What happened to this

Dogdots · April 1, 2008

I took this photo and this is how the focal point came out. What did I do wrong? I just got a line that is in focus. I didn't do any editing on this...right from the camera to you all to help me figue this out. I'm assuming its a setting issue...am I correct?

If I put this in the wrong section please move it to the right one for me...Thanks

Blackwood · April 1, 2008

The way you shot that, you have an extremely small Depth Of Field (the term given to describe the region a lens can keep in sharp focus).

Check your EXIF data. You'll see a really wide aperture (low number), a really long focal length, or a combination of the two.

WilliamClark77 · April 1, 2008

Blackwood wrote:

The way you shot that, you have an extremely small Depth Of Field (the term given to describe the region a lens can keep in sharp focus).

Check your EXIF data. You'll see a really wide aperture (low number), a really long focal length, or a combination of the two.

And also, the closer you get the shallower the depth of field and more pronounced the oof blur will be. In the macro ranges it can be fractions of a millimeter. You should narrow the aperture (higher f number) to increase the dof.

Dogdots · April 1, 2008

I looked at my information on this photo and it was:

Exposure Mode - Manual
Focal Length - 80mm
Max Aperture Value - f/4.0
Metering Mode - Partial
Lens used - 24-105

What should I have done so this didn't happen? This isn't the first time...I had another photo that did this to

SloYerRoll · April 1, 2008

Hey Mary,
WC77 nailed it. Your physical proximity to whatever your shooting is directly related to your DOF.

So go back and take the same sot the safe distance away. Then step back a bit and zoom in (but don't change your aperture). You'll see once you import the images that the DPF has changed even though you haven't changed your aperture.

Just when you thought you had the photography thing down

Dogdots · April 1, 2008

SloYerRoll wrote:

Hey Mary,
WC77 nailed it. Your physical proximity to whatever your shooting is directly related to your DOF.

So go back and take the same sot the safe distance away. Then step back a bit and zoom in (but don't change your aperture). You'll see once you import the images that the DPF has changed even though you haven't changed your aperture.

Just when you thought you had the photography thing down

I wish I had it down

My life would be so much simpler

Looks like I was standing to close....a habit with me. I'm either to close or to far away.

Learned something today...I didn't know that the proximity to what I shoot effects the DOF.....that is an important thing to remember and should have figured out by now.

Wish I could go out and take the photo again, but the snow has melted off the picnic table. But I will find something else to try this on.

SloYerRoll · April 1, 2008

Dogdots wrote:

I wish I had it down My life would be so much simpler

If I had it down, it wouldn't be as interesting and Id probably move onto something else.
That's what I like about photography. No matter how good you are, you can always learn more..

Blackwood · April 1, 2008

Dogdots wrote:

Learned something today...I didn't know that the proximity to what I shoot effects the DOF.....that is an important thing to remember and should have figured out by now.

It does, and in a very substantial way.

Had the table been 30 feet away, even with F/4 and 80mm, your DOF would likely have encompassed the entire table.

darkdragon · April 1, 2008

If you stand farther back though, your image won't really be the same. I would suggest just closing down the aperature to f16 and taking the shot with a tripod .... next time.

That way your shot will be the same and you'll have more DOF to work with. You might try checking things out with your DOF-Preview button if your camera has that. I find that using that can save frustration and images.

RogersDA · April 1, 2008

Dogdots wrote:

Learned something today...I didn't know that the proximity to what I shoot effects the DOF.....that is an important thing to remember and should have figured out by now.

Check it out (it's reasonably accurate): DOF Calculator

Icebear · April 1, 2008

One thing I find cool about this as an example of very shallow DOF, is that the focus stays sharp as it "wraps over the edge" of the table. You can really draw a line through the sharp area that makes the 90 degree turn. It's a "slice" of focus through a three dimensional object. A plane intersecting a solid. Oohhh . . . back to eighth grade geometry, and that was nearly 50 years ago.:rutt

Dogdots · April 1, 2008

Hello Everyone...

