DOF

[joe mama]

The shallow DOF is just another artefact of imperfect optical
systems. Sure, masters are able to create great art in spite of it,
or even use it to their advantage.

How is shallow DOF "just another artifact of imperfect optical systems"? What would a "perfect optical system" deliver?

I think it's an often-abused special effect. Useful or "sucks",
depends on what the photographer wants to capture.

In my opinion, it is less "abused" than used so that people can keep a low ISO in low light. That is, people often shoot 35mm f/1.4 ISO 400 so they won't have to shoot 35mm, f/2.8 ISO 1600 and get a more noisy image. People are more willing to trade DOF for less noise, then to use a higher ISO to get a deeper DOF, regardless of the "appropriateness" of the more shallow DOF and concomitant effects (softer edges, increased vignetting, less sharpness).

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

 

[gianstam]

joe mama wrote:
...

Thus, my question: do you believe that shallow DOF sucks, or is it
simply a different style of shooting that you may, or may not, have
an interest in?

One of reasons that I went with 4/3 is the larger DoF.

DoF (thin) is a part of photography and no one can say that it's completely unnecessary.

My (personlal and photographic) view is that the shallowed DoF just hides that photographer cannot hide (on the score of his skills or shooting conditions).

And becouse a photo width shallowed DoF is almost always impressive photograohers use it as "an end in itself".

The important thing is to avoid the fact that "the medium is the message", but I've seen many photos that present the shallowed DoF as the main and only part of their view.

 

[joe mama]

One of reasons that I went with 4/3 is the larger DoF.

But 4/3 doesn't have a larger DOF. Whatever DOF 4/3 can do, FF can do. Now, please don't misinterpret -- I'm not saying this to lord FF over 4/3. Not at all. If you don't need the advantages of FF, or the advantages of FF aren't worth the sacrifices, then don't get it. I'm just saying that whatever advantages 4/3 has over FF, deep DOF isn't one of them.

The important thing is to avoid the fact that "the medium is the
message", but I've seen many photos that present the shallowed DoF as
the main and only part of their view.

But sometimes the medium is the message. I mean, I take my fair share of "pointless pics", and sometimes it's just the look of shallow DOF that makes them interesting to me. For example, let's say someone takes a long exposure of a couple holding hands in a busy street. You see all the motion blur of all these people but the couple in sharp focus. That's another example of the medium making the message. Selective desaturation is another. I mean, there are just so many examples of when the mechanism of the shot is an integral part of the shot, that it's disingenuous to dismiss these things out of hat.

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

 

[gianstam]

One of reasons that I went with 4/3 is the larger DoF.

But 4/3 doesn't have a larger DOF. Whatever DOF 4/3 can do, FF can
do.

I mean that for some reasons I need larger DOF open wide aperture.

Now, please don't misinterpret -- I'm not saying this to lord FF
over 4/3. Not at all. If you don't need the advantages of FF, or
the advantages of FF aren't worth the sacrifices, then don't get it.

I like FF and I'd like to have a 5D and I Know that is more easy for a FF to get closer to the advandages of smaller format than the opposite. (And of course I rate the war (not the discussions) between formats just redicoulus).

I'm just saying that whatever advantages 4/3 has over FF, deep DOF
isn't one of them.

As above the "advandage" is larger DoF with open apertures

The important thing is to avoid the fact that "the medium is the
message", but I've seen many photos that present the shallowed DoF as
the main and only part of their view.

But sometimes the medium is the message. I mean, I take my fair
share of "pointless pics", and sometimes it's just the look of
shallow DOF that makes them interesting to me.

I exactly said that.

For example, let's
say someone takes a long exposure of a couple holding hands in a busy
street. You see all the motion blur of all these people but the
couple in sharp focus.

I think that this is another thing

That's another example of the medium making
the message. Selective desaturation is another. I mean, there are
just so many examples of when the mechanism of the shot is an
integral part of the shot, that it's disingenuous to dismiss these
things out of hat.

Exactly. We jaust have to Know it.
Regards

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

 

[Razor503]

Both of which have an overall negative, and even disparaging view of

shallow DOF. Comments that shallow DOF on UWA is "dumb":

Thus, my question: do you believe that shallow DOF sucks, or is it
simply a different style of shooting that you may, or may not, have
an interest in?

Sometimes you have to manufacture the DOF, other times simply selecting your background does the trick.

http://flickr.com/photos/11337445@N08/1815540306/in/set-72157602824510072?edited=1

In this instance, the mirror ball was shot at f/2.8, the backgound being a partly snow-covered evergreen tree in the background. Had the ball been a person, their eyes, nose and little else would have been in focus.

