Are DOF charts necessary? If you think they will help.

[JohnnyV]

:)Hi everyone, was thinking of buying a DOP chart, but is it a must to have in your bag? Was wondering what you might be thinking on this subject. And if so which one and where do you get them? Thanks in advance, JohnnyV

[ed rader]

:)Hi everyone, was thinking of buying a DOP chart, but is it a must to have in your bag? Was wondering what you might be thinking on this subject. And if so which one and where do you get them? Thanks in advance, JohnnyV


i go by feel and trial and error. i don't need no stinkin' charts ;).

ed rader

[JohnnyV]

I have been doing the trial and error thing too.Some keepers, others losers. Badabing, badaboom.

[Wilt]

If the lens has such a compressed focusing scale as to be virtually useless for distances farther than 3', what benefit would there be in using DOF scales with the modern AF lens?!

[tvphotog]

I keep this (http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html) on my Palm Pilot, but after a while it's second nature.

[bohdank]

Shoot, and when you review an image, make a mental note.... everything I want was in focus, not in focus, what focal length, what aperture, what distance. After awhile it will/should become second nature.

[SkipD]

Are DOF charts necessary?The brand new photographer needs to learn about the concepts of depth-of-field. For this learning phase, a depth of field calculator like this on-line DOF calculator (http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html) can be quite handy.

For in-the-field use, there's a button on most DSLRs called "depth of field preview". Press the button while looking through the viewfinder. If the chosen f-stop for the exposure is anything but wide-open, the viewfinder will darken when the button is pushed, and you can see fuzzy areas.

In reality, the precision of the depth-of-field calculator (and any charts made with it) is quite misleading. The size of print one makes, any cropping of the image done, etc., changes the actual depth of field in the final print/display.

The bottom line is that I doubt that any truly experienced photographer feels a need to carry a depth-of-field chart in the camera case.

[gasrocks]

Boy, if I saw a photographer pull out a chart and study it, I'd really assume newbie. So, at least do so secretly.

[JohnnyV]

Thank you all for the info.. think I will take your advice and stick to the tried and true method of good old on hands experience. Practice makes perfect, right?

[Zivnuska]

Thank you all for the info.. think I will take your advice and stick to the tried and true method of good old on hands experience. Practice makes perfect, right?

Don't write off the dof calculator!

I never carry a chart but occasionally I do log on and use the dof calculator mentioned previously. Spend a little time with it to get a general feel for the values obtained.

Two examples:

I shoot football with the 300mm f/2.8 lens. Occasionally during a game, I will get pics of players on the bench from short range. Guess the dof for 300mm, f/2.8, 1D Mark III, at 30 ft from the subject.

http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q225/zivnuska/Titus.jpg

Because of the dof (and a tip from an experienced shooter) I will now shoot those shots stopped down to a smaller aperture. Four inches is a very slim dof. {I knew the dof was small but until I calculated it, I would not have guessed 4 inches}

_________________________

When I shot my first 'Through The Glass' shots in basketball, they were remote shots (I was sitting in the stands with a Pocket Wizard) where the camera was clamped to the backboard supports and pre-focused at a fixed distance. My guesstimate was 3 1/2 feet but there was no way to be sure how far away the player would be from the camera. I ended up shooting at ISO 3200 to get a small aperture for increased dof to have sharp images at varying distances from the hoop. This was the result of computing the dof at several f-stop/ISO pairings and picking the most suitable for this application. Guess the dof for 24mm, f/8.0, 1D Mark III, at 42 inches.

http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q225/zivnuska/SlamDunk57of58-1.jpg

http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q225/zivnuska/SlamDunk54of58.jpg

By spending some time with the dof calculator, it will help your photography. I still use it occasionally.

[JohnnyV]

Nice pics! Would have never guessed the dof in these photos. Thanks for the tip.

[jrsforums]

I keep this (http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html) on my Palm Pilot, but after a while it's second nature.

