DOF

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

Yes, I've taken them three different ways.

1) Photographs in a parallel orthographic projection (which you
incorrectly identified as "isometric", a non-parallel orthographic
projection that cannot exist physically)

Hey, that's what they called it in my high school drafting class. It
was, of course, in the previous century, in a different language, and
in a country that no longer exists, so my terminology could be
somewhat garbled in translation and dated...

Possibly. They should have taught isometric projection as a special case, it's used for dimensioning, and in order to do that, the projection is deliberately made inaccurate.

are taken naturally by
"object side telecentric" lenses, quite commonly used in industrial
photography and process control.

That would be very interesting to see. How do you focus these
lenses? Or do they have infinite DOF?

They focus just like conventional lenses, obeying rules of aperture and DOF for teh given focal length.

Is the FOV a cylinder of the
lense's aperture diameter,

Yes.

or can it be adjusted?

Only in the case of zooms, and then the FOV is still a cylinder, you can just vary the diameter.

The rest of the techniques you list are based on software
modification of the images' geometry, rather than captured directly
by the lens:

Actually, a light plane microscope uses no software.

2) [...] "focus stacking" technique [...]

3) [...] stitching [...]

There are "film days" techniques for orthographic pictures, too. They involve the camera on tracks.

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[MichelB]

... auto white balance

• automatic removal of the skin problems of your beloved one...

--
Michel B

 

[joe mama]

from your galleries one gets the clear impression that you went from
what was then a good compact (now the G9, and even better compact),
to then a 20D solid dslr, to then a 5D very solid dslr.

Actually, in terms of pics that are in my galleries, my progression was:

G1 --> G2 --> G3 --> 300D --> 20D --> 5D

having personally taken the step - but then given up (I owned a D300
for nearly two weeks, great machine but in too many instances I found
it so less practical/walkable than my humble FZ-18, also I never got
real sharp shots so I returned it just in case it would have been the
body, turns out it was probably the limit of the 18-200 and me doing
a bit too much pixel-peeping), I cannot help but notice that as you
went up in gear, you also went up in talent ;-)

I took a dive in "talent" with the 300D since it was my first experience with shallow DOF, and neither my skills nor the AF of the 300D were up to the task much of the time.

What would you say? Did you just go up in talent, and would you have
done the same progressively better photos, irrespective of the
hardware? Or did the hardware contribute, at least at the edge?

When I got the 20D, my "talent" improved 10-fold overnight due to the more accurate AF.

Maybe you'll find my compliments too brutal, and maybe you'll just
tell me that who knows what is the part coming from the photographer,
and that coming from the equipment?

It's both the photographer and the equipment, but what that ratio is I cannot say. For some people, it may be primarily the eqipment, for others, primarily their skill.

In my case, I'd say it's an even mix. If my 5D had the AF of the 300D I owned, I'm not sure if my skills could compensate. On the other hand, other people with a 5D don't seem to nail the focus as consistently as I do.

I will say this, my biggest reason for wanting to upgrade to the 5DII is even better AF with the outer AF points. They do a great job in good light, but in really low light at ultra shallow DOFs, they are just too slow and inaccurate. Also, I look forward to reduced shutter lag so that I can rely less on my skills of anticipating the shot and squeezing the shutter before it happens. : )

--
--joe

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

 

[joe mama]

Between 4/3 DOF and P&S DOF there is quite a huge gap (between 4/3
and full frame probably too ) and between 4/3 and ASP the
difference is quite little judging by the photos (and the sensor
size).

It's 2-3 stops between compacts and 4/3, depending on the sensor in the compact, 1/2 - 2/3 stops between 4/3 and APS-C, depending on whether it's 1.5x or 1.6x, and 2 stops between 4/3 and 35mm FF.

However, it seems rare for 4/3 users to use fast primes, so, in practice, you can add an additional 1-2 stops to the differences for APS-C and 35mm FF users.

--
--joe

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

 

[joe mama]

...
Allow me to share two examples to complement your wonderful pic:
...

