| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/16/2009 12:19:54 AM · #1 |
Deep DOF I
In other words, a landscape, based on what I saw in the first Deep DOF challenge. Great, i'm leaving tomorrow morning for a mini vacation to the deep St Lawrence valley. Very fitting indeed.
Message edited by author 2009-09-16 00:22:39. |
|
|
|
09/16/2009 12:27:49 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by Jac:
Deep DOF I
In other words, a landscape. |
Probbably, and the HDR challenge still in vote with so many landscapes.
But those indoor shots with a good composition may create a nice entry too, don't you think?
Message edited by author 2009-09-16 00:28:14. |
|
|
|
09/16/2009 07:26:27 AM · #3 |
Ha! I'd like to think I suggested this in a roundabout kind of way.
This thread might be interesting/useful for people when considering this challenge! |
|
|
|
09/16/2009 07:42:44 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by Jac:
Deep DOF I
In other words, a landscape, based on what I saw in the first Deep DOF challenge. Great |
Not really a landscape...
|
|
|
|
09/16/2009 07:58:24 AM · #5 |
Here is a good example of deep DOF.
The closest foreground rock is literally inches from the camera lens, the river is 1,000 feet straight down and the horizon is miles away.
Deep DOF was achieved in two ways:
1-Using a very short "super-wide" focal length lens (17mm) which has a naturally deep or wide DOF.
2-The aperture was set to f/11 to "deepen" DOF further.
The picture was shot hand-held at 1/60th. If I could have used a tripod I would have shot at a slower shutter speed at an even higher f/number for still greater DOF. The horizon still looks a little fuzzy. But as it was I was laying flat on my stomach with only my head poked out over the ledge and the river literally straight down. There ain't no way I could have used a tripod and been safe. But I'm sure there are folks around that might have suggested I try. ;) ;) LOL!!!
Message edited by author 2009-09-16 08:00:55. |
|
|
|
09/16/2009 09:00:16 AM · #6 |
This is a challenge where the P&S cameras really have a chance to shine, or at least the ones with programmable apertures do... The shorter the focal length of the lens, the greater the DOF, basically, and those little pocket cams have REALLY short lenses :-)
R. |
|
|
|
09/16/2009 09:14:50 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by Artifacts:
Here is a good example of deep DOF.
The closest foreground rock is literally inches from the camera lens, the river is 1,000 feet straight down and the horizon is miles away.
Deep DOF was achieved in two ways:
1-Using a very short "super-wide" focal length lens (17mm) which has a naturally deep or wide DOF.
2-The aperture was set to f/11 to "deepen" DOF further.
The picture was shot hand-held at 1/60th. If I could have used a tripod I would have shot at a slower shutter speed at an even higher f/number for still greater DOF. The horizon still looks a little fuzzy. But as it was I was laying flat on my stomach with only my head poked out over the ledge and the river literally straight down. There ain't no way I could have used a tripod and been safe. But I'm sure there are folks around that might have suggested I try. ;) ;) LOL!!! |
Hyperfocal distance is something that all landscape photographers should know and use when appropriate.
Message edited by author 2009-09-16 09:16:59. |
|
|
|
09/16/2009 09:17:09 AM · #8 |
Here's an example of an extreme WA landscape using extreme DOF in an obvious way; the foreground shells are less than a foot from the lens...
R.
Message edited by author 2009-09-16 09:19:19. |
|
|
|
09/16/2009 09:20:23 AM · #9 |
| too bad this is an open challenge and can't use multiple focus planes to create a really large DOF |
|
|
|
09/16/2009 09:20:53 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Here's an example of an extreme WA landscape using extreme DOF in an obvious way; the foreground shells are less than a foot from the lens...
R. |
Do you remember your focus point on that image? |
|
|
|
09/16/2009 09:22:17 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by BeefnCheez:
too bad this is an open challenge and can't use multiple focus planes to create a really large DOF |
In a way that would defeat the purpose of the challenge, at least as I see it. There's a lot of value to be gained from figuring out how to maximize/optimize DOF on the fly.
R. |
|
|
|
09/16/2009 09:23:23 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by Jac:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Here's an example of an extreme WA landscape using extreme DOF in an obvious way; the foreground shells are less than a foot from the lens...
R. |
Do you remember your focus point on that image? |
Focus point was on the near side of the seaweed clump...
R. |
|
|
|
09/16/2009 09:34:21 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by BeefnCheez:
too bad this is an open challenge and can't use multiple focus planes to create a really large DOF |
In a way that would defeat the purpose of the challenge, at least as I see it. There's a lot of value to be gained from figuring out how to maximize/optimize DOF on the fly.
