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.
Actually, focal length does not influence DOF IF the subject is the same size in the images - like LiquidAir said . A 28mm lens does not really have more DOF than a 400mm lens - it just seems like it, because we use them differently - one to minimize the foreground, and one to maximize the subject.
Actually, focal length does not influence DOF IF the subject is the same size in the images - like LiquidAir said . A 28mm lens does not really have more DOF than a 400mm lens - it just seems like it, because we use them differently - one to minimize the foreground, and one to maximize the subject.
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.
Here is the catch, at the same magnification the 50mm and the 200mm will have the same DoF, but the 200mm lens will throw the background further out of focus than the 50mm because it has a larger aperture. Aperture size = focal length / f number, so a 50/2.8 lens has an 18mm aperture and a 200/2.8 lens has a 72mm aperture. Depth of field is only a description of the behavior of a lens near the focal plane. Once you start talking about things that are a long distance from the focal plane, you need to know a lot more than just the DoF to predict the behavior. So, if you want extreme blurring of the background you should use a telephoto lens, but if you want a soft blurring you are better off with a fast medium to wide lens. Either way, the range of distances which are in focus will be the same; the focal length is just affecting how blurry the background gets.
The other thing to be aware of is the hyperfocal distance which gets closer to the camera as the focal length gets shorter. If your subject distance is farther than about 1/3 of the hyperfocal distance, then the relationship between f-number, distance, and focal length gets considerably more complicated.
Good explanation of the difference between the OOF area of a wide angle versus a telephoto, when the subject is the same exact size at the image plane.
In the real world of course, the subject is usually NOT the same size when shot with a 28mm and a 400mm lens:D
Good explanation of the difference between the OOF area of a wide angle versus a telephoto, when the subject is the same exact size at the image plane.
In the real world of course, the subject is usually NOT the same size when shot with a 28mm and a 400mm lens:D
Shortly after I got my 35/1.4 I took this shot an an experiment in DoF at f/1.6:
ISO 100 f/1.6 1/2000s
The focus distance is less that 2 feet, the DoF is very shallow, and yet the background is still recognizable. If I had take a shot with the same magnification with the 135/2, the background would have been obscured beyond recognition. It was a surprise to me at the time and I had to do some research to figure out why.
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:
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.
Go back to www.dofmaster.com and plug in your EXIF data and, while keeping in mind the distance from you to the trees, enter an estimate of the distance between the camera and the birds. I think you will find that your trees are well within the DOF obtained by your camera/lens/EXIF combination.
I knew, of course, that trees and plants had roots, stems, bark, branches and foliage that reached up toward the light. But I was coming to realize that the real magician was light itself.
Edward Steichen
This thread has some great advice from some very skilled experts. Here's my addition:
For me, I understand better when I have good graphical examples (pictures). I found this tutorial site that gives some photo examples that match up nicely to your original shot. Particularly view the 3rd & 4th page of the tutorial.
I knew, of course, that trees and plants had roots, stems, bark, branches and foliage that reached up toward the light. But I was coming to realize that the real magician was light itself.
Edward Steichen
Wow...a program to do all the work and you don't have to even worry about DOF. I wonder what the learning curve is on that program John I also checked out your other link. I found it helpful, but then again it still confused me with my two photos. The only difference is 60mm which I suppose is alot in the photo world and then the distance from my subject. What I can remember is I was about 50-100 yds from the Geese and 25-50 yds from the Ducks. What am I missing in this? I've posted my two photos even though they weren't ask for....I hope that is ok. If not someone remove them.
And my second photo
My understanding is that with my Geese photo I should have changed my f/5.6 to something else like maybe f/8 or more maybe. Am I correct or am I way off?
I thank you all for your help as I really want to get this down correctly and I hope I haven't been written off yet as a "lost cause" on this subject
Go back to www.dofmaster.com and plug in your EXIF data and, while keeping in mind the distance from you to the trees, enter an estimate of the distance between the camera and the birds. I think you will find that your trees are well within the DOF obtained by your camera/lens/EXIF combination.
Scott...I played with it and didn't "get it", but then I went back again and entered the Ducks photo information I saw why it came out the way I wanted it. The numbers seemed to match up well.
When I re-entered my Geese photo info I saw I needed to change my f-stop to f/8 to F/ ? that is where I get confused. In the dofmaster do you look at the near limit, far limit or total? I can't quite get it to match up right. Any suggestions on my reading of this? Maybe I have my distance off between me and the subject.
Wow...a program to do all the work and you don't have to even worry about DOF.
Only sort of... you have to build a depth mask so the program knows how far away everything is. Building a good depth mask is a lot of work. Personally, I think your are still better off gettting it right in camera when you can.
My understanding is that with my Geese photo I should have changed my f/5.6 to something else like maybe f/8 or more maybe. Am I correct or am I way off?