Thanks for the comment.

Not a prob. Fortunately, I didn't fall out of my chair due to the lean. : ) Seriously, though, keeping pics level is probably my single greatest challenge with the 5D. The viewfinder is so large, I often am not aware of the edges and do not frame a level shot. I have to be consciously thinking to keep the pic level at all times. Easy for a landscape, but very difficult for candids.

I think your choices of deep and shallow DOF for the two pictures
were the right ones. It is also interesting to see the DOF that you
get with the 50mm at f/1.2 on FF, as it represents the limit of what
is possible at that focal length (other than with a Noctilux on a
film rangefinder, I guess).

Shallow DOF for scenics is difficult to pull off. Ona recent trip to Zion and Bryce, I fired off quite a few shallow DOF scenics and they just plain did not work. The reason was that even f/1.4 at 24mm or f/1.2 at 50mm were not nearly shallow enough for what I was trying since the subject was so far away.

All systems can get shallow DOF. It's just that larger sensor systems can get that shallow DOF with a wider framing, and that's something that very much appeals to me.

In general, when you see shallow DOF pics, they are closely framed. To me, the closer you frame the deeper you want the DOF, as a general rule. However, my photography is all about the exceptions, rather than the rule. I know I can get the shot with the deeper DOF, but I often don't have any interest in that shot. I actively seek to frame and capture the shot in a way that shallow DOF will work. Many times they look like cr@p. But when I'm able to pull it off, it is worth the effort. I am trying for the exceptional, and don't mind all the failures I have to put up with to get it. I have no need for the mundane.

Hopefully, this makes some kind of sense. I know that shallow DOF is not always the best -- in fact it's usually not. But my artistic interest lies with shallow DOF, so I make every effort to capture shots that make the best use of it. That's not to say that I don't occasionally indulge in deep DOF, of course. Just that shallow DOF has the look I love and strive for.

--
--joe

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

 

[Jeff Charles]

...Fortunately, I didn't fall out of my chair due to the
lean. : )

All I can say is that I felt much more at peace with the world after I straightened it.

Seriously, though, keeping pics level is probably my
single greatest challenge with the 5D. The viewfinder is so large, I
often am not aware of the edges and do not frame a level shot.

Is this an argument for the small E-420 and E-520 viewfinders?

I have to be consciously thinking to keep the pic level at all times.
Easy for a landscape, but very difficult for candids.

I have come to accept that I am not H. Cartier-Bresson, and that I will have to straighten photos in PP. This may actually be an argument against the E-1 and E-3 100% viewfinders. Crop too tight when taking the picture and straightening will cut something you wanted in the image.

...I am trying for the exceptional, and don't mind
all the failures I have to put up with to get it. I have no need for
the mundane.
...

Go for it.

Jeff

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

My guess is that a lot of shallow DOF is not by choice: the average
shooter using the average DSLR (say capped at 800 ISO for reasonable
IQ), will often find him/herself in situations where the cap at ISO
800 forces to use a fairly wide aperture, this strongly limiting DOF.

Exactly correct!

And there can be other factors, such as stopping down too much simply
leads to a less sharp shot due to diffraction.

Keeping in mind, of course, that all systems suffer diffraction
softening equally at the same DOF, not the same f-ratio:

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

As a result, we get shallow DOF that is forced by technical
limitations, but not chosen. I think this forced shallow DOF is no
good.

I aboslutely concur.

You get telephoto shots of a swan, w a great and expensive
lens, and only the eye is in sharp focus but not the beak or the rest
of the head. You get macro shots of insects where just half the head
is in focus. You get portraits where the plane of the eyes is in
focus and not the rest.

Well, I happen to like that look:

I like all the portraits. But I thing the first one would have been stronger with the pip of the nose in focus. Sometimes, I choose an aperture that will give me 1.5 inches of DOF, and manually "rock" the focus to the inbetween point.

