Hoe to achieve this Depth of Field?

[impossible7]

Is it possible with a 40mm macro? I can stop down f2.8 with my lens.

In the photo below, the DOP is only a few inches but with my setup, in order to achieve the DOF, the blurred background needs to be at least 18 inches behind the subject.

 

[BAK]

I'm confused.

Are you trying to intentionally get fuzzy pictures? i.e. poor depth of field.

Then f2.8 will help you get a fuzzy background.

What format camera? Are you using a Nikon DX format camera in APS-C format?

I believe that the 40mm lens is called a micro lens, in the language of Nikon.

If you can put the tomatoes farther away, they will be fuzzier.

Get bigger tomatoes, and put them farther away (so they are fuzzier) and because they are bigger, they'll take up more space in the frame.

PLUS: Use manual focus, and focus the lens in front of the main subject. Now the "sharp area" that would have been behind the tomatoes with autofocus, will now be on the chopping block, and the group of fuzzy tomatoes will be even farther behind to sharpest point, and even fuzzier.
BAK

 

[Ellis Vener]

Is it possible with a 40mm macro? I can stop down f2.8 with my lens.

In the photo below, the DOP is only a few inches but with my setup, in order to achieve the DOF, the blurred background needs to be at least 18 inches behind the subject.

My thoughts are that you will need a longer focal length lens, something like a 100 or 105mm lens with a reasonably wide (f/2.8 or thereabouts) maximum aperture.

--
Ellis Vener
To see my work please visit http://www.ellisvener.com
Or on instagram @therealellisv

 

[Bobthearch]

Is it possible with a 40mm macro? I can stop down f2.8 with my lens.

In the photo below, the DOP is only a few inches but with my setup, in order to achieve the DOF, the blurred background needs to be at least 18 inches behind the subject.

This photo was likely taken with a full-frame camera, maybe a lens wider than f/2.8, and possibly with a focal length longer than 40mm.

Don't discount the possibility that the focus blur was enhanced or exaggerated using post-processing techniques.

--
Personal non-commercial websites with no ads or tracking:
Local photography: http://ratonphotos.com/
Travel and photography: http://placesandpics.com/
Special-interest photos: http://ghosttowns.placesandpics.com/

 

[BAK]

You're on to something with this comment >> Don't discount the possibility that the focus blur was enhanced or exaggerated using post-processing techniques. <<

Something weird is going on.

BAK

 

[Ellis Vener]

You're on to something with this comment >> Don't discount the possibility that the focus blur was enhanced or exaggerated using post-processing techniques. <<

Something weird is going on.

BAK

Maybe, but that’s the harder way to do things.

 

[Bobthearch]

You're on to something with this comment >> Don't discount the possibility that the focus blur was enhanced or exaggerated using post-processing techniques. <<

Something weird is going on.

BAK

Maybe, but that’s the harder way to do things.

I don't have any evidence that they did or not, I was just putting forth the possibility.

Even if enhancing the bokeh with a graduated blur tool using layers, it would obviously still be best to start with a good optical blur.

 

[Bobthearch]

My point was, if you want to replicate the photo exactly, then you need the same setup.

If that tomato photo was taken with a FF camera and a certain lens, you aren't going to get the exact same results with an APS-C camera or a different lens.

But looking at the big picture, you should be able to get a depth of field that's as narrow as you wish using an APS-C camera; compensate for the sensor size by taking a few steps back, using a longer focal length, and controlling the depth of field by varying the aperture.

 

[Sailor Blue]

To get an 18" depth of field with a f/2.8 40mm lens means your camera is about 7' from the subject. At that distance you should be photographing the entire table, not just a cutting board.

Depth of Field Table

In this image the camera seems to be angled vs the cutting board. The knife handle is fuzzy, the sharpest part is the stem and leafs of the tomato on the cutting board, the board and the other tomatoes are fuzzy. This means a depth of field of perhaps 1".

To get a 1" depth of field at 40mm and f/2.8 on a full frame camera the camera would be about 2' from the subject, and that is about the right distance to give you the proper framing.

Don't forget you can always add a bit of blur in post.

 

[drt3]

Looks like either a tilt-shift lens with a lot of tilt applied, or done in post.

 

[gazza73]

I'm confused.

Are you trying to intentionally get fuzzy pictures? i.e. poor depth of field.

This style of image is very common all over the world and it's always our US friends who get offended by the DOF for some reason? ;-)

The reality of viewing this scene by eye would be a drop off of focus and the hyper real front to back DOF is the more unrealistic. Neither style is write, neither wrong, just a style that is perfectly acceptable.

This image could easily be (and probably was) taken with a tilt shift lens by back tilting the focus plane vertically through the front tomato.

 

[BAK]

I'm still waiting for the original poster to tell me if out of focus is his goal.

BAK

 

[Ellis Vener]

I'm still waiting for the original poster to tell me if out of focus is his goal.

BAK

I think it is pretty clear that what he is if it is possible to create an image with shallow depth of field with the lens he owns.

 

[impossible7]

Thanks for all the responses

Without having to purchase new equipment, I will first try to achieve the effect in post... I am certainly more comfortable in photoshop than behind the camera anyways.

 

[BAK]

Put a cheap UV filter on your lens.

Rub your finger on the side of your nose.

Rub your finger tip on the filter.

BAK

 

[Bobthearch]

Thanks for all the responses

Without having to purchase new equipment,

You've yet to say what equipment you have. Is your only lens a 40mm macro?

I will first try to achieve the effect in post... I am certainly more comfortable in photoshop than behind the camera anyways.

It won't look the same, and it'll take a bit of time experimenting with the masking and graduated effect. But it can be done.

Here was a quick effort in an old topic:

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

 

[Photomonkey]

Why don't you just try taking a picture?

Then you will have your answer.

 

[Sailor Blue]

Thanks for all the responses

Without having to purchase new equipment, I will first try to achieve the effect in post... I am certainly more comfortable in photoshop than behind the camera anyways.

Put the camera on a tripod.

Set the lens so that the aperture is wide open at f/2.8.

Position the focal plane of the camera 2' from the subject. Check your camera manual to find out where the focal plane of your camera is located.

Position the tripod so that the camera is at a slight angle to the subject, similar to what you see in the image you posted.

Use Manually Focus and focus on the point you want in focus.

Take a test image.

That should get you very close to what you want.