Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 22 Sep 2014 (Monday) 22:27
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Help getting shallow DOF

 
chauncey
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,696 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 462
Joined Jun 2007
Location: MI/CO
     
Sep 24, 2014 07:04 as a reply to  @ post 17174616 |  #31

Like has been said...it's a lens thing. http://photographylife​.com/what-is-bokeh (external link)


The things you do for yourself die with you, the things you do for others live forever.
A man's worth should be judged, not when he basks in the sun, but how he faces the storm.

My stuff...http://1x.com/member/c​hauncey43 (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
travisvwright
Goldmember
Avatar
2,043 posts
Gallery: 21 photos
Likes: 211
Joined Feb 2013
Location: NC
     
Sep 24, 2014 07:10 |  #32

WaltA wrote in post #17173676 (external link)
This thread
Post # 20

Actually this is the one I was thinking of:

IMAGE: http://media.digitalcameraworld.com/files/2012/05/Depth_of_field_photography_cheat_sheet.jpg

I come here for your expert opinion. Please do not hesitate to critique or edit.
70D, 6D, Canon 135, Tamron 28-75 2.8, Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC, Canon 50 1.4, Canon 100 2.8 Macro, Canon 85 1.8, Canon 10-18 4.5 STM

Franklin NC Photographer Travis Wright (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,796 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2562
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Sep 24, 2014 11:49 |  #33

Yes, if you change FL and do not also change camera position, DOF is indeed decreased with longer FL. But that is only due to the fact that the subject is larger within the frame!

As I have pointed out in post 25, if you change FL and if you also change camera position so that the subject is IDENTICAL size in the frame, the DOF is IDENTICAL regardless of FL used!


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
travisvwright
Goldmember
Avatar
2,043 posts
Gallery: 21 photos
Likes: 211
Joined Feb 2013
Location: NC
     
Sep 24, 2014 12:33 |  #34

Wilt wrote in post #17175182 (external link)
Yes, if you change FL and do not also change camera position, DOF is indeed decreased with longer FL. But that is only due to the fact that the subject is larger within the frame!

As I have pointed out in post 25, if you change FL and if you also change camera position so that the subject is IDENTICAL size in the frame, the DOF is IDENTICAL regardless of FL used!

Sure but this is true of any two changes you make in corresponding opposite ways. If you get closer to the subject, while at the same time stopping down you can get identical DOF. If you increase DOF with one method and decrease it an equal amount with another, it will be the same.


I come here for your expert opinion. Please do not hesitate to critique or edit.
70D, 6D, Canon 135, Tamron 28-75 2.8, Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC, Canon 50 1.4, Canon 100 2.8 Macro, Canon 85 1.8, Canon 10-18 4.5 STM

Franklin NC Photographer Travis Wright (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,796 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2562
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Sep 24, 2014 12:40 |  #35

travisvwright wrote in post #17175253 (external link)
Sure but this is true of any two changes you make in corresponding opposite ways. If you get closer to the subject, while at the same time stopping down you can get identical DOF. If you increase DOF with one method and decrease it an equal amount with another, it will be the same.

If you simply change FL, and keep the subject's face filling the frame the same, there is NO change in DOF. Period. Change the FL with same camera position, increased subject size = less DOF.

Therefore it is the subject magnification in the photo which makes DOF appear to change. Just as DOF seems less in a 16x24" print than it is in an 8x12" print! The perceived SUBJECT SIZE is the true determinant of perceived DOF...larger print increased subject size, less perceived DOF.

Yes, aperture does change DOF.


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
travisvwright
Goldmember
Avatar
2,043 posts
Gallery: 21 photos
Likes: 211
Joined Feb 2013
Location: NC
     
Sep 24, 2014 14:29 |  #36

Wilt wrote in post #17175263 (external link)
If you simply change FL, and keep the subject's face filling the frame the same, there is NO change in DOF. Period. Change the FL with same camera position, increased subject size = less DOF.