 

[Mikelis]

If you want really shallow DOF, try placing a "close-up filter" (e.g.
a 1 or a 2 diopter) on one of your fast primes (say, the 85mm or the
135mm) and see what you get!

...for use with my 24 / 1.4L, as f/1.4 on 24mm really isn't that
shallow compared to what my other lenses deliver. Perhaps it will be
"too much" (I'm sure many already think what I do is "too much"), but
I am curious.

24mm should give a "naturally" fairly deep DOF, so you'd be up against it before you start, if looking for a shallow DOF. Try about 100mm and up (the longer the FL, the shallower the DOF for any given aperture and camera position.

 

[joe mama]

But 4/3 doesn't have a larger DOF. Whatever DOF 4/3 can do, FF can
do.

I mean that for some reasons I need larger DOF open wide aperture.

This is something I hear quite often but simply cannot understand, and I'm hoping you can explain it to me. What, specifically, makes having a deeper DOF wide open more appealing? Isn't it quite the opposite? Isn't not having the option of a more shallow DOF more limiting?

I would understand it if 4/3 had a DOF range that was simply shifted up from FF, but it doesn't. The reality is that 4/3 has two stops less DOF available to it than FF, not two stops deeper DOF all the way through.

Again, don't get me wrong -- if you don't need or want those two extra stops of more shallow DOF, then no worries. But what, specifically, about having the same DOF at f/2.8 (wide open on many 4/3 lenses) on 4/3 as f/5.6 (2 stops down on many FF lenses) on FF is an advantage?

Now, please don't misinterpret -- I'm not saying this to lord FF
over 4/3. Not at all. If you don't need the advantages of FF, or
the advantages of FF aren't worth the sacrifices, then don't get it.

I like FF and I'd like to have a 5D and I Know that is more easy for
a FF to get closer to the advandages of smaller format than the
opposite. (And of course I rate the war (not the discussions) between
formats just redicoulus).

All systems have their plusses and minuses.

I'm just saying that whatever advantages 4/3 has over FF, deep DOF
isn't one of them.

As above the "advandage" is larger DoF with open apertures

I still don't get it. I mean, you use f/2.8, I use f/5.6 -- where's the advantage? Also, many 4/3 proponents like to say how their lenses are "sharp wide open". OK. But "wide open" on 4/3 is nothing like wide open on FF. Stopped down to the same DOF, FF comes out ahead. Where's the issue in stopping down?

By the way, when I say "FF comes out ahead", I am basing these comments on lens comparisons (at the same AOV and DOF) at http://www.slrgear.com and comparison images I have linked here:

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#evidence

And to make it crystal clear , I am NOT saying 4/3 sucks. I'm just saying that the evidence I've seen points to FF having higher IQ. Just because I think Jessica Alba is hotter than Jennifer Lopez doesn't mean I'm dissing Jennifer Lopez -- either will do. : )

I'm just saying that I don't get how being sharper and having more DOF at f/2.8 on 4/3 is an advantage for 4/3, when FF is at least as sharp with the same DOF at f/5.6. It would make sense to me if both we diffraction limited at the same f-ratio, but diffraction softening also comes two stops later for FF than 4/3.

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

 

[joe mama]

In this instance, the mirror ball was shot at f/2.8, the backgound
being a partly snow-covered evergreen tree in the background. Had the
ball been a person, their eyes, nose and little else would have been
in focus.

Her mom loves this pic:

Canon 5D + 100 / 2 @ f / 2, 1/200, ISO 100

http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/90371458



Too shallow? I'm sure many may think so. They aren't my target audience, just as people who have no interest in kid pics are not my target audience.

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

 

[joe mama]

24mm should give a "naturally" fairly deep DOF, so you'd be up
against it before you start, if looking for a shallow DOF. Try about
100mm and up (the longer the FL, the shallower the DOF for any given
aperture and camera position.

I know all about shallow DOF at 100mm:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=23245812

But shallow DOF with a wider perspective also interests me:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=26773972

although I'm well aware that a close-up lens will not help for those shots. Since I rarely frame so closely that a close-up lens would help, that's why I've never followed through with giving one a go.

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

 

[twonker]

I think you're being a little naughty in your selection of quotations. I thought both threads were on the whole quite well balanced.

I'm happy for your ability to shoot very narrow DOF, and I wish my system had more of that capability too for when I want to shoot in that style (though in general it has been sufficient for most of what I do).