R. |
I agree. It would be cheating imo. |
|
|
|
09/16/2009 09:36:30 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Jac:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Here's an example of an extreme WA landscape using extreme DOF in an obvious way; the foreground shells are less than a foot from the lens...
R. |
Do you remember your focus point on that image? |
Focus point was on the near side of the seaweed clump...
R. |
As a newb landscape photographer I would have focused on the near side of the lake thinking I was using the hyperfocal distance rule. Thanks R. |
|
|
|
09/16/2009 09:42:57 AM · #15 |
| No thread about deep DOF can be complete without discussing hyperfocal distance. The hyperfocal distance for my D200 with an 18mm lens at f/16 is 1.0m, which means that if I focus at that distance (using the handy distance scale on my 18-70mm lens), everything from 0.5m to infinity will be acceptably sharp - maximising my DOF. If I stop down to f/13 the hyperfocal distance increases to 1.25m. |
|
|
|
09/16/2009 09:57:45 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by darnok:
No thread about deep DOF can be complete without discussing hyperfocal distance. The hyperfocal distance for my D200 with an 18mm lens at f/16 is 1.0m, which means that if I focus at that distance (using the handy distance scale on my 18-70mm lens), everything from 0.5m to infinity will be acceptably sharp - maximising my DOF. If I stop down to f/13 the hyperfocal distance increases to 1.25m. |
To stop down is to reduce the aperture so going from F16 to F13 is opening it up.
I have a handy app for my iphone that does DOF and Hyperfocal distance.
For my D200 with 18-200 set at 18mm for F22 I get a hyperfocal distance of 0.73m.
Of course my lens has nothing to gauge against between 0.5 and 1 so I just pop it half way between but it seems to do quite a good job
Message edited by author 2009-09-16 10:15:01. |
|
|
|
09/16/2009 11:44:24 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
This is a challenge where the P&S cameras really have a chance to shine, or at least the ones with programmable apertures do... The shorter the focal length of the lens, the greater the DOF, basically, and those little pocket cams have REALLY short lenses :-)
R. |
Thanks for that, but you should consider that the lowest aperture of my camera (for example) is F8.0. |
|
|
|
09/16/2009 12:14:33 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by pedrobop:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
This is a challenge where the P&S cameras really have a chance to shine, or at least the ones with programmable apertures do... The shorter the focal length of the lens, the greater the DOF, basically, and those little pocket cams have REALLY short lenses :-) |
Thanks for that, but you should consider that the lowest aperture of my camera (for example) is F8.0. |
But your f/8 is not the same as an SLR's f/8. On your point-n-shoot camera, an f/8 is roughly equivalent to an SLR at f/32.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2009 12:18:43 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by darnok:
No thread about deep DOF can be complete without discussing hyperfocal distance. The hyperfocal distance for my D200 with an 18mm lens at f/16 is 1.0m, which means that if I focus at that distance (using the handy distance scale on my 18-70mm lens), everything from 0.5m to infinity will be acceptably sharp - maximising my DOF. If I stop down to f/13 the hyperfocal distance increases to 1.25m. |
Whenever I'm out in the field shooting photos (and as long as I have an internet connection), I often use the "On-line Depth of Field Calculator". They also have an iPhone version of their software.
Using this, I never have to guess about what my DOF or HF distance is. I will also know what I should be focusing on. Finally, it also minimizes my use of the DOF preview feature on my camera
.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2009 12:56:47 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by AperturePriority:
Whenever I'm out in the field shooting photos (and as long as I have an internet connection), I often use the "On-line Depth of Field Calculator". They also have an iPhone version of their software. |
THANK YOU!!!!
|
|
|
|
09/16/2009 01:37:36 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by AperturePriority:
Originally posted by pedrobop:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
This is a challenge where the P&S cameras really have a chance to shine, or at least the ones with programmable apertures do... The shorter the focal length of the lens, the greater the DOF, basically, and those little pocket cams have REALLY short lenses :-) |
Thanks for that, but you should consider that the lowest aperture of my camera (for example) is F8.0. |
But your f/8 is not the same as an SLR's f/8. On your point-n-shoot camera, an f/8 is roughly equivalent to an SLR at f/32. |
Right, that's the POINT :-) DOF is a function of the physical size of the aperture, not the f/stop. F/stop is the ratio between the diameter of the aperture and the focal length of the lens. So on a 50mm lens, a 25mm aperture is f/2.0, whilst on a 200mm lens a 25mm aperture is f/8, and the DOF is the same in both cases.
