Weekly Assignment #93: Shallow

Nikolai

This time around we'll concentrate (pun intended) on a small part of the primary subject, while having the rest of the subject blurred due to an extremely shallow DOF (Depth Of Field).
Technically:

• position your subject in a way that the most important part of it is very close, and the rest is furhter away.
• use WA (Wide Angle) lens, wide open aperture,
• stay very close to the subject, thus keeping most of it OOF (Out Of Focus)
• you can use light sources to enlight the primary part and dim the rest.

Let's get shallow!

jethibod

Hi Nik,

Thanks for hosting this online photography classroom - I've been lurking for about a week and half now, trying to soak everything up, and looking at all the great pictures everyone posts, and trying to get up the gumption to go out and make the weekly assignments!

However, being kinda new, I only have 2 lenses at the moment; please tell me if it's technically okay to use my 18-55mm to shoot a shallow DOF, because my other lens is the 55-200.

Nikolai wrote:

Technically:

• position your subject in a way that the most important part of it is very close, and the rest is furhter away.
• use WA (Wide Angle) lens, wide open aperture,
• stay very close to the subject, thus keeping most of it OOF (Out Of Focus)
• you can use light sources to enlight the primary part and dim the rest.!

Thanks so much!
Jen

Trevlan

jethibod wrote:

Hi Nik,

Thanks for hosting this online photography classroom - I've been lurking for about a week and half now, trying to soak everything up, and looking at all the great pictures everyone posts, and trying to get up the gumption to go out and make the weekly assignments!

However, being kinda new, I only have 2 lenses at the moment; please tell me if it's technically okay to use my 18-55mm to shoot a shallow DOF, because my other lens is the 55-200.

Thanks so much!
Jen

Hey Jen. At 18mm wide open, you will get 3.5 aperture at best. You'll need to play with the lighting. If you are fairly new and are not too familiar with the camera settings (shooting manual), I would suggest using Aperture Priority and a tripod. Also, you'll want to meter using the spot meter or center wieghted meter setting.

The hardest part about all of this is finding a subject that meets the requirements. If you are going to shoot a person, you'll need a greater aperture to achieve the desired effect.

For example:



I'm extreamely close to this subject, using a 50mm lense. My aperture is 1.8. Notice how his eyes are in sharp focus and everything else just tends to evenly blur away. That is achieved with a shalow depth of field.

f/1.8
ISO 200
Shutter 1/250
Focal length 50mm

I recommend that you go out and shoot. Nikolai has beaten my hands with a ruler many times. After a while, it stops hurting. ;-)

Even if you achieve one good capture from a thousand 'snapshots', you did great in my book. Good luck and I'm looking forward to seeing your attempts.


----Edit----
For the record, that was an example photo of a shalow DOF, not my official entry for this week's class. Thanks...

Nikolai

jethibod wrote:

However, being kinda new, I only have 2 lenses at the moment; please tell me if it's technically okay to use my 18-55mm to shoot a shallow DOF, because my other lens is the 55-200.

Jen,
I think 18-55 will do just fine. Set it to 18, have it wide open, get, like, 20 in close to your subject while having the rest of the subject going to the distance of the few feet. According to DOFMaster, your DOF should be only about 4 inches deep at these conditions, so the rest of the subject will get more and more blurred.

spb13

Spicy!



1/100, f/1.8, ISO 100, 50mm (75mm)

Nikolai

spb13 wrote:

Spicy!
1/100, f/1.8, ISO 100, 50mm (75mm)

Sean, it's a shot in a right direction , but, come on, can we up it's artisitic side a bit? Why do we need the pottery, or the pavement in the frame?
Essentially, pretty much nothing except the subject should be in your frame, and only a part of the subject should be in focus....

jethibod

Hi Nik,

I'm pretty sure I can do better than this in terms of composition and subject matter, but is this sufficiently shallow DOF? And if yes, do I get another chance at the posting?

Thanks so much,
Jen



EXIF
Focal Length: 18mm
F-number: F/3.5
Exposure time: 1/30 s.

Nikolai

jethibod wrote:

Hi Nik,

I'm pretty sure I can do better than this in terms of composition and subject matter, but is this sufficiently shallow DOF? And if yes, do I get another chance at the posting?

Thanks so much,
Jen

EXIF
Focal Length: 18mm
F-number: F/3.5
Exposure time: 1/30 s.

Jen,
yes this is shallow enough.
That's obviously the best you can do with the existing gear without spending another few hundred (or even thousand) bucks for a faster/wider lens.
And yes, please feel free to post other entries - as long as they for the different subjects and lighting conditions (to keep things interesting:-)

du8die

First Assignment Post
My first assignment post.



