Macro and DOF
MainFragger
Registered Users Posts: 563 Major grins
My question is this,
If you have reached the maximum F-Stop number (in this case 8) you could,
Will stacking on a ND Filter with a polarized filter gain you any more DOF?
Assuming this is the maximum F-Stop number I can get to, is there anything or anyway you could think of that I could get the relative F-Stop higher? Say even as high as 11?
MainFragger
If you have reached the maximum F-Stop number (in this case 8) you could,
Will stacking on a ND Filter with a polarized filter gain you any more DOF?
Assuming this is the maximum F-Stop number I can get to, is there anything or anyway you could think of that I could get the relative F-Stop higher? Say even as high as 11?
MainFragger
0
Comments
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Just curious, why do you need more than f8? The consumer cameras I've used don't have a problem giving lots of DOF. Their weakness is creating a narrow DOF with wide open aperatures.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
The problem is that I often can't even seem to get a whole bug in focus as I get closer to it. If DOF is generally a few mm, I'd love to find a way to get it to at least be enough to get a whole bug into focus.
Now I did some checking on lens theory, and from what I can tell, changing the aperture value blocks off unwanted light, revealing detail of a depth that would otherwise be too washed out with light to get the full perspective of. So I was thinking that if I could find ways of reducing light in a way that effectively was equivalent to an f-stop. That it might further still increase the DOF.
MainFragger
- Aperture: smaller means more DOF
- Magnification (how large your subject projects onto the imager, be it film or chip): smaller means again more DOF
Aperture is controlled via diaphragm (f-stop). Magnification is controlled via focal length and distance to subject. This way, and given a fixed f-stop, you get exactly the same DOF using, say, a 50 mm at 6 feet than a 100 mm at 12 feet than a 200 mm at 24 feet, and so on and on and on, because you're keeping your aperture and your magnification constant.So when you need to increase DOF, but you are already stopped all the way down, you have only one choice: decrease magnification. How do you do that? either use a wider lens, or back off.
Ah, you're trying to shoot a macro. For that, you are truly limited by your camera's capabilities.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
No. Using this logic you could use a cloudy day, or nighttime shooting, to increase DOF, but you can't. The reason a smaller aperture creates larger DOF is because the smaller the aperture the more you approach a pinhole camera. Its not that the aperture lets in less light (it does, but) its that it lets light hit a smaller area of the lens. And the center, most flat portion of the lens is what will have the largest DOF. Your filters let it less light, but that light still hits the entire lens surface. I don't know how well I can explain it in text. I really need a diagram.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
gubbs.smugmug.com
You can see what can be done with a 180mm Macro lens and a DSLR here http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=2188 and beginning here and on the next few pages as well http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=882&page=6&pp=10
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
To an extent I understand this, but it still leaves me confused. It almost sounds to me like circles of confusion are where light from various points of the subject spread out and overlap at the film plane after passing through the aperature. As such, when you close the aperature, you get less overlap in light, which gives a truer representation of what is being viewed. The extra depth sounds like it is more of a side effect than anything. This also trashes my hope with the filters, because in essence, it would dim the light coming through the camera, which would weaken the DOF if it has any affect on it all. If I were to define depth of field, it would be- "An area of print that becomes more detailed as overlapping and repetitive (detail bluring) light is removed from the intended effective image area of the film plane."
Technically, if you slow down your film speed a hair at that point, shouldn't the extra light coming off of the intended subject intensify the remaining light, and if not taken too far, maybe a little more detail? I wonder what the best shutter speed to use is when you have found the best DOF per every foot you get from the camera.
There is a street with a tunnel of trees near me. I might go there one night and map out how well 2.8-8 can do at each shutter speed and each zoom level between 1-12. Now I just gotta figure out a way to do that without getting run over.
MainFragger
No no and no. First try to understand the a lens can only focus one precise distance at at time. The Circle of Confusion is the size of the circle blur made by taking a slice out of the cone the light rays make from a single perfect point that is in front of or behind that precise in focus distance.
The Depth of Field is a human concept that takes an arbitrary sized circle of confusion and says that anything smaller is in focus under the premise that we do not notice it. For any given lens the increase in size of the cone is effected by 3 things, the distance from the precise focus point, the diameter of the lens and the focal length. Stopping down a lens reduces the effective diameter of the cone at each point.
You really need to get a grasp on the concepts involved in CoC, cones of light, etc. Remember when you were a kid using a lens to start a fire, how the image of the sun changed size as you moved in front or behind the precise focus?
I am sorry but the above is so far out that I do not know how to respond.
Only aperture, focal length, and distance from the precise focus distance have any effect on DoF. The shutter speed does not do anything at all except combine with the film speed to allow various apertures.
The digicam with its 2.8 -> 4.0 -> 5.6 -> 8.0 is not going to offer a lot of change in DoF.
Operating System Design, Drivers, Software
Villa Del Rio II, Talamban, Pit-os, Cebu, Ph
It is a side effect. A lens has only one true focus point. Everything else is out of focus. The DOF is an illusion -- it is points that are so close to being in focus that our eyes can't tell the difference.
You seem fixated on this idea that letting in less light somehow changes the depth of field. Whatever material you read originally that got you onto this thinking was either misinterprted or was poorly written. Filters, shutter speeds and film speeds have zero effect on DOF. Zero. An aperture changes the DOF not because it is letting in less light per se, but because of exactly which light it is rejecting and which light it is allowing to pass -- it is selective.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
a suggestion:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0486659577/qid=1091651735/sr=ka-2/ref=pd_ka_2/102-5101898-3380114
lots of equations, but if you get past those, there fundamentals are there. I use this one for research frequently.
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]