I think the discussion was more around possibly the differences between what non-photogs and photogs look for in an image, and whether the latter are perhaps too hung up on what is just one style of many (naturally not implying that you are And of course, narrow DOF is one way to achieve an overal artistic goal, but there are other ways, e.g. selection of background and lighting are perhaps more powerful and flexible, maybe not so cliched.

When I think back to memorable photos, I find I tend not to recall them so much for their dof, as I do the subject. This sprang to my mind when looking through my family photos going back 10-50 years... the interest is in the subject, not how the photographer rendered the DOF.

So the debate was, I think, more around why someone might like, or buy a photo. And generaly, I believe, it is not so much around the artistic merits of the photo, but because the subject, the person or the landscape, has meaning for them. If it is rendered artistically, then so much the better, but that is not always the prime driver. I think we as enthusiasts, tend to overestimate the publics' interest in our craft.

So, in summary, I'd agree that control of DOF is a very nice thing to have, but it is not the only consideration in selecting a system, and many other factors, including portability, should play their part.

Alistair

--
http://www.al-pasha.com/./gallery2/main.php

http://www.flickr.com/photos/twonker/

 

[gianstam]

This is something I hear quite often but simply cannot understand,
and I'm hoping you can explain it to me. What, specifically, makes
having a deeper DOF wide open more appealing? Isn't it quite the
opposite? Isn't not having the option of a more shallow DOF more
limiting?

I would understand it if 4/3 had a DOF range that was simply shifted
up from FF, but it doesn't. The reality is that 4/3 has two stops
less DOF available to it than FF, not two stops deeper DOF all the
way through.

Again, don't get me wrong -- if you don't need or want those two
extra stops of more shallow DOF, then no worries. But what,
specifically, about having the same DOF at f/2.8 (wide open on many
4/3 lenses) on 4/3 as f/5.6 (2 stops down on many FF lenses) on FF is
an advantage?

Shooting a congress hall in low light with f4 I have a shutter speed and a DoF that covers my needs. If I go to f8 (with a FF) I have slower shutter speed that does not covers me. Of course the FF has almost 2 stop advandage at ISO, but, the price goes up too.

All systems have their plusses and minuses.

I still don't get it. I mean, you use f/2.8, I use f/5.6 -- where's
the advantage?

Only at shutter speed

Also, many 4/3 proponents like to say how their
lenses are "sharp wide open". OK. But "wide open" on 4/3 is nothing
like wide open on FF. Stopped down to the same DOF, FF comes out
ahead. Where's the issue in stopping down?

Correct. I'll never say something different

By the way, when I say "FF comes out ahead", I am basing these
comments on lens comparisons (at the same AOV and DOF) at
http://www.slrgear.com and comparison images I have linked here:

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#evidence

And to make it crystal clear , I am NOT saying 4/3 sucks.

I'm not a fanboy, so I'm not worrying. I use my gear, I know its pros and cons and I try to do my best.

I'm just saying that the evidence I've seen points to FF having higher IQ.
Just because I think Jessica Alba is hotter than Jennifer Lopez
doesn't mean I'm dissing Jennifer Lopez -- either will do. : )

BTW I can see you're very clear and with serious point of view

I'm just saying that I don't get how being sharper and having more
DOF at f/2.8 on 4/3 is an advantage for 4/3, when FF is at least as
sharp with the same DOF at f/5.6.

Correct too. Some people believes that is more easy for the manufacturers to produce a (given sharpness) cheaper lens for small sensor than a lens for FF or MF.

So, I think it's the money. It is impressive that the 14-42 kit lens for olympus is an unbelievable sharp lens and it adds100$ over the body only.

It would make sense to me if both
we diffraction limited at the same f-ratio, but diffraction softening
also comes two stops later for FF than 4/3.

Correct too. The FF lens hole (area passes the light) is 4x than 4/3 at the same aperture

Have a good day

 

[Mark Smith145430]

I've never really thought as myself as a shallow DOF person, but I must say under certain circumstances it can be a very good effect.



I use a 100mm Macro on my Canon DSLRs and a 50mm Micro Nikkor on my film cameras:



Overall I think that I've always liked the 85mm F2 and the 105mm F2.5 for portraits having a blurred B/G just accentuates the sharpness of the lens:



I think in recent years with the gravitation towards smaller sensors people have become more accustomed to maximum DOF, and front to back sharpness is pretty much accepted as reality rather like noiseless images; people want as close to real life.
I guess its the battle of the pictorialist vs the realist.
Mark

--
http://www.photo-utopia.blogspot.com/

 

[Leon Wittwer]

This is an old problem and is mentioned in classic photo texts.