I thank you all for your help as I really want to get this down correctly and I hope I haven't been written off yet as a "lost cause" on this subject
What were you hoping for from each of these shots? The trees behind the geese were close enough to the focal plane to be within or at least very close to the depth of field. If you wanted those trees to be blurred you needed a significantly wider aperture. Give the short distance between the two the aperture requried to separate the geese from the trees would probably require a rather exotic lens (think 400/2.8).
The only difference is 60mm which I suppose is alot in the photo world and then the distance from my subject. What I can remember is I was about 50-100 yds from the Geese and 25-50 yds from the Ducks. What am I missing in this?
What you are missing is the distance between the animal and the background. Looks like the ducks are a lot farther from the background than the geese are. That is why you see bokeh in the duck photo and not in the geese photo.
My understanding is that with my Geese photo I should have changed my f/5.6 to something else like maybe f/8 or more maybe. Am I correct or am I way off?
Actually with your two waterfoul shots I don't believe its as complicated as it sounds. As someone else said, the ducks look to be farther away from the background (trees) than the geese. I don't believe a change in f# would have done much for you.
Sometimes the scene and shooting conditions will control the final result more than your camera controls.
As liquidair said:
Give the short distance between the two the aperture requried to separate the geese from the trees would probably require a rather exotic lens (think 400/2.8).
And i'm not sure even spending the $7000+ on a lens like that would isolate the geese from the background.
I knew, of course, that trees and plants had roots, stems, bark, branches and foliage that reached up toward the light. But I was coming to realize that the real magician was light itself.
Edward Steichen
I'm so glad I posted the photos. I understand the difference now. My Geese were close to the trees and the birds were further away from from their background.
John W, I agree with you that the scene and shooting conditions can sometimes control the results. Bummer that the Geese were so close to the trees....it would have been a better photo if there had been some bokeh in the background so they didn't blend in so much. Maybe next time they will fly alittle further away from the trees for me
Liquid Air...I could never learn that software program Sounds just to complicated, but it looks like a good tool to have if needed.
As for a $7000 lens. Ha...I only use that type of lens in my dreams
I knew, of course, that trees and plants had roots, stems, bark, branches and foliage that reached up toward the light. But I was coming to realize that the real magician was light itself.
Edward Steichen
Ouch...I get the idea I'm beating a dead horse or you feel you are by my questions. Sorry about that.
Your simple diagram is very simple and to the point which I understand now. Thank you for taking the time to post it.
No, that was me thinking that the topic had been pretty well covered but I just had to get another $.02 worth in. I'm sorry for the confusion and I hope I didn't offend. I really wanted to help. I'm glad the diagram helped.
No, that was me thinking that the topic had been pretty well covered but I just had to get another $.02 worth in. I'm sorry for the confusion and I hope I didn't offend. I really wanted to help. I'm glad the diagram helped.
Oh no...you didn't offend My thoughts were I offended you with my inability to grasp this.
Your diagram turned the light bulbs on and I got it While I got it somewhat with the link to the tutorial on Aperture and Depth of Field I was still missing something. So your extra $.02 was worth a million to me.
Comments
Actually, focal length does not influence DOF IF the subject is the same size in the images - like LiquidAir said . A 28mm lens does not really have more DOF than a 400mm lens - it just seems like it, because we use them differently - one to minimize the foreground, and one to maximize the subject.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Here is the catch, at the same magnification the 50mm and the 200mm will have the same DoF, but the 200mm lens will throw the background further out of focus than the 50mm because it has a larger aperture. Aperture size = focal length / f number, so a 50/2.8 lens has an 18mm aperture and a 200/2.8 lens has a 72mm aperture. Depth of field is only a description of the behavior of a lens near the focal plane. Once you start talking about things that are a long distance from the focal plane, you need to know a lot more than just the DoF to predict the behavior. So, if you want extreme blurring of the background you should use a telephoto lens, but if you want a soft blurring you are better off with a fast medium to wide lens. Either way, the range of distances which are in focus will be the same; the focal length is just affecting how blurry the background gets.
The other thing to be aware of is the hyperfocal distance which gets closer to the camera as the focal length gets shorter. If your subject distance is farther than about 1/3 of the hyperfocal distance, then the relationship between f-number, distance, and focal length gets considerably more complicated.
Good explanation of the difference between the OOF area of a wide angle versus a telephoto, when the subject is the same exact size at the image plane.
In the real world of course, the subject is usually NOT the same size when shot with a 28mm and a 400mm lens:D
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Shortly after I got my 35/1.4 I took this shot an an experiment in DoF at f/1.6:
ISO 100 f/1.6 1/2000s
The focus distance is less that 2 feet, the DoF is very shallow, and yet the background is still recognizable. If I had take a shot with the same magnification with the 135/2, the background would have been obscured beyond recognition. It was a surprise to me at the time and I had to do some research to figure out why.