To look at it another way, on the 10mm lens, f/16 would be a .625mm aperture, very tiny hole and huge DOF, whilst on a 100mm lens f/16 would be 6.25mm, a MUCH larger hole.
The smaller the sensor, the shorter the focal length for a given angular coverage; on an APS-C sensor, like Canon 20D, 30D, 40D, 50D, and Rebels, 10mm is an ultra-wide lens. The same angular coverage on the 5D, a full frame Canon, would be a 16mm lens, the FF ultrawide. In practical terms, this means I have to stop down further with my 17mm on my 5D to get the same extreme DOF as I'd get witht he 10mm on my 20D, and THAT means I have to shoot with a higher ISO *or* a slower shutter speed to get the same image.
So the really nice thing about the P&S cameras, assuming they have an Av (aperture priority) setting, is that you can get dramatic DOF in marginal lightiong conditions while hand-holding. And it makes them REALLY good for shooting macros, assuming they have the focusing capability to get in that close in the first place: oodles of close-up DOF at manageable shutter speeds.
R. |
|
|
|
09/16/2009 01:46:54 PM · #22 |
I'll probably regret suggesting this since I'll likely be "corrected"...
Forget all the technical mumbo-jumbo and just remember two fundamental DOF concepts in photography:
1-The shorter the focal length of a lens, the wider (deeper) the DOF; the longer the focal length, the narrower the DOF
2-The higher the f/number setting, the wider (deeper) the DOF; the smaller the f/number setting the narrower the DOF
If your goal is to maximize DOF then shoot at the shortest focal length possible and at the highest practical f/number. It is as simple as that.
By looking through the viewfinder, you can easily see that you need to focus on a near object to have the widest possible DOF over your full field-of-view. Though I know how to do so, I can assure you in the Horseshoe Bend image shared above that calculating hyperfocal distance was the furthest thing from my mind; A 1,000 foot drop was my concern, yet I was still able to keep rock probably 6 inches from my lens in sharp focus.
Message edited by author 2009-09-16 13:51:55. |
|
|
|
09/16/2009 01:53:18 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by Artifacts:
I'll probably regret suggesting this since I'll likely be "corrected"...
Forget all the technical mumbo-jumbo and just remember two fundamental DOF concepts in photography:
1-The shorter the focal length of a lens, the wider (deeper) the DOF; the longer the focal length, the narrower the DOF
2-The higher the f/number setting, the wider (deeper) the DOF; the smaller the f/number setting the narrower the DOF
If your goal is to maximize DOF then shoot at the shortest focal length possible and at the highest practical f/number. It is as simple as that.
By looking through the viewfinder, you can easily see that you need to focus on a near object to have the widest possible DOF over your full field-of-view. Though I know how to do so, I can assure you in the Horseshoe Bend image shared above that calculating hyperfocal distance was the furthest thing from my mind; A 1,000 foot drop was my concern, yet I was still able to keep rock probably 6 inches from my lens in sharp focus. |
3. Focus area includes 1/3 in front of the focus point and 2/3 behind, hence a general rule of thumb, focus 1/3 of the way into a scene and follow steps 1 and 2 |
|
|
|
09/16/2009 02:09:01 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Focus area includes 1/3 in front of the focus point and 2/3 behind, hence a general rule of thumb, focus 1/3 of the way into a scene and follow steps 1 and 2 |
This is true when you have a situation where you need to maximize DOF in close shooting, but it is not the case when you are shooting landscapes: if your desired range of focus is from, say, 2 feet through infinity, and you focus "1/3 of the way" into that range, the theoretical extension of the focus will be way beyond infinity and you've wasted all that focal range. This is where the hyperfocal information is invaluable: with a given lens, at a given f/stop, how close can you focus and still have infinity in focus? The answer to that question is the hyperfocal number, and it's a LOT closer than you might think.
In this previously posted image, the actual point of focus was maybe 24 inches into the image, and I have DOF from like 12 inches or less to infinity. Using the 1/3 rule, I'd have focused somewhere at the water's margin and the foreground would NOT be sharp, not even close to it.
R. |
|
|
|
09/16/2009 02:34:56 PM · #25 |
Also, keep in mind that extreme smaller apertures (e.g. f/32) is, in many cases, not the most optimum setting for sharpness.
Personally, if I need a very small aperture, I try to always shoot 1/3, 2/3, or 1 stop above the minimum aperture for a particular lens. So, if my lens had a minimum aperture of of f/32, I'll open it up just a bit to either f/28, f/27, or f/25--but more probable would be f/22...one full stop larger for better sharpness.
Message edited by author 2009-09-16 15:49:10.
|
|
