in or out of focus, and this blur circle is progressive from 0 at the plane of focus to the maximum in the picture.

If you enlarge a negative, and very slightly defocus the enlarger, the resulting picture will be slightly blurred. This blur will enlarge the blur circles a little - this could result in objects that would have been percieved as being barely in focus now being considered out of focus, while not seeming to blur the main subject too much.
This method would reduce the sharpness of the sharpest area, however.

 

[coppertop]

That is a statement I don't understand. You do not usually have a
free choice of aperture in any shooting situation. There is always
the constraint of matching with shutter speed, light levels and ISO
rating -- in order to get correct exposure. And the limit on
controlled blur is always the maximum aperture size of the lens,
whilst the limit on sharpness is always the minimum aperture size
of the lens.

You do have a free choice of aperature setting in any shooting situation. That freedom will be dependant on the amount of available light but you can do so by using manual settings or aperature priority setting. Want more depth of field? Use a higher aperature. Less? Use the lowest aperature.

Huh? That's a new one on me! How did you manage to manipulate DoF
with an enlarger?

One post describes on method. I have manipulated depth of field by using a using a lower aperature on the enlarger lens and a slower print time or the opposite to increase the depth of field. I've also manipulated it by dodging and burning to accent the subject matter from the background.

 

[Barrie Davis]

If you enlarge a negative, and very slightly defocus the enlarger,
the resulting picture will be slightly blurred. This blur will
enlarge the blur circles a little..

Well, actually -- no. It will have the visual effect of shrinking them slightly.

This is because an out of focus image, (or a diffused one) will spread the shadow areas into the lighter ones, instead of the other way round. This is because the enlarger is (usually) working with a negative image, and any spread light results in spread 'dark', if you understand me.

• this could result in objects

that would have been perceived as being barely in focus now being
considered out of focus, while not seeming to blur the main subject
too much.

Hmmm... My experience is that an OOF enlargement is just plain blurred!

The grain is equal all over, whether the image in the grain is sharp or not, and if that grain, which gives such a good idea of relative sharpness, is NOT sharp, it is equally unsharp all over. Nothing selective about it.

These are matters of perception, of course, but this is my experience, over many(!) years of conventional print making.

However, thanks you for your contribution, Aaron. It made me gather my thoughts on the matter.

Regards,
Baz

 

[Barrie Davis]

That is a statement I don't understand. You do not usually have a
free choice of aperture in any shooting situation. There is always
the constraint of matching with shutter speed, light levels and ISO
rating -- in order to get correct exposure. And the limit on
controlled blur is always the maximum aperture size of the lens,
whilst the limit on sharpness is always the minimum aperture size
of the lens.

You do have a free choice of aperature setting in any shooting
situation. That freedom will be dependant on the amount of
available light but you can do so by using manual settings or
aperature priority setting. Want more depth of field? Use a
higher aperature. Less? Use the lowest aperature.

Huh? That's a new one on me! How did you manage to manipulate DoF
with an enlarger?

One post describes on method. I have manipulated depth of field by
using a using a lower aperature on the enlarger lens and a slower
print time or the opposite to increase the depth of field. I've
also manipulated it by dodging and burning to accent the subject
matter from the background.

Oh dear! What a load of old rubbish! I'm sorry I got involved.
[BTW. There is only one 'a' in "aperture".]

Regards,
Baz

 

[coppertop]

Dear me?

What old rubbish are you referring to?

 

[archee]

Once you are setting f stops than you have to put the right words for them.

F 2.8 is the highest F 22 lowest.

so less F # you have, more detailed pictures you have,and longer shutter speed but colors will not be very bright. I guess these are just words anyway. Manual mode and playin and playing.

 

[WChu]

Isn't it very difficult anyway to get a shallow depth of field with nonslr digital cameras because of shortr focal length even with large aperture and zoom? I am one of the very few people that like the whole image to be clear though, at least most of the time, so not a problem to me

The easiest way to manipulate depth of field is through the
aperature on the lense. But when I printed film photographs, I
could manipulate it somewhat through the darkroom enlarger.

I use Photoshop Elements to edit my digital photos. Is there any
way to manipulate depth of film through this program?

 

[coppertop]

Yes... f stop (or apertures) do control the amount of light allowed through the lens. F 2.8 is the largest opening and F22 would be the smallest opening of the aperture ring (I imagine this is a computer gizmo on digital cameras but the functionality should be the same).