DOF master is nice, but pCAM is a really great aid. Give it a try...

http://www.davideubank.com/Good_Focus/pCAM_for_Palm.html

Also available for iPhone.

John

[tdodd]

One for Windows Mobile - http://home.comcast.net/~jonsachs/#DOF%201.0

[Lowner]

I made up one of my own, which is laminated and kept in my bag for landscape work. Theres absolutely no need to spend money on them, the information is freely available.

[JohnJ80]

On occasion, when shooting sports like alpine skiing where it all happens fast and there are not a lot of visual references to gauge against, I will look up the DOF for a given aperture at the distance I'm shooting. When a skier comes flying down the course, there is no time to fiddle with it and you will miss the shot.

j.

[Hogloff]

Boy, if I saw a photographer pull out a chart and study it, I'd really assume newbie. So, at least do so secretly.

Yep, but he'll put you to shame with nailing the shot with his first image while you are rattling off a bunch of shots and chimping away. Now who looks like the newbie?

[pwm2]

A noob wouldn't even think about a DOF chart. He would post here and wonder why his photo is OOF - if there is something wrong with the AF or with the lens...

Experience normally comes from past mistakes. But why repeat everybody elses mistakes when there are help available?

But as noted, you don't have to pay for any DOF chart.

[Lowner]

Hers my "crib sheet". As you can see I've added a few other notes to help with depth of field issues on my Eos-3. My 30D is a little easier in this regard, but not by much.

I've got another with the six step MLU procedure on it because I can never remember how to do it!

[SMP_Homer]

Hers my "crib sheet". As you can see I've added a few other notes to help with depth of field issues on my Eos-3. My 30D is a little easier in this regard, but not by much.

I've got another with the six step MLU procedure on it because I can never remember how to do it!

I have a 'sticky' inside of each lens cap, with that info for that lens

[NYPhotog]

Hers my "crib sheet". As you can see I've added a few other notes to help with depth of field issues on my Eos-3. My 30D is a little easier in this regard, but not by much.

I've got another with the six step MLU procedure on it because I can never remember how to do it!

I don't know why you would need such a sheet for hyperfocal distance, as it is always double the distance of the closest object that you want in focus. In other words, if the closest object is 15', and you wanted DOF out to infinity, your focus point (hyperfocal distance) would be 30'. This holds true for every lens at every aperture. The tricky calculation is selective depth of field, where you want only a slice of the entire scene in focus, not out to infinity.

[Lowner]

You haven't met my brain! To be honest I do sometimes wonder if I've got one. Theres no way I'd retain that information and everything else. I find it far simpler to pick up the card and set the camera to the distance. The same with MLU, for the life of me I cannot remember the six steps but the card makes it bearable.

[duane0524]

Hers my "crib sheet". As you can see I've added a few other notes to help with depth of field issues on my Eos-3. My 30D is a little easier in this regard, but not by much.

I've got another with the six step MLU procedure on it because I can never remember how to do it!

Thanks for posting this.

[drb5]

I don't know why you would need such a sheet for hyperfocal distance, as it is always double the distance of the closest object that you want in focus. In other words, if the closest object is 15', and you wanted DOF out to infinity, your focus point (hyperfocal distance) would be 30'. This holds true for every lens at every aperture. The tricky calculation is selective depth of field, where you want only a slice of the entire scene in focus, not out to infinity.
I'm still struggling to get my head round all this and hadn't thought of it like this before.

I've been trying the thirds proceedure in the viewfinder, or trail and error.

Thing that gets me(even when using the DoF button), is say your standing at the edge of a cliff looking along a beach with cliffs at the end of the beach, where and how do focus then? I presume i can still use the thirds way, but considering what i'm taking the picture of, using the DoF button, it makes it very difficult to see what is in fact focussed correctly?