You are certainly correct that telephotos cause much more dramatic, out of focus, backgrounds..
Here is a shot at 700mm at f 7.1, and the blurred background behind the great northern shrike is only about 50 feet behind the bird.
And here is one shot at 44mm with a G9 at f8 or - ~ 95mm in 35mm according to smugmug.
Notice how the background 11 miles away is still discernable even tho out of focus.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
My Photos
Thoughts on photographing a wedding, How to post a picture, AF Microadjustments?, Light Scoop
Equipment List - Check my profile
http://www.dofpro.com/index.htm
So, I'm really just kidding.
I knew, of course, that trees and plants had roots, stems, bark, branches and foliage that reached up toward the light. But I was coming to realize that the real magician was light itself.
Edward Steichen
This thread has some great advice from some very skilled experts. Here's my addition:
For me, I understand better when I have good graphical examples (pictures). I found this tutorial site that gives some photo examples that match up nicely to your original shot. Particularly view the 3rd & 4th page of the tutorial.
http://www.trustedreviews.com/digital-cameras/review/2006/08/17/Digital-Camera-Tutorial-Aperture-Depth-of-Field/p1
Good thread everyone!
I knew, of course, that trees and plants had roots, stems, bark, branches and foliage that reached up toward the light. But I was coming to realize that the real magician was light itself.
Edward Steichen
And my second photo
My understanding is that with my Geese photo I should have changed my f/5.6 to something else like maybe f/8 or more maybe. Am I correct or am I way off?
I thank you all for your help as I really want to get this down correctly and I hope I haven't been written off yet as a "lost cause" on this subject
www.Dogdotsphotography.com
Scott...I played with it and didn't "get it", but then I went back again and entered the Ducks photo information I saw why it came out the way I wanted it. The numbers seemed to match up well.
When I re-entered my Geese photo info I saw I needed to change my f-stop to f/8 to F/ ? that is where I get confused. In the dofmaster do you look at the near limit, far limit or total? I can't quite get it to match up right. Any suggestions on my reading of this? Maybe I have my distance off between me and the subject.
www.Dogdotsphotography.com
Only sort of... you have to build a depth mask so the program knows how far away everything is. Building a good depth mask is a lot of work. Personally, I think your are still better off gettting it right in camera when you can.
What were you hoping for from each of these shots? The trees behind the geese were close enough to the focal plane to be within or at least very close to the depth of field. If you wanted those trees to be blurred you needed a significantly wider aperture. Give the short distance between the two the aperture requried to separate the geese from the trees would probably require a rather exotic lens (think 400/2.8).
What you are missing is the distance between the animal and the background. Looks like the ducks are a lot farther from the background than the geese are. That is why you see bokeh in the duck photo and not in the geese photo.
Actually with your two waterfoul shots I don't believe its as complicated as it sounds. As someone else said, the ducks look to be farther away from the background (trees) than the geese. I don't believe a change in f# would have done much for you.
Sometimes the scene and shooting conditions will control the final result more than your camera controls.
As liquidair said:
And i'm not sure even spending the $7000+ on a lens like that would isolate the geese from the background.
I knew, of course, that trees and plants had roots, stems, bark, branches and foliage that reached up toward the light. But I was coming to realize that the real magician was light itself.
Edward Steichen
John W, I agree with you that the scene and shooting conditions can sometimes control the results. Bummer that the Geese were so close to the trees....it would have been a better photo if there had been some bokeh in the background so they didn't blend in so much. Maybe next time they will fly alittle further away from the trees for me
Liquid Air...I could never learn that software program
As for a $7000 lens. Ha...I only use that type of lens in my dreams
www.Dogdotsphotography.com
Here's a simple diagram that may help you out
C = Camera
S = Subject
B = Background
Y = Camera to Subject distance
X = Subject to Background distance
C -------------- S -------------- B Y XAll else being held constant, the larger the value of "X/Y", the more out of focus will the background be.
My Photos
Thoughts on photographing a wedding, How to post a picture, AF Microadjustments?, Light Scoop
Equipment List - Check my profile
Ooooo, Scott . . . . nice job simplifying a concept that's hard to describe with words!
I knew, of course, that trees and plants had roots, stems, bark, branches and foliage that reached up toward the light. But I was coming to realize that the real magician was light itself.
Edward Steichen
Ouch...I get the idea I'm beating a dead horse or you feel you are by my questions. Sorry about that.
Your simple diagram is very simple and to the point which I understand now. Thank you for taking the time to post it.
www.Dogdotsphotography.com
My Photos
Thoughts on photographing a wedding, How to post a picture, AF Microadjustments?, Light Scoop
Equipment List - Check my profile
Oh no...you didn't offend
Your diagram turned the light bulbs on and I got it
Thank - you.
www.Dogdotsphotography.com