EXIF:
50mm
ISO 200
F/2.2
1/8
Lit with ambient lighting and a Maglight flashlight with a kleenex taped to it as a diffuser.

My own critique...

I wanted the logo to be in focus, and it seems to be, but so are the strings, so I have two focal points. I'm not experienced enough to know why that happened, or how to correct it, other than that they're at the same depth, lens-wise, even though they are physically far apart. I didn't necessarily want to crop it, because I didn't want to lose the fact that it is a guitar...

Edit: On second look, and looking more closely at the guitar, the logo and the place where the strings are in focus are the same depth... Oh Well.

Nikolai

du8die wrote:

My first assignment post.

EXIF:
50mm
ISO 200
F/2.2
1/8
Lit with ambient lighting and a Maglight flashlight with a kleenex taped to it as a diffuser.

My own critique...

I wanted the logo to be in focus, and it seems to be, but so are the strings, so I have two focal points. I'm not experienced enough to know why that happened, or how to correct it, other than that they're at the same depth, lens-wise, even though they are physically far apart. I didn't necessarily want to crop it, because I didn't want to lose the fact that it is a guitar...

Edit: On second look, and looking more closely at the guitar, the logo and the place where the strings are in focus are the same depth... Oh Well.

Thank you good entry!
Pretty neat, and I must admit I like the split focal point.
I guess the only way to avoid it at the current angle is to go for a lensbaby or for a tilt-shift lens...

Trevlan

Tried bending the rules here and used the entire row of flowers as the subject, let me know if this one worked.

#1


With this picture, my subject was a construction division wall, I wanted to show just how deep it went by bringing props into the scene (the props were the prople walking by. lol)

#2



And ofcourse, the picture that I feel fits the assignment best from my set. Let me know what you think Nik.

#3

Nikolai

Trevlan wrote:

Tried bending the rules here and used the entire row of flowers as the subject, let me know if this one worked.
#1

With this picture, my subject was a construction division wall, I wanted to show just how deep it went by bringing props into the scene (the props were the prople walking by. lol)

#2

And ofcourse, the picture that I feel fits the assignment best from my set. Let me know what you think Nik.

#3

#3 works, but is a bit bland since the wall is so homogeneous.
#2 is a good twist, but you're breaking the rules of engagement by introducing additional subjects
#1 would be awesome, but for some reason the DOF is not shallow enough

Good tries, though:-)

Trevlan

Nikolai wrote:

#3 works, but is a bit bland since the wall is so homogeneous.
#2 is a good twist, but you're breaking the rules of engagement by introducing additional subjects
#1 would be awesome, but for some reason the DOF is not shallow enough

Good tries, though:-)

Thanks. On the take with the flowers, I was wide open at f/3.5, just don't have the equipment to produce such a shallow DOF at the WA. I could have used my 50 1.8, but it wouldn't get the depth required.
Once I purchase my D300 later this year, I'll start looking into the L series lenses. In the immortal words of Mitch Fatel,"This is expensive. I'd rather have a muffin." lol. Good times. ;-)

chrisdg

my first assignment as well...



f2.8 @ 53mm, ISO100
exif
no PP except sharpening in LR

du8die - apologies about the guitar theme...please trust i did not copy your idea, shot this last night before I saw your post this morning. I do like that split focus in your shot, even if unintentional...it really serves to illustrate how DOF works on a plane, rendering anything in focus that crosses that vertical plane.

du8die

chrisdg wrote:

my first assignment as well...


du8die - apologies about the guitar theme...please trust i did not copy your idea, shot this last night before I saw your post this morning.

No worries.

I might have to take issue if someone comes out with a "flashlight diffuser" though and sells 10 million of them for $30 a piece.

d8

Nikolai

Trevlan wrote:

Thanks. On the take with the flowers, I was wide open at f/3.5, just don't have the equipment to produce such a shallow DOF at the WA. I could have used my 50 1.8, but it wouldn't get the depth required.
Once I purchase my D300 later this year, I'll start looking into the L series lenses. In the immortal words of Mitch Fatel,"This is expensive. I'd rather have a muffin." lol. Good times. ;-)

f/3.5 should give you rather shallow DOF, but only at a close distance, that's why in the lead post I suggested to get very close. In general, DOF is a function of distance, the greater one, the greater the other.

Nikolai

chrisdg wrote:

my first assignment as well...
f2.8 @ 53mm, ISO100
exif
no PP except sharpening in LR

Nice entry, thank you!

Jack'll do

Does this work Nik?

Nikolai

Jack'll do wrote:

Does this work Nik?

Yes... and no..
I was actually trying to avoid macro work, since it's the area where you normall get exactly that without even trying. Essentially, I wanted to get that effect but on a regularly scaled subjects.