Therefore it is the subject magnification in the photo which makes DOF appear to change. Just as DOF seems less in a 16x24" print than it is in an 8x12" print! The perceived SUBJECT SIZE is the true determinant of perceived DOF...larger print increased subject size, less perceived DOF.

Yes, aperture does change DOF.

Hang on I'm missing something, there are three sides of the DOF triangle. Distance, FL, Aperture. If you increase DOF by changing FL, and subsequently decrease it by increasing distance an equal amount then yes DOF remains the same. Just as if you adjusted FL up but stopped down the aperture an equivalent amount you would also end up with the same DOF.

The fact that if you increase DOF and then decrease DOF by the same amount you will have the same DOF, seems trivial enough to not warrant pointing out. Unless the point is that the effect FL has on DOF is inversly proportional to the effect distance has. Or maybe I'm just being really dense.

ETA: Mulling more I think I see your points "The distance you have to adjust to compensate for FL effect on DOF is equal to the distance you have to adjust for the FL effect on framing."
More importantly, "assuming the framing that you desire is fixed, any combination of distance and FL that gets it for you will give the same DOF" (assuming between MFD-hyperfocal distinace). E.g. If framing a headshot at 20 ft. 100mm, reframing at ~40ft. 200mm will not effect DOF (yes compression will be effected but not DOF).


I come here for your expert opinion. Please do not hesitate to critique or edit.
70D, 6D, Canon 135, Tamron 28-75 2.8, Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC, Canon 50 1.4, Canon 100 2.8 Macro, Canon 85 1.8, Canon 10-18 4.5 STM

Franklin NC Photographer Travis Wright (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nonnit
Senior Member
Avatar
361 posts
Gallery: 22 photos
Best ofs: 3
Likes: 221
Joined Oct 2012
     
Sep 24, 2014 14:38 |  #37

travisvwright wrote in post #17175448 (external link)
Hang on I'm missing something, there are three sides of the DOF triangle. Distance, FL, Aperture. If you increase DOF by changing FL, and subsequently decrease it by increasing distance an equal amount then yes DOF remains the same. Just as if you adjusted FL up but stopped down the aperture an equivalent amount you would also end up with the same DOF.

The fact that if you increase DOF and then decrease DOF by the same amount you will have the same DOF, seems trivial enough to not warrant pointing out. Unless the point is that the effect FL has on DOF is inversly proportional to the effect distance has. Or maybe I'm just being really dense.

ETA: Mulling more I think I see your points "The distance you have to adjust to compensate for FL effect on DOF is equal to the distance you have to adjust for the FL effect on framing."
More importantly, "assuming the framing that you desire is fixed, any combination of distance and FL that gets it for you will give the same DOF" (assuming between MFD-hyperfocal distinace).

For me there are only two aspects to DOF (on the same camera/sensor size):

Framing and aperture - headshot at 50mm or 200 will have the same DOF at the same apeture.

Background blur is another matter, the longer lens will blur more.


Nonnit
5DMKIII // 70-200mm f2.8 L II // 35mm f2.0 IS // 50mm f1.4 // 85mm f1.8 // 100mm f2.8 Macro // 135mm f2.0 L // stuff
Film: https://www.flickr.com​/photos/souloffilm/ (external link)
Film: https://www.instagram.​com/souloffilm/ (external link)
Digital: http://nonnitryggva.is (external link) //

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
travisvwright
Goldmember
Avatar
2,043 posts
Gallery: 21 photos
Likes: 211
Joined Feb 2013
Location: NC
     
Sep 24, 2014 14:41 |  #38

Nonnit wrote in post #17175468 (external link)
For me there are only two aspects to DOF (on the same camera/sensor size):

Framing and aperture - headshot at 50mm or 200 will have the same DOF at the same apeture.

Background blur is another matter, the longer lens will blur more.

I'm gaining understanding of this view point here in real time. But framing = Distancee+FL. So in my mind there are three aspects, but I can see your point now. In my mind compression and background blur can be so closely associated with DOF as to be inseparable.