Or shoot a single shot of the nose tip among the rest of the portrait work, and use that as the source for a clone brush on whichever of the "eye focus" pics you end up delivering.

The third one really works. One eye and nose on the same plane. Women are easier than men, on the average, they have shorter noses.

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[joe mama]

I like all the portraits. But I thing the first one would have been
stronger with the pip of the nose in focus. Sometimes, I choose an
aperture that will give me 1.5 inches of DOF, and manually "rock" the
focus to the inbetween point.

But doing that would have destroyed other elements of the pic. I'm not saying deeper DOF would not have worked well on this pic, or perhaps even better. I'm just saying that it would not have given the same look, and losing the tip of the nose is simply a compromise that must be made for this particular look, just as a more focused background is the compromise that must be made for deeper DOF pics.

Or shoot a single shot of the nose tip among the rest of the portrait
work, and use that as the source for a clone brush on whichever of
the "eye focus" pics you end up delivering.

Yeah -- if that doesn't come off as hokey and "unnatural" looking. I was lucky to get that shot, much less a second, even if I had tried to do as you suggest.

The third one really works. One eye and nose on the same plane. Women
are easier than men, on the average, they have shorter noses.

Hmm. In my experience, men are "easier" than women, but perhaps we're talking about two different things? : )

--
--joe

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

 

[natureman]

Shallow DOF is never forced on you by the equipment, except when
you need to exceed the highest ISO of the equipment to maintain
enough shutter speed for the DOF you desire.

That exception is very important, although your statement would be
more accurate if you had said: ..... except when you need to exceed
the ISO you have chosen to use to maintain enough shutter speed for
the DOF you desire.

If you "chose", then you were not "forced".

As anyone with even the slightest amount of intelligence can see, I referred to the chosen ISO, not the chosen DOF. If someone has to exceed the ISO they would like to use (choose), to maintain the aperture that will get the DOF they desire, and to maintain enough shutter speed, they ARE limited by the equipment and are being "forced" to raise the ISO.

For the same exposure, whenever the ISO is adjusted/altered, the shutter speed or aperture must also be adjusted/altered, or when the shutter speed is adjusted/altered, the ISO or aperture must also be adjusted/altered, or when the aperture is adjusted/altered, the shutter speed or ISO must be adjusted. Those are limitations that are forced on people by the equipment.

Of course neutral density filters can be used in cases where the light is too bright for the chosen camera/lens settings, but that's pretty much irrelevant to this discussion. And of course my comments in the above paragraph are applicable when the photographer cannot control the light. In the case of flash or controllable constant lighting, the photographer can often change the amount of light to compensate for the limitations of the camera/lens, and often without changing the ISO, depending on the exact situation.

--
--joe

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

 

[natureman]

Yep, me again. Weren't you just waiting for me to respond to this
thread?

I was holding my breath.

It's ok, you can breathe again now.

No, you want to push your own agenda and force feed it to others.

Define my agenda, then link and quote where I "force feed it to others".

Your agenda is obvious. You're determined to be right, at any cost.

This is partially true. I am, in fact, determined to be right, but
not at any cost. But I don't always start out right. I'll give an
example. I made a claim here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=28160755

was told I was wrong, I argued my case, and was then shown to be
wrong, and I then apologized for having been stupid:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=28173323

I'm the one who said you want to force feed it to others. I never
said you said it. There are no links or quotes to link to or quote,
which anyone with a clue can see.

I meant link and quote where I "force feed it to others".

It's always link and quote to you, eh joe?

Unlike you, I don't have a fanatical hangup with linking and quoting
anyway, and I have better things to do than spend hours going through
other threads and posts looking for ammunition to use against
someone, and especially out of context ammunition that has little or
nothing to do with the current thread, like you do so much.

OK, we'll just take you at your word. That makes it easier, eh?

Well, why don't you use more links and quotes to prove me wrong? Or, maybe you could use links and quotes to prove you're right?

Their responses are unsolicited, since photography is not my job, and
they didn't know I was the photographer.

So you say.