Jack'll do

Ahhh OK. Back to the drawing board.

OffTopic

Nikolai wrote:

Yes... and no..
I was actually trying to avoid macro work, since it's the area where you normall get exactly that without even trying. Essentially, I wanted to get that effect but on a regularly scaled subjects.

I'm laughing because I did the exact same thing - shot the assignment two days ago with my macro lens and when I sat down to process the images I just knew that you'd never let me get away it!

Nikolai

OffTopic wrote:

I'm laughing because I did the exact same thing - shot the assignment two days ago with my macro lens and when I sat down to process the images I just knew that you'd never let me get away it!

lol :-)

spb13

I think this might be a little better than my first attempt...

cmason

This looks like fun, so I had to jump in on this one...and yes, I am location challenged, but I picked up the camera and shot what was in front of me:

"Control"

Nikolai

spb13 wrote:

I think this might be a little better than my first attempt...

Which it is:-)

Nikolai

cmason wrote:

This looks like fun, so I had to jump in on this one...and yes, I am location challenged, but I picked up the camera and shot what was in front of me:
"Control"

It's a good try, but wouldn't it be even better if the whole keyboard was filling the rest of the frame? Once again, it should be primarily single subject...

divamum

Ok, I'm in. It's time to stop being a wuss and learn by DOING instead of merely watching

I may have another crack at this tomorrow if I have time - my widest lens is, unfortunately, my plastic fantastic 50mm 1.8, and it is crraaannnkkky about focusing up close (yes, I know in theory I could focus manually, but that is usually even less successful - even using the diopter adjustment doesn't help me out, I've found...). So, getting in tight was not so much an artistic challenge as a practical one (whirr, thunk, no-beep, whirr, thunk, whirr, whirr)

In any case here goes (sorry to continue the musical theme, but one uses what's on hand, n'est-ce pas? .

Minor pp - a little bit of sharpening, plus rotated and cropped primarily at the sides (to get rid of most of the distracting line of the edge of the case)



Rebel XT 50mm @ 2.5

Nikolai

divamum wrote:

Ok, I'm in. It's time to stop being a wuss and learn by DOING instead of merely watching

I may have another crack at this tomorrow if I have time - my widest lens is, unfortunately, my plastic fantastic 50mm 1.8, and it is crraaannnkkky about focusing up close (yes, I know in theory I could focus manually, but that is usually even less successful - even using the diopter adjustment doesn't help me out, I've found...). So, getting in tight was not so much an artistic challenge as a practical one (whirr, thunk, no-beep, whirr, thunk, whirr, whirr)

In any case here goes (sorry to continue the musical theme, but one uses what's on hand, n'est-ce pas? .

Minor pp - a little bit of sharpening, plus rotated and cropped primarily at the sides (to get rid of most of the distracting line of the edge of the case)

Rebel XT 50mm @ 2.5

Thank you!
I would only prefer the very front part to be focused. You shouldn't be afraid of MF mode, this is really the class when you can try such things out.

divamum

Nikolai wrote:

Thank you!
I would only prefer the very front part to be focused. You shouldn't be afraid of MF mode, this is really the class when you can try such things out.

I'm not afraid of it as such, I just can't see through the viewfinder well enough to get the focal point where I want it! Any tips for focusing manually with an af system? I found it hard enough when there was the little grid/circle in the mf cameras of old, but without that I find it near impossible to see what I'm doing in the viewfinder....

Thanks! (and thanks for running these assignments - this forum gets better and better the more I read and discover in here! What a great community

Nikolai

divamum wrote:

I'm not afraid of it as such, I just can't see through the viewfinder well enough to get the focal point where I want it! Any tips for focusing manually with an af system? I found it hard enough when there was the little grid/circle in the mf cameras of old, but without that I find it near impossible to see what I'm doing in the viewfinder....

Thanks! (and thanks for running these assignments - this forum gets better and better the more I read and discover in here! What a great community

One of the tricks I'd use in your particular case is to have the camera on a tripod/clamp, temporarily move the flute out of the view and put a single small bright (but not too shiny) object in the position where you intend to focus. Then either focus manually or use AF, which would have much better luck on focusing in at the isolated well-lit object (and yes, I know how slow 50/1.8's AF is:-). Once the focus is achieved, switch to MF, remove the test target and place the flute back.
You can also use DOFmaster to do it by numbers, but this would be a bit on the anal side IMHO:-). Besides, distance scales on the modern lenses suck compared to old good days.

du8die

canons
Typically, when you're in MF mode on a Canon, you can half-press the shutter and if you're in focus, that little red light on the focal point will flash, letting you know that you're in focus there...

It's that way on the 40d, and I'm pretty sure it's that way on the original Digital Rebel, so my guess is your XT is the same...