The answer is to "arrange" for your subjects and/or for all the
important bits of your subject to lie in the same (focal) plane.

This is part of the photographer's craft and a sign of the master
photographer.

If you can't rearrange the people, there is another approach that might work somewhat. The total blur of the two faces is a constant for focus points between the two faces. Obviously, focusing on either would provide too much blur for the other. If you focus in between, such as on the rear person's hand on the glass, the total blur would be distributed inversely proportional to the distance to the persons. The front person would have a bit more blur but her features are a bit larger. The inverse is true for the rear person. The blur "per unit feature" size would be about the same for both. This sometimes works in these situations.
--
Leon
http://homepage.mac.com/leonwittwer/landscapes.htm

 

[Leon Wittwer]

The irony is that the very short FL lenses and the small sensor
dimenssions in P&S cameras "automatically" result in a huge depth of
field that is hard to beat using DSLRs.

I agree for the most part. Some of this, however, comes from shooting with similar settings and techniques on the DSLR that they did on the P&S. A significant amount of the differences in DoF disappear when folks learn how to actually control the DoF with a DSLR.

It appears to me that a lot of new DSLR users think that shooting with a DSLR is mostly the same as shooting with a P&S except that the images should come out a lot better. The latter is expected to be automatic. Unfortunately, both assumptions are, for the most part, incorrect.
--
Leon
http://homepage.mac.com/leonwittwer/landscapes.htm

 

[morninglight]

Thus, my question: do you believe that shallow DOF sucks, or is it
simply a different style of shooting that you may, or may not, have
an interest in?

The best DOF is the one that matches how you want the final image/print to look. Depends upon the subject, and how you want to represent it.

This decision for each of us may be influenced traditions, generally held aesthetic standards, or current tastes.

--
Trying to live inside the circle of minimum confusion.
http://www.jaymoynihan.com

 

[Leon Wittwer]

An old friend at rest. For me, the focus blur is just right for the circumstances.



--
Leon
http://homepage.mac.com/leonwittwer/landscapes.htm

 

[Jeff Charles]

1. Given available lenses, you can get shallower DOF with a FF camera than with a FT (or APS) camera. A FF camera will also have better DR and high-ISO IQ.
2. A FF kit is heavier and more expensive.

3. Some people either can't afford FF, or don't believe the advantages of FF are worth the price and weight. Others believe that they are.

4. In addition to lower cost and system weight, Olympus FT cameras have other qualities that appeal to people: weather sealing, in-body IS, the lenses, dust removal, articulating LV LCD, etc.

Jeff

 

[sherwoodpete]

I think in recent years with the gravitation towards smaller sensors
people have become more accustomed to maximum DOF, and front to back
sharpness is pretty much accepted as reality rather like noiseless
images; people want as close to real life.
I guess its the battle of the pictorialist vs the realist.
Mark

I don't think the deep depth of field from small-sensor cameras matches "real life". Our eyes need to continually re-focus in order to view objects at different distances.

In fact, as our attention is centred on a specific point, our eyes focus at that distance too. Thus there is a combination of optical and psychological focussing involved.

It could be argued that a photograph with shallow depth of field is a better representation of reality because it is using the technique to give the psychological focus which might otherwise be lacking.
Regards,
Peter

 

[Jogger]

4. In addition to lower cost and system weight, Olympus FT cameras
have other qualities that appeal to people: weather sealing, in-body
IS, the lenses, dust removal, articulating LV LCD, etc.

Spec out an E3 + 35-100 in size and weight.. and you will see there is no savings in weight or costs compared to a 5D + 70-200 F4. It will probably be cheaper to purchase the 5Dmk2 + 70-200 F4 as well (given the price for the 35-100).

E3 + 14-35 + battery grip is heavier than a D3 + 24-70.. the Oly 14-35 is also much more expensive for some reason and is not as wide.

The Oly 7-14 F4 is about the same size and weight as the 14-24 F2.8 despite being a slower lens. It was also $2600 when first launched.

E3 is about the same size and weight as D300.. why? makes no sense.

The only weight and price difference you will see is in the entry level body and lens lines; even then things are marginal at best and given lack of consumer demand, ppl just dont care.

 

[aruzinsky]

--
(Author of SAR Image Processor and anomic sociopath)
Tell me your thoughts on Plato's allegory of the cave.