Nice. Well, if you want to imply that I'm a liar, then why not just
say all the pics I'm posting aren't mine, anyway?

Let's see you link to and quote where your clients said anything at all about your pictures on your walls. You always demand proof, in the form of links and quotes, etc., so let's see you live up to the same standard, at all times.

Do they ask me to make 20x30 inch colorplaques for them?

I don't know, do they?

Ditto the above.

How about more links and quotes from the alledged people who alledgedly ask you to make colorplaques for them? Come on joe, provide proof or don't expect others to provide proof.

My opinion is just my opinion, although a lot of other people
apparently share it, based on what you say about so many people
attacking shallow DOF. I'm glad to know you're thinking of me joe and
that you started this thread "in part" because of me. I already knew
that by the way.

See, that's just what I'm saying. You call me an "arrogant turd",
yet you, and others, dismiss a photographic style with quite a bit of
vitriol. I don't like deep DOF people pics for the most part, but do
you hear me ripping on it?

Uh, yeah.

But it was how he rendered the subject, which, last I looked, is what
I was talking about when I referenced him.

Well, since this thread is about DOF, the context of your comment
could rightfully be taken as being about that topic. Maybe you should
have been more specific in the first place.

Well, since the topic strayed from DOF, maybe you should have
realized that. Sheesh.

Should I take your word for it that the topic strayed? How about more links and quotes? You seem to like them so much.

Although you seem proud enough of your own shallow DOF macro pics:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=28021833

I didn't say I was proud of them but I suppose it's safe to say that
I think they're pretty good, especially since I shot them with small
sensor cameras. And if you read what I said about them in the other
thread, you'll notice I said I was going for maximum DOF. You should
also notice that the subjects are mostly to completely in focus with
only the backgrounds being out of focus, except for the last picture
(the boy) where the subject is mostly in focus but a little OOF
toward the back of his head. As I also said in that thread, those
photos were to show that shallow DOF can be achieved with small
sensor cameras. Just imagine if I had used a wide open aperture.

Yeah, well, there's an easy solution to that -- don't use a wide open
aperture.

I didn't, and usually don't.

--
--joe

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

 

[Mikelis]

Well, shallow DOF is why I moved from compacts to DSLRs in the first
place, and to get more of it was why I moved from a 20D to a 5D. My
target audience is myself, so it's really of no consequence if most
don't like shallow DOF, but I am surprised at the vitriol that it
receives:

Joe,

Your photos -once again- demonstrate the truth of the old saying that photos are "made", not "taken". They remind us that one's backyard is full of photographic opportunities: you don't need " grand" or "extraordinary" subject matter: what you do need is imagination, and you have shown the way. Your shots are a lesson to those who (sometimes) complain -in these forums- of being jaded, of having "nothing to shoot".

Your deliberate choice of shallow DOF raises the subject out of the ordinary into the extraordinary: it transcends the boundary from the mere recording of a scene to art.

Still, there are critics: All they prove is that not all who have eyes can see.

Don't let them grind you down!

Interestingly, pin-hole cameras have truly great DOF, but they are not (generally) "sharp". I wonder how the great DOF "fiends" feel about these?

 

[spt_gb]

natureman wrote:
...

If you "chose", then you were not "forced".

As anyone with even the slightest amount of intelligence can see, I
referred to the chosen ISO, not the chosen DOF. If someone has to
exceed the ISO they would like to use (choose), to maintain the
aperture that will get the DOF they desire, and to maintain enough
shutter speed, they ARE limited by the equipment and are being
"forced" to raise the ISO.

This is a moot argument, as switching to a smaller form factor sensor does not gain you anything in these circumstances. The noise will be the same, and therefore unacceptable, at the lower ISO and wider aperture needed for the smaller sensor.

 

[antoineb]

(nt)
take care

 

[Magnesus]

However, it seems rare for 4/3 users to use fast primes, so, in
practice, you can add an additional 1-2 stops to the differences for
APS-C and 35mm FF users.

No, you can't.