Not only does this function regulate the light, it regulates the depth of field. F 2.8 has a shorter depth of field (the area beyond the primary focal point) and F 22 has the greatest depth of field.

Now I'm no expert on the guts of a digital camera but the photographic principles should be the same. My post was seeking any advice on manipulating depth of field during the editing process and apparently raised issues with film photography that some had no clue about.

I thank HE for the constructive comments and am still scratching my head at Barrie Davis's comments (even though his spelling abilities are commendable).

Once you are setting f stops than you have to put the right words
for them.

F 2.8 is the highest F 22 lowest.

so less F # you have, more detailed pictures you have,and longer
shutter speed but colors will not be very bright. I guess these
are just words anyway. Manual mode and playin and playing.

 

[Desmond Lim]

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1024&message=8016722

The easiest way to manipulate depth of field is through the
aperature on the lense. But when I printed film photographs, I
could manipulate it somewhat through the darkroom enlarger.

I use Photoshop Elements to edit my digital photos. Is there any
way to manipulate depth of film through this program?

 

[SomedayNever]

One post describes on method. I have manipulated depth of field by
using a using a lower aperature on the enlarger lens and a slower
print time or the opposite to increase the depth of field. I've
also manipulated it by dodging and burning to accent the subject
matter from the background.

That makes absolutely no sense.

Depth of field involves an area in front and behind a focus point. When using an enlarger, you are projecting an image onto a flat surface. There is no depth. No matter how wide you open the lens, or how far you close it down, the image projected onto the paper will be the same.

You can burn and dodge, of course, but that's not changing the depth of field. You're simply lightening or darkening part of an image to affect the aesthetic aspects of it.

Some enlarger stands do allow movement, like a view camera, to control the plane of focus, but that involves physically tilting the easel. It doesn't alter depth of field, either.

And if you really want to control depth of field in a realistic manner, purchase a DSLR. A small sensor digicam isn't what you're looking for. Photoshop can mimic just about anything, but it's going to be hard to keep it from looking fake in a lot of photographs.

--
Joe

---------------
http://www.somedaynever.com
click gallery for my photographic ramblings

omaha, nebraska, usa

 

[coppertop]

you ask a simple question and it's like pulling teeth to get an answer. IYou can influence/manipulate/change (whatever term suits your fancy) depth of field in the darkroom. I was simply trying to see if you could do similar through a software package.

You may not be able to increase it but to bring attention to your focal subject you can take measures to reduce it or appear to reduce it (the dodge and burn comment).

You are projecting a three diminsional image when you print (if it weren't you we wouldn't be having a discussion about depth of field) and the depth of focus can be influenced by the enlargers aperture (happy... only one "a") setting. Done it countless times in the darkroom. It's not as effective as using the aperture (again... only one "a") on the lens but it will affect (or is it effect?) the image's depth of field to a degree.

Sure... I'd love a digital SLR and agree that a small sensor digital camera will have it's limitations. However, and I may be wrong, but I don't consider the A1 a small sensor camera.

One post describes on method. I have manipulated depth of field by
using a using a lower aperature on the enlarger lens and a slower
print time or the opposite to increase the depth of field. I've
also manipulated it by dodging and burning to accent the subject
matter from the background.

That makes absolutely no sense.

Depth of field involves an area in front and behind a focus point.
When using an enlarger, you are projecting an image onto a flat
surface. There is no depth. No matter how wide you open the lens,
or how far you close it down, the image projected onto the paper
will be the same.

You can burn and dodge, of course, but that's not changing the
depth of field. You're simply lightening or darkening part of an
image to affect the aesthetic aspects of it.

Some enlarger stands do allow movement, like a view camera, to
control the plane of focus, but that involves physically tilting
the easel. It doesn't alter depth of field, either.

And if you really want to control depth of field in a realistic
manner, purchase a DSLR. A small sensor digicam isn't what you're
looking for. Photoshop can mimic just about anything, but it's
going to be hard to keep it from looking fake in a lot of
photographs.

--
Joe

---------------
http://www.somedaynever.com
click gallery for my photographic ramblings

omaha, nebraska, usa

 

[Barrie Davis]

you ask a simple question and it's like pulling teeth to get an
answer. IYou can influence/manipulate/change (whatever term suits
your fancy) depth of field in the darkroom.

I'm afraid that is absolute nonsense. You cannot do any such thing. Please be assured of that. Any changes made with dodging and burning are nothing to do with DoF.

I was simply trying tosee if you could do similar through a software
package.