[tdodd]

If you are seeking to achieve a large DOF, and depending on focusing at the hyperfocal distance to get you there, there is an alternative approach that may make things much simpler to figure out. Have a look at this paper on the subject. I've tested it out and it seems to work....

http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/DOFR.html

The bottom line is that you focus at infinity, or the most distant thing of interest in your scene - the horizon, probably, and you pick an aperture diameter measured in physical mm, not f/stops, that is as small as the smallest thing you want to be able to resolve. e.g. if you used a 24mm lens (sensor size does not matter) and stopped down to f/8 your aperture would 24/8 = 3mm. 3mm is pretty small and will resolve blades of grass, for example. For the landsacpe/infinity stuff, this technique is a piece of cake. To break it down even more simply, just set your aperture to be physically 3mm across, whatever your focal length, and you will be all set for a landscape style shoot. e.g.....

To get a 3mm aperture at 70mm focal length you need 70/3 = ~f/22;
To get a 3mm aperture at 50mm focal length you need 50/3 = ~f/16;
To get a 3mm aperture at 35mm focal length you need 35/3 = ~f/11;
To get a 3mm aperture at 24mm focal length you need 24/3 = f/8;
To get a 3mm aperture at 17mm focal length you need 17/3 = ~f/5.6;
To get a 3mm aperture at 12mm focal length you need 12/3 = f/4;
To get a 3mm aperture at 10mm focal length you need 10/3 = ~f/3.2;

When you factor in the effects of diffraction softening at smaller apertures (measured in terms of f/stops) you probably don't need to stop down below f/8, or f/11 at the most, when using an APS-C camera and a lens in the range of 10-35mm for landscape type shooting. Indeed, with my 10-22mm lens there is really no need to stop down below f/8 unless I need to force a slower shutter speed. At the shorter end even f/4 or f/5.6 would be plenty.

There is also an explanation of how to choose the aperture you need to get just the right amount of DOF, if you want to control a shallower DOF, but I haven't quite got my head round that yet.

[Lowner]

Tim,

Thanks for sharing that. I've never come across it before and like you, will need to study it carefully.

Now all I need is a ready-reckoner for the perfect composition and I'm sorted.

[argyle]

Boy, if I saw a photographer pull out a chart and study it, I'd really assume newbie. So, at least do so secretly.

I have to disagree with this statement. I keep a small laminated version in my bag for easy reference when landscaping. I simply make note of my closest foreground object, double that distance to obtain the HFD, then refer to the HFD chart to select the aperture that's specific to that distance and focal length. I find that I need to do a lot less bracketing and chimping this way. I may also stop down an additional stop as well beyond what the chart calls for if I plan on making a relatively large print. To me, the chart is just another useful tool and effective timesaver that shouldn't be overlooked or pooh-poohed simply because it may make one "look like a newbie"...

[Lowner]

You are absolutely right, that extra stop can make all the difference.

"Newbie"? I've been using a camera for perhaps 50 years. I am completely unconcerned about other peoples opinions, all I want is to capture a great image.

[NYPhotog]

I have to disagree with this statement. I keep a small laminated version in my bag for easy reference when landscaping. I simply make note of my closest foreground object, double that distance to obtain the HFD, then refer to the HFD chart to select the aperture that's specific to that distance and focal length. I find that I need to do a lot less bracketing and chimping this way. I may also stop down an additional stop as well beyond what the chart calls for if I plan on making a relatively large print. To me, the chart is just another useful tool and effective timesaver that shouldn't be overlooked or pooh-poohed simply because it may make one "look like a newbie"...