I agree with the first part of your post though.

--

http://magnesus.blogspot.com - visit my photoblog, s6000fd, bugs, flowers and vistas

 

[Haider]

Steady on mate I use both 35mm and 4/rds. There is no denying it has (4/3rds) has advantages, just like medium and large format. It's zooms are capable of deep to medium DOF. There are fixed focal length zooms available from f1.4. Hasselblad, Mamiya, Phaseone, Polaroid, Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Pentax and Sony all have their advantages you just have to exploit them.

 

[natureman]

If you "chose", then you were not "forced".

As anyone with even the slightest amount of intelligence can see, I
referred to the chosen ISO, not the chosen DOF. If someone has to
exceed the ISO they would like to use (choose), to maintain the
aperture that will get the DOF they desire, and to maintain enough
shutter speed, they ARE limited by the equipment and are being
"forced" to raise the ISO.

This is a moot argument, as switching to a smaller form factor sensor
does not gain you anything in these circumstances. The noise will be
the same, and therefore unacceptable, at the lower ISO and wider
aperture needed for the smaller sensor.

It is not a moot argument. I never said it only applied to large sensor cameras. I was responding to an incorrect statement by joe mama. In that context, my statement holds true and it very relevant.

Besides, your comments are confusing and make little, if any sense. Would you explain more thoroughly?

 

[natureman]

from your galleries one gets the clear impression that you went from
what was then a good compact (now the G9, and even better compact),
to then a 20D solid dslr, to then a 5D very solid dslr.

Actually, in terms of pics that are in my galleries, my progression was:

G1 --> G2 --> G3 --> 300D --> 20D --> 5D

having personally taken the step - but then given up (I owned a D300
for nearly two weeks, great machine but in too many instances I found
it so less practical/walkable than my humble FZ-18, also I never got
real sharp shots so I returned it just in case it would have been the
body, turns out it was probably the limit of the 18-200 and me doing
a bit too much pixel-peeping), I cannot help but notice that as you
went up in gear, you also went up in talent ;-)

I took a dive in "talent" with the 300D since it was my first
experience with shallow DOF, and neither my skills nor the AF of the
300D were up to the task much of the time.

What would you say? Did you just go up in talent, and would you have
done the same progressively better photos, irrespective of the
hardware? Or did the hardware contribute, at least at the edge?

When I got the 20D, my "talent" improved 10-fold overnight due to the
more accurate AF.

Maybe you'll find my compliments too brutal, and maybe you'll just
tell me that who knows what is the part coming from the photographer,
and that coming from the equipment?

It's both the photographer and the equipment, but what that ratio is
I cannot say. For some people, it may be primarily the eqipment, for
others, primarily their skill.

In my case, I'd say it's an even mix. If my 5D had the AF of the
300D I owned, I'm not sure if my skills could compensate. On the
other hand, other people with a 5D don't seem to nail the focus as
consistently as I do.

I will say this, my biggest reason for wanting to upgrade to the 5DII
is even better AF with the outer AF points. They do a great job in
good light, but in really low light at ultra shallow DOFs, they are
just too slow and inaccurate. Also, I look forward to reduced
shutter lag so that I can rely less on my skills of anticipating the
shot and squeezing the shutter before it happens. : )

What 5DII? And how do you know if it will have better AF with the outer focusing points, even if it ever is released?

The current 5D has virtually no shutter lag, and why does shutter lag matter when photographing static subjects?

--
--joe

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

 

[spt_gb]

If you "chose", then you were not "forced".

As anyone with even the slightest amount of intelligence can see, I
referred to the chosen ISO, not the chosen DOF. If someone has to
exceed the ISO they would like to use (choose), to maintain the
aperture that will get the DOF they desire, and to maintain enough
shutter speed, they ARE limited by the equipment and are being
"forced" to raise the ISO.

This is a moot argument, as switching to a smaller form factor sensor
does not gain you anything in these circumstances. The noise will be
the same, and therefore unacceptable, at the lower ISO and wider
aperture needed for the smaller sensor.