You all have been such a great help. I did the calculator and it came up I should have been 10 ft away

And I remember when I took this I surely wasn't 10 ft away, but right up as close as I could be for the focus to click in

...my nasty habit of how I take photos sometimes.

The focus did wrap down the snow and onto the table. I have a photo like this where it starts at the top of a chair and wraps down the back of it. Kinda neat looking and actually weird looking at the same time.

Practice.....Practice and more Practice is what I need. So I'm heading out tomorrow with camera and tripod for what I will call a day of photo practice along with getting to know my camera better

Oh, so much to learn, but I'm up to it

Thanks again everyone for all your help.

jfriend · April 1, 2008

Dogdots wrote:

Hello Everyone...

You all have been such a great help. I did the calculator and it came up I should have been 10 ft away And I remember when I took this I surely wasn't 10 ft away, but right up as close as I could be for the focus to click in ...my nasty habit of how I take photos sometimes.

The focus did wrap down the snow and onto the table. I have a photo like this where it starts at the top of a chair and wraps down the back of it. Kinda neat looking and actually weird looking at the same time.

Practice.....Practice and more Practice is what I need. So I'm heading out tomorrow with camera and tripod for what I will call a day of photo practice along with getting to know my camera better

Oh, so much to learn, but I'm up to it

Thanks again everyone for all your help.

10 feet away is one way to solve the problem, but that would get you a very different photo that didn't zoom in on just what you wanted to capture.

As one other person in this thread said, you usually want to frame the shot the way you want to take it and then close the aperture down (higher number) to get the depth of field you need. I take all close-ups pictures at at least f/11 and sometimes even f/36. This makes your shutter speed slower (smaller aperture lets in less light so you need a slower shutter speed to get more light), so I usually use a tripod for close-up shots. In the DOF calculator you were looking at, keep everything the same and change the aperture - you will see a big change in depth of field with aperture.

Angelo · April 2, 2008

this thread may help as well: http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=23924

Dogdots · April 4, 2008

Sorry for the delay in responding. I've been out of town.

Such good information. I will have to head out and try all the suggestions on some melting snow I still have in the backyard.

joshhuntnm · April 4, 2008

It sounds like you didn't mean to, but that is a great example of narrow depth of field. When I first saw the picture, I thought that was what you were trying to do.

Dogdots · April 4, 2008

joshhuntnm wrote:

It sounds like you didn't mean to, but that is a great example of narrow depth of field. When I first saw the picture, I thought that was what you were trying to do.

No, I wasn't trying to do

Is this something that people try to do? The reason I ask is because I like it, but I have to admit that the first time I did it I thought there was something wrong with my camera

WilliamClark77 · April 5, 2008

Dogdots wrote:

Is this something that people try to do? The reason I ask is because I like it, but I have to admit that the first time I did it I thought there was something wrong with my camera

Yuppers! Narrow dof can make some cool shots. For instance, in the shot you posted, had there been a ladybug (errrr, in this case a frozen ladybug, but you get the general idea) sitting on the left corner of the wood in the area that's in focus it would "POP" out of the photo as the main subject.

I somewhat suck at explanation so I'll post a pic or two I have handy to show what I mean.

f7.1, 1/50 sec, with a 100mm macro. Even though I used a narrower aperture here than you did above, I was closer making the dof very shallow bringing focus right on her tail. I also snapped virtually the same pic at f16 or so if I recall correctly to get her entire body in better focus, but it hit the trash bin since it didn't look nearly as neat to me.

F4.0, 1/400 sec, same 100mm macro. I used such a wide ap to completely blur out the water faucet on the left, which is only about an inch closer then her hourglass. Granted, her body and surrounding web would've had much better detail had I used a narrower ap, like f10, but imo, would've drawn attention away from the hourglass on her belly that I wanted focus on.

Anyhoo, these aren't the best pics but hopefully gives you an idea of when shallow dof can be usefull.