I totally agree. I have been using the ExpoAperture2 Depth of Field Guide for a few years. It is not free, of course, but it provides all the information I need - not only the correct aperture at hyperfocal distance, but selective focus calculations, etc. http://www.expoimaging.net/product-detail.php?cat_id=4&product_id=4&keywords=ExpoAperture2_Depth-of-Field_Guide

[drb5]

If you are seeking to achieve a large DOF, and depending on focusing at the hyperfocal distance to get you there, there is an alternative approach that may make things much simpler to figure out. Have a look at this paper on the subject. I've tested it out and it seems to work....

http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/DOFR.html

The bottom line is that you focus at infinity, or the most distant thing of interest in your scene - the horizon, probably, and you pick an aperture diameter measured in physical mm, not f/stops, that is as small as the smallest thing you want to be able to resolve. e.g. if you used a 24mm lens (sensor size does not matter) and stopped down to f/8 your aperture would 24/8 = 3mm. 3mm is pretty small and will resolve blades of grass, for example. For the landsacpe/infinity stuff, this technique is a piece of cake. To break it down even more simply, just set your aperture to be physically 3mm across, whatever your focal length, and you will be all set for a landscape style shoot. e.g.....

To get a 3mm aperture at 70mm focal length you need 70/3 = ~f/22;
To get a 3mm aperture at 50mm focal length you need 50/3 = ~f/16;
To get a 3mm aperture at 35mm focal length you need 35/3 = ~f/11;
To get a 3mm aperture at 24mm focal length you need 24/3 = f/8;
To get a 3mm aperture at 17mm focal length you need 17/3 = ~f/5.6;
To get a 3mm aperture at 12mm focal length you need 12/3 = f/4;
To get a 3mm aperture at 10mm focal length you need 10/3 = ~f/3.2;

When you factor in the effects of diffraction softening at smaller apertures (measured in terms of f/stops) you probably don't need to stop down below f/8, or f/11 at the most, when using an APS-C camera and a lens in the range of 10-35mm for landscape type shooting. Indeed, with my 10-22mm lens there is really no need to stop down below f/8 unless I need to force a slower shutter speed. At the shorter end even f/4 or f/5.6 would be plenty.

There is also an explanation of how to choose the aperture you need to get just the right amount of DOF, if you want to control a shallower DOF, but I haven't quite got my head round that yet.
Many thanks for that....another way to look at it all! :D

It actually sounds a bit too easy and one i will need to try out a lot before i'm convinced. :)

[drb5]

Well here's one of about 10 tests i done. Only a bit of sharpening and a slight boost of contrast, otherwise it's straight out of camera.
Click my Flickr link for larger version.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2505/3871492310_7e617bf6ae.jpg

[moogyboobles]

A noob wouldn't even think about a DOF chart. He would post here and wonder why his photo is OOF - if there is something wrong with the AF or with the lens...


Yep like me, never heard of this before.
I was just searching about off days. Sometimes, only with my f/1.8 50mm I seem to be off with my focus, looks spot on through the viewfinder, but comes out all wrong. Hardly ever happens with my f/1.8 85mm though. I've never used the AF...it can't keep up in lowlight gigs!

[JohnnyV]

Tdodd, what happens when you go above the 70mm on your chart, how do you figure or compensate on the 3mm. Say you have a 135mm shot, then you have 135/3mm = f67? I know that's crazy so what then? Thanks again for all the info..trying to rap my head around all of your comments, have helped though. Will try some suggestions you all offered. JohnnyV

[tdodd]

Johnny, you don't really expect to get EVERYTHING in focus when you shoot with a long lens. That said, you will probably find that people shooting with medium format or large format view cameras may very well be stopped down as small as f/45, f/64 or even f/90, with their longer lenses, in order to obtain sufficient DOF.

As for my "chart", I just picked a handful of common focal lengths that people typically use in 35mm or APS-C photography for shooting scenarios where they want a lot of the scene in focus. In truth, 70mm and even 50 mm was pushing it a bit, as these would not be regarded as your "normal" choices for "landscape" style photography. On a 35mm camera I'd more realistically expect focal lengths of 40mm and smaller to be used for "landscapes" - the 16-35 and 17-40mm lenses spring to mind as typical choices. On an APS-C body the focal length range would be nearer the 10-22 mark (equal to 16-35 on a 35mm body).

With longer lenses, like 135mm, you would (a) not expect to easily get a huge DOF; (b) probably not want a huge DOF, the very opposite in fact.