Something similar to CAMERA DoF control can be done with a software package. Indeed, in some ways it is better than camera aperture control, since there is a wider range of effects, and more control over them.

Similarly the (entirely different) dodging and burning controls of the darkroom are also re-created in software, and are available if you wish to use them. But please do not refer to them as DoF controls!

You may not be able to increase it but to bring attention to your
focal subject you can take measures to reduce it or appear to
reduce it (the dodge and burn comment).

Quite right as to dodging/burning. But, as stated, DoF is not (repeat: NOT) involved.

You are projecting a three dimensional image when you print (if it
weren't you we wouldn't be having a discussion about depth of
field).

No. That is not so. By the time you are projecting a negative onto printing paper, the object plane, that of the negative, is flat, only TWO dimensional. (That is so entirely obvious, one wonders how you can believe otherwise!).

And, with respect, it is you that is confusing matters by discussing shading and dodging as IF they were involved in DoF control.

and the depth of focus can be influenced by the enlargers
aperture (happy... only one "a") setting. Done it countless times
in the darkroom. It's not as effective as using the aperture
(again... only one "a") on the lens but it will affect (or is it
effect?) the image's depth of field to a degree.

No. That is STILL total rubbish! I do assure you. Nothing has changed since the last time you said it!

Indeed, [excepting the possible use of sophisticated double printing techniques, and the use of intermediary film positives....] there is NO WAY manipulation of the lens aperture in printing can affect the DoF in the original photograph -- nor even the APPARENT DoF in the original photograph, for that matter. If you believe there is, it is your perception that is flawed. Sorry about that -- but that's how it is.

All you can do with the enlarger's lens aperture is mask, or reveal, the lack of focusing accuracy in the enlarger. If there is no lack of focusing accuracy, (because the enlarger is correctly focused) changing the aperture makes no significant difference to the print, whatsoever.

Sure... I'd love a digital SLR and agree that a small sensor
digital camera will have it's limitations. However, and I may be
wrong, but I don't consider the A1 a small sensor camera.

The A1 has a sensor 6.6 x 8.8 mm. That is 1/16th the size of a FF 35mm frame, and by any measure, qualifies as "small". However, there is one smaller size in general use, so it certainly isn't the smallest. Please see Phil's discourse on digital formats elsewhere on this site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
coppertop,

Sorry to come down so hard on you, but there is a point at which you should refrain from stating your own misconceptions as some sort of "facts".

Furthermore, if nonsense statements are allowed to go unchallenged, we will get nowhere in the business of helping each other --- will we?]

Regards,
Baz

 

[coppertop]

coppertop,

Sorry to come down so hard on you, but there is a point at which
you should refrain from stating your own misconceptions as some
sort of "facts".
Furthermore, if nonsense statements are allowed to go unchallenged,
we will get nowhere in the business of helping each other --- will
we?]

Regards,
Baz

Thanks for the return to correct your misconceptions. As for me, I know what I was able to do in the dark room and what I wasn't. I do not see them as misconceptions but as facts that I know as true from experience.

You choose to disagree with what I have done in the past and that's fine. Just don't proclaim my experiences as nonsense or misconceptions. Such a positon shows your arrogance and inability to accept that some have done things you havent.

Oh... and last I saw, this forum wasn't adverserial (go ahead, I'm sure I misspelled it) so why do you feel as though statements must be challenged?

 

[Barrie Davis]

Thanks for the return to correct your misconceptions.

MY misconceptions!? I hope that was a typing error. ;-)

As for me, I
know what I was able to do in the dark room and what I wasn't. I
do not see them as misconceptions but as facts that I know as true
from experience.

And your photographic experience is what exactly? Please enlighten me.

Myself, I have been a professional photographer since the early months of 1963, although I was making enlarged prints in the darkroom for some years before that.

You choose to disagree with what I have done in the past and that's
fine. Just don't proclaim my experiences as nonsense or
misconceptions. Such a positon shows your arrogance and inability
to accept that some have done things you havent.

I doubt you have succeeded in actually controlling DoF with enlargement techniques, least of all by the means you described. However, I don't doubt that you THINK you have managed it!

I suggest that you are mistaken in your belief, since it runs counter to everything I know, and understand, about the processes involved.

Furthermore, since your belief seems based on a LACK of understanding, I suggest that is likely you that is wrong. If you wish to see that as an adversarial position, then I further suggest that you are more interested in the argument than in the resolution.

[I know there are some people who squabble just for the sake of it. Mostly I walk away from them. If you are one of those, then that's what I will do here.]