I come here for your expert opinion. Please do not hesitate to critique or edit.
70D, 6D, Canon 135, Tamron 28-75 2.8, Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC, Canon 50 1.4, Canon 100 2.8 Macro, Canon 85 1.8, Canon 10-18 4.5 STM

Franklin NC Photographer Travis Wright (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,520 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 593
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Sep 24, 2014 14:52 |  #39

travisvwright wrote in post #17175473 (external link)
I'm gaining understanding of this view point here in real time. But framing = Distancee+FL. So in my mind there are three aspects, but I can see your point now. In my mind compression and background blur can be so closely associated with DOF as to be inseparable.

Go back and look at my example pics. I can post one later at 50mm and f/2.8 that now has the exact same DOF as the 200mm f/2.8 shot, but it has a lot less blur.

I think folks spend too much effort juggling all three variables in their head. For any given framing no matter what combo of focal length and distance gets you there, DOF becomes a function of just the aperture. So a shot at 200mm and 20 feet has the same DOF as a shot at 50mm and 5 feet if you use the same aperture, because the framing is the same.

This is handy to know. A portrait shooter can learn what aperture they need for all waist up portraits no matter if they shoot at 50mm, 200mm or 400mm.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nonnit
Senior Member
Avatar
361 posts
Gallery: 22 photos
Best ofs: 3
Likes: 221
Joined Oct 2012
     
Sep 24, 2014 14:57 |  #40

travisvwright wrote in post #17175473 (external link)
I'm gaining understanding of this view point here in real time. But framing = Distancee+FL. So in my mind there are three aspects, but I can see your point now. In my mind compression and background blur can be so closely associated with DOF as to be inseparable.

Yes framing = Distance+FL but they even out, much easier just to think about framing.

When thinking about framing the human body is a good referance.

Head and shoulders, full body, small group of people standing etc.


Nonnit
5DMKIII // 70-200mm f2.8 L II // 35mm f2.0 IS // 50mm f1.4 // 85mm f1.8 // 100mm f2.8 Macro // 135mm f2.0 L // stuff
Film: https://www.flickr.com​/photos/souloffilm/ (external link)
Film: https://www.instagram.​com/souloffilm/ (external link)
Digital: http://nonnitryggva.is (external link) //

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,520 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 593
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Sep 24, 2014 16:26 |  #41

Here is an equal framing, equal aperture comparison. This is with both lenses (50mm and 200mm) set to f/2.8. While the DOF at the subject is identical, the background blur is not.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
HappySnapper90
Cream of the Crop
5,145 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Sep 28, 2014 10:37 |  #42

17mm and f/2.8 is a lot in focus unless your focus distance is 12 inches. Shorter focus distances and longer focal lengths decrease what's in focus. And photos need appropriate depth of field and not shallow DoF for the sake of it!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
yogestee
"my posts can be a little colourful"
Avatar
13,845 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 36
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Australia
     
Sep 29, 2014 06:08 as a reply to  @ HappySnapper90's post |  #43

Longish focal length (here 135mm) wide aperture (f/2.8) and farther subject to background distant.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Jurgen
50D~700D~EOS M~G11~S95~GoPro Hero4 Silver
http://www.pbase.com/j​urgentreue (external link)
The Title Fairy,, off with her head!!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 544
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
Sep 29, 2014 12:40 |  #44

There ya go!!:)!!


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Davenn
Senior Member
Avatar
991 posts
Gallery: 32 photos
Likes: 481
Joined Jun 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Oct 03, 2014 04:26 |  #45

travisvwright wrote in post #17174753 (external link)
Actually this is the one I was thinking of:

Thanks Travis

Dave


A picture is worth 1000 words ;)
Canon 5D3, 6D, 700D, a bunch of lenses and other bits, ohhh and some Pentax stuff ;)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

5,453 views & 0 likes for this thread
Help getting shallow DOF
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is AlexRapp
1243 guests, 268 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.