Dogdots · April 5, 2008

I see it does work to ones advantage. Now I don't feel like I did something really wrong. And yes....a frozen ladybug would have added pop to the photo. Bummer I didn't have something there.

Nice photos

It showed me excatly what can be done when actually trying to do it and that other people do it to

Thank you for showing you photos to help me. They helped

Now my lesson is to do it when I'm trying to

joshhuntnm · April 5, 2008

Dogdots wrote:

No, I wasn't trying to do

Is this something that people try to do? The reason I ask is because I like it, but I have to admit that the first time I did it I thought there was something wrong with my camera

one could argue narrow depth of field and throwing the background out of focus is what differenciates picture taking from photography. An oversimplification, to be sure.

SloYerRoll · April 6, 2008

joshhuntnm wrote:

one could argue narrow depth of field and throwing the background out of focus is what differenciates picture taking from photography. An oversimplification, to be sure.

IMO controlling DOF is definately the first step in becoming a real photographer. Whether you do it for a living or not.

LiquidAir · April 6, 2008

SloYerRoll wrote:

Hey Mary,
WC77 nailed it. Your physical proximity to whatever your shooting is directly related to your DOF.

So go back and take the same sot the safe distance away. Then step back a bit and zoom in (but don't change your aperture). You'll see once you import the images that the DPF has changed even though you haven't changed your aperture.

Acually, it is the magnification and the aperture which affect the DoF. Proximity only matters to the degree that it affects magnification. So, for instance if you shoot two shots, one at 12 inches and 50mm and the other at 24 inches and 100mm, the DoF will be the same if the aperture is the same.

SloYerRoll · April 6, 2008

LiquidAir wrote:

Acually, it is the magnification and the aperture which affect the DoF. Proximity only matters to the degree that it affects magnification. So, for instance if you shoot two shots, one at 12 inches and 50mm and the other at 24 inches and 100mm, the DoF will be the same if the aperture is the same.

Thanks for catching my goof LA. I do understand what your saying (thanks to you from a while back) and I intended to say essentially that. I just made a mistake in my post

Kind of ironic w/ my last post eh? :hide

Dogdots · April 6, 2008

SloYerRoll wrote:

IMO controlling DOF is definately the first step in becoming a real photographer. Whether you do it for a living or not.

Controlling DOF....could someone go into more detail on this? I find I do well sometimes and sometimes not. Is it all in the settings and distance from the subject?

Blackwood · April 6, 2008

SloYerRoll wrote:

IMO controlling DOF is definately the first step in becoming a real photographer. Whether you do it for a living or not.

I disagree.

Controlling exposure is the first step.

(of course, it must be noted that I'm not a pro :P).

Dogdots wrote:

Controlling DOF....could someone go into more detail on this? I find I do well sometimes and sometimes not. Is it all in the settings and distance from the subject?

It's all about what you want to capture. If you want to have a selective focus shot (narrow DOF, like the one you posted), shoot wide open (the low f/ numbers). On the other hand, if you want everything in focus, stop down (the high f/ numbers).

I guess what I'm trying to say is this: narrow DOF is wonderful when you have A subject within the frame. But when the entire frame is your subject, you'll want a wide DOF.

SloYerRoll · April 6, 2008

I can se what your saying. But IMO, if you can't controll exposure, your a sub-n00b:D

Dogdots · April 6, 2008

Ok...I think I get it.

Thank you

joshhuntnm · April 6, 2008

Dogdots wrote:

Controlling DOF....could someone go into more detail on this? I find I do well sometimes and sometimes not. Is it all in the settings and distance from the subject?

First, by controlling, think what is mean is getting it wide enough that everything you want in focus is in focus, but the background (or forground if there is any) is out of focus.

It basically is influnced by two things; how wide (small number) the aperture. 2.8 is better thn 4.5 (better meaning narrower depth of field; background more out of focus. and the length of the lense. A 200 mm lense will throw the background out of focus better than a 50 mm lense.

some lenses are said to have beter bokah (out of focus area). Cheaper lenses will be a bit choppy.