Concerning arrogance. Is arrogance what honesty sounds like when facts are bluntly put? Well, maybe so. Doesn't make me wrong about the facts, 'though.

Oh... and last I saw, this forum wasn't adverserial (go ahead, I'm
sure I misspelled it) so why do you feel as though statements must
be challenged?

Only challenge statements when I know they are wrong, mate! There is enough misinformation on the net without us adding to it.

(You are really peed-off about my spelling assistance, aren't you? Sorry if I hit a nerve.)

Regards,
Baz

 

[SomedayNever]

Only challenge statements when I know they are wrong, mate! There
is enough misinformation on the net without us adding to it.

(You are really peed-off about my spelling assistance, aren't you?
Sorry if I hit a nerve.)

Ditto.

I hate misinformation. It drives me crazy when people present false information as fact, especially when there are so many users of these forums that have never touched an enlarger or taken a traditional photography course to know any better.

I was thinking about getting an A1/A2 as a small street camera of sorts, so I thought I'd read what was going on in this forum. Then I read this guy's nonsense and had to say something.

--
Joe

---------------
http://www.somedaynever.com
click gallery for my photographic ramblings

omaha, nebraska, usa

 

[Barrie Davis]

I was thinking about getting an A1/A2 as a small street camera of
sorts, so I thought I'd read what was going on in this forum. Then
I read this guy's nonsense and had to say something.

--
Joe

Thanks for your support, Joe, I appreciate it.

I suspect that coppertop knows he is in error, but finds it very difficult to withdraw. Whilst having some sympathy for his position, I feel there is a kind of "duty" to any other readers of the thread to put the case accurately.

Admittedly I have been rather blunt, (the silliest propositions do tend to get the most robust of rebuttals) but I have been careful to suggest only that he is mistaken, NOT that he is stupid. After all, anyone can make a mistake.

I suppose I was also disappointed that I wasn't going to learn something new from him(?). Learning is the other reason I come here!

On the other matter...

I think the A1/A2 would make a passable street camera, if not the ideal one.

By comparison with full blown dSLRs they are not so quick-reacting for people pictures, but they are a whole lot better than the previous models of this class of cameras. I still have my D7, as backup to the A2, but I can't really do any kind of action shooting with it, unless I prefocus. The A2 is, therefore, much better for from-the-hip shots.

Regards,
Baz

 

[coppertop]

MY misconceptions!? I hope that was a typing error. ;-)

Not a typing error.

And your photographic experience is what exactly? Please enlighten me.

Myself, I have been a professional photographer since the early
months of 1963, although I was making enlarged prints in the
darkroom for some years before that.

Put my way through college shooting for local newspaper. Photographic stringer for AP, contributing photographer for college Sports Information Office, and contributing photographer college paper and yearbook. I don't date myself back to the early months of 1963 but will go back to middle months of 1984 for my photographic experience.

I doubt you have succeeded in actually controlling DoF with
enlargement techniques, least of all by the means you described.
However, I don't doubt that you THINK you have managed it!

You may doubt what you wish. I know what I know and have been able to make the most out of some of the more challenging negatives to produce printable, quality photographs. I have considerable darkroom experience with black and white photography and under deadlines have pushed the limits of development and printing. I've taken Tri-X to it's limits and then some.

Furthermore, since your belief seems based on a LACK of
understanding, I suggest that is likely you that is wrong. If you
wish to see that as an adversarial position, then I further suggest
that you are more interested in the argument than in the resolution.

I have no lack of understanding and you may suggest whatever you wish. I did not begin this post seeking an arguement, rather to seek an answer to a question about software. You sir, joined this post seeking an arguement rather than a resolution.

[I know there are some people who squabble just for the sake of it.
Mostly I walk away from them. If you are one of those, then that's
what I will do here.]

Sounds like the voice of experience.

Concerning arrogance. Is arrogance what honesty sounds like when
facts are bluntly put? Well, maybe so. Doesn't make me wrong about
the facts, 'though.

Arrogance is when you can not accept that there is a possibility beyond what you believe is right. Arrogance is discounting anothers experience as false simply because you haven't experienced it as truth.

Only challenge statements when I know they are wrong, mate! There
is enough misinformation on the net without us adding to it.

How do you know that it is wrong? Because you haven't done it or seen it done? With your vast photographic experience I am sure you've lost a lot of sleep challenging things you thought were wrong only to be proved to be the one with misconception.