It is not a moot argument. I never said it only applied to large
sensor cameras. I was responding to an incorrect statement by joe
mama. In that context, my statement holds true and it very relevant.

While you are limited by the constraints of your camera for any format, using the same technology the limit is reached at the SAME DoF/shutter speed for any format size. It therefore doesn't matter if you want to argue about Joe being "forced" to use an ISO speed rather than chosing it, whatever format you are using you are forced to accept the same amount of noise to get the DoF you want.

Besides, your comments are confusing and make little, if any sense.
Would you explain more thoroughly?

The total noise in an image is proportional to the ISO used and the size of the capture. ISO 400 MF has the same noise as ISO 100 35mm. ISO 1600 35mm has the same noise as ISO 400 4/3rds etc. Note that we're talking about how noisy a print of a given size looks, not how noisy each pixel is. Joe has plenty of examples of this in real life if you'd care to check for proof.

Once you've accepted this then you can see that the noise for a given shutter speed and DoF is constant nomatter what format of camera you are using, providing you are using the same technology. Compact P&Ss get deep DoF, but are naturaly noisy. Digital MF can get very narrow DoF and produces very clean images. If you need to stop down and boost the ISO on the MF rig to get the same DoF as the compact then the noise increases dramaticaly.

 

[jrtrent]

As you've stated, desired depth of field depends on the subject. My interest is in scenics and what might be called environmental portraiture (though really is just vacation and church/family event snapshots). The idea repeated in most every book on landscape photography I've read is, "the normal requirement in scenic photography is for maximum sharpness throughout the image area," and that's what I want in my scenic pictures, too. When it comes to people pictures, I want enough depth of field, and field of view, to see where the people are and what they are doing. A picture of a person, or part of a person, with nothing else in view or in focus simply holds no interest for me because there's no action, no context, no story. The same goes for pictures of flowers, bugs, birds, wildlife, etc.

The point of this thread was to hear from a more diverse group to get
an idea of how many enjoy shallow DOF. Because if shallow DOF is not
your gig, and you don't find it "acceptable" to use a more shallow
DOF so you can maintain a faster shutter with less noise, and the ISO
100 performance of your system meets your QT (quality threshold),
then, yeah, FF is not the best choice.

I guess because I didn't start with a tiny sensor digital camera, I still find it odd to think of the 24 X 36 mm format as somehow the province of shallow depth of field shooters. I often resort to a monopod or tripod to get acceptable depth of field without camera shake when shooting ISO 100 Astia with a medium format camera, but feel quite confident leaving the tripod at home shooting that same film with 35mm gear. Of course, my crop-sensored Samsung GX-1S, with acceptable quality at ISO 400, is even more versatile.

 

[TrapperJohn]

Alistar:

It's really a pointless debate. DOF control exists. Neat things can be done with it. Larger sensors are better at it than smaller sensors, no doubt about that. I like it, on occasion - thank God for the Leica 25. And it's an acquired taste, as the average person doesn't seem to appreciate it. Like you said, it's one tool of many.

I suspect the subject keeps coming up, as the capability difference between the large sensor systems and the smaller ones has narrowed considerably. One didn't see this heated a discussion on DOF five years ago, when the few 24x36 cameras on the market had a serious IQ advantage over the smaller sensor models. Today, IQ at the lower ISO's is very close across all dslr sensor sizes. That leaves DOF control and high ISO. Oh, and the quality of the glass, just like it was in the film day.

So I would say to the FF crew - you have a great system, and in many ways, I wish I had those capabilities. However, my personal needs and finances are such that the smaller sensor serves my desires in a more balanced fashion. If you want to spread the gospel of FF, just keep on posting those magnificent portrait shots. I might even pick up a used 5D when the new one comes out, and would probably love it.

However, having lugged a Nikon F3 + several primes and zooms over numerous mountains, I find the idea of matching those capabilities with 1/3 the weight in equipment to be a luxury.