Dogdots · April 6, 2008

joshhuntnm wrote:

First, by controlling, think what is mean is getting it wide enough that everything you want in focus is in focus, but the background (or forground if there is any) is out of focus.

It basically is influnced by two things; how wide (small number) the aperture. 2.8 is better thn 4.5 (better meaning narrower depth of field; background more out of focus. and the length of the lense. A 200 mm lense will throw the background out of focus better than a 50 mm lense.

some lenses are said to have beter bokah (out of focus area). Cheaper lenses will be a bit choppy.

I take all my photos in Manual Mode. I usually keep my focal point centered. Now if I didn't do that -- would that effect the bokah? I would think so.

I do have a problem with one other photo I just took. It was of two Geese flying in front of a bunch of trees. The focal point was on a Goose, but the trees are clear to. Why? My setting were:

Shutter - 1/1000
Aperture - 5.6
ISO - 400
Focal Length - 240mm

Then another photo of some ducks flying I got some bokah...not the best, but noticeable. With this my settings were:

Shutter - 1/1250
Aperture - 5.6
ISO - 400
Focal Length - 300mm

Maybe this information will help you with why I'm kinda having a hard time understanding and confused. I know with the photo I posted I was way off

I can post the photos if that would help. Just let me know.

LiquidAir · April 7, 2008

Dogdots wrote:

I take all my photos in Manual Mode. I usually keep my focal point centered. Now if I didn't do that -- would that effect the bokah? I would think so.

When you start talking bokeh, it gets complicated. DoF describes the range of distances that are in focus which something you can look up on a table. Bokeh is a subjective judgement of how the out of focus areas are rendered. Many different factors affect Bokeh. Here are a few:

Aperture: the wider you set the aperture the blurrier the background will be. Also, as you change aperture setting the shape of the apeture disc changes which will affect bokeh. This is why you care how many blades the aperture on your lens has. 8 bladed apertures will give a smoother bokeh than 5 bladed apertures. Lensbabies use a replaceable aperture disc which means the aperture is always perfectly round at any stop.

Focusing distance: the closer you focus the blurrier the background will be.

Focal Length: close to the focal plane, the amount of blur is determined by the f number (i.e. f/4 or f/2.8), but as your background gets farther away the physical aperture size matters. As a result, even when the depth of field is the same, longer lenses will blur the background more.

Lens design: The character of the out of focus areas determined by the corrective elements in the lens. One of the things you are paying for why you buy L primes (for instance) is a design which will give you a smooth, pleasing bokeh.

Dogdots · April 7, 2008

LiquidAir wrote:

When you start talking bokeh, it gets complicated. DoF describes the range of distances that are in focus which something you can look up on a table. Bokeh is a subjective judgement of how the out of focus areas are rendered. Many different factors affect Bokeh. Here are a few:

Aperture: the wider you set the aperture the blurrier the background will be. Also, as you change aperture setting the shape of the apeture disc changes which will affect bokeh. This is why you care how many blades the aperture on your lens has. 8 bladed apertures will give a smoother bokeh than 5 bladed apertures. Lensbabies use a replaceable aperture disc which means the aperture is always perfectly round at any stop.

Focusing distance: the closer you focus the blurrier the background will be.

Focal Length: close to the focal plane, the amount of blur is determined by the f number (i.e. f/4 or f/2.8), but as your background gets farther away the physical aperture size matters. As a result, even when the depth of field is the same, longer lenses will blur the background more.

Lens design: The character of the out of focus areas determined by the corrective elements in the lens. One of the things you are paying for why you buy L primes (for instance) is a design which will give you a smooth, pleasing bokeh.

This makes a lot of sense to me. One of my photos was taken at a great distance while the other was closer to me. I did change my length on my lens, but I'm thinking it was the distance I was from my subjects. Am I correct?

I also see a a f/2.8 would help

What happened to this

Comments