| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/03/2004 12:28:11 PM · #1 |
Would anyone like to give "their" definition of "Shallow Depth of Field"? I was always under the impression both background and foreground should be out of focus with only your subject well defined. From what I've been reading that is not necessarily the case. Anyone have any thoughts/opinions?
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 12:29:15 PM · #2 |
i would say "where a minimal portion of the photograph is in focus" something a lot of voters dislike so should be interesting.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 12:35:14 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
i would say "where a minimal portion of the photograph is in focus" something a lot of voters dislike so should be interesting. |
That was always my contention. Just trying to gauge how people are going to vote. Only so shallow you can go with a camera like mine.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 12:37:25 PM · #4 |
This is pretty shallow, I think.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 12:55:00 PM · #5 |
A good basic rule is the wider the aperture, the shallower the depth of field. Only two things really affect DOF - they are aperture setting and lens length.
Since most people without DSLRs cannot affect lens length then they are left with aperture setting. Most macro settings in automatic mode, if I am not mistaken, set the camera to its maximum aperture setting - usually 2.0.
Here are two small images, taken on my desktop as I wrote this note. They are both taken with macro setting on, aperture priority, ambient lighting.
At 2.0 Aperture setting
A so-called - shallow depth of field
At 8.0 Aperture setting
No or minimal movement of camera between shots.
Hope this helps.
Catherine
Edited for clarity.
Message edited by author 2004-02-03 12:59:18. |
|
|
|
02/03/2004 01:07:52 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Catherine:
A good basic rule is the wider the aperture, the shallower the depth of field. Only two things really affect DOF - they are aperture setting and lens length.
|
Distance to subject is a major player in depth of field also.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 01:17:50 PM · #7 |
Yes, that's true. As is lighting in a similar context. And each element could alter aperture decisions to the desired effect.
It's my experience, and I could well be wrong - I often am - that a great percentage of extremely shallow DOF shots are necessarily taken in macro mode to achieve the sharpness required/desired thus distance to subject is alterable only within a discrete range.
Catherine
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 01:38:47 PM · #8 |
this was not done in macro mode, but with a zoom lense at 480mm equiv.
smallest Fstop, closest focal distance allowed by the lense. had i been farther away with the same settings ( and croppped it ), the DOF would be different.
also being an animal, i wouldnt have been able to get the shot using a macro lense... so knowing what does and doesnt play a roll in DOF is important - not just some of what plays a roll...
distance to subject is always a factor in DOF
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 01:48:56 PM · #9 |
Good point.
My mistake in communication. I was speaking of DOF in terms of what can be done to the camera settings on an average (non DLSR) digital camera to achieve shallow DOF. Distance to subject (and lighting) are a factor in every aspect of photography. As is temperature, humidity and cleanliness of glass.
Shutting up now and leaving it to the experts:)
Catherine
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 02:11:55 PM · #10 |
its the same on a point and shoot digi cam as with a slr style cam...
in macro mode, slight differences in distance to subject are more drastic than with the camera zoomed from a distance, and the distance to subject changed by the same amount as it was in macro mode shot, even if the sbject area takes up the same percentage of the frame -w/o cropping..
comments not aimed at you - just general in nature...
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 04:33:59 PM · #11 |
the comment was almost correct - its aperture and magnification that impact depth of field, not lens focal length
magnification is a function of focal length and subject distance so all 3 come in to play with shallow DoF. Magnification is also modified by sensor size, which is part of the reason why large sensor SLRs have more DoF control available than the smaller sensor compact cameras.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 04:48:11 PM · #12 |
i was trying to say there are different ways of acheiving the same end.
and that you don't have to have a close up lense to achieve shallow DOF.
i could get the same result out of the cat with the 18-55mm at 55mm - but would have to be closer, and handholding - be more careful with my subject distance - because the DOF would change more dramtically with a small change is subject distance. where as with the longer lense i could be farther away, but also an inch closer wouldn't affect the DOF as much as with the shorter lense closer to the subject ( say the cat moved slightly ). so my liklihood for error was less... at the risk of an unsharp shot due to focal length and shake...
if i am wrong i am sorry... it won't happen again ;}
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 05:21:17 PM · #13 |
So this shot of mine would fit the challenge nicely? 
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 06:16:57 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by hsteg:
So this shot of mine would fit the challenge nicely? |
hmm Find a creative use of a shallow depth of field for this week's challenge.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 06:30:43 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by hsteg:
So this shot of mine would fit the challenge nicely? |
You could get your depth of field a lot more shallow in this shot... back up from your subject and use maximum zoom on the camera and shoot at the same aperture setting.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 06:40:57 PM · #16 |
| What might better fit the "creative use of a shallow DOF" could be to have a stack of books in a stair-step pile (i.e. the bottom book is closest to the lens, the top book is farther or farthest away), then get a narrow DOF such that only the middle book's spine is in focus. Then, if there was some "meaning" to that book's title, in relation to the other books, and highlighted by the title of you shot, then you've got something creative. Can't think of any clever example of the last part to round it off at the moment, but hopefully you get the idea. |
|
|
|
02/03/2004 06:56:41 PM · #17 |
this is what i was saying... earlier
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
You could get your depth of field a lot more shallow in this shot... back up from your subject and use maximum zoom on the camera and shoot at the same aperture setting.
|
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 08:56:45 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by soup:
this is what i was saying... earlier
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
You could get your depth of field a lot more shallow in this shot... back up from your subject and use maximum zoom on the camera and shoot at the same aperture setting.
|
|
With my camera, that's about the effect I get with max. zoom(3x optical)/max. aperature (F/2.8). The "sweet spot" for want of a better word is pretty wide I guess. Is this competition going to be about how "shallow" we can make our DOF? I really don't want to enter something that's going to score low because it was technically impossible to achieve with my camera.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 09:24:36 PM · #19 |
Don't forget we can also use macro filters, although we must be more careful to keep the image sharp.
Given the advanced editing usable here, I wonder if some won't simply use a selection and blur the rest in photoshop.
 Macro filter used
 Same settings (except for camera movement during filter removal) - no filter |
|
|
|
02/03/2004 09:30:03 PM · #20 |
it really doesnt matter to me, given the rules how the shallow DOF is obtained, but more whether the resulting image is pleasing or not...
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 09:59:41 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Koriyama:
Given the advanced editing usable here, I wonder if some won't simply use a selection and blur the rest in photoshop. |
Originally posted by soup:
it really doesnt matter to me, given the rules how the shallow DOF is obtained, but more whether the resulting image is pleasing or not... |
This harks back to the threads onPhotoshop or Photography and Photographic integrity.
I'd be disappointed if a photochopped blur won the day, no matter how good the image. This is a digital photography site.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 10:17:19 PM · #22 |
duck with and without DOF
noticable on fence especially |
|
|
|
02/03/2004 10:23:55 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by Koriyama:
I'd be disappointed if a photochopped blur won the day, no matter how good the image. This is a digital photography site. |
so would I be BUT then... I have been disappointed with results here too many times to care ;)
|
|
|
|
02/03/2004 11:14:08 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by orussell:
Would anyone like to give "their" definition of "Shallow Depth of Field"? I was always under the impression both background and foreground should be out of focus with only your subject well defined. From what I've been reading that is not necessarily the case. Anyone have any thoughts/opinions? |
I think you said it well. For some subjects this works well, for other it doesnt. For portraits with a cluttered background it works well, or trying to really focus on a macro object
But with scenics, you want max DOF. |
|
|
|
02/03/2004 11:15:42 PM · #25 |
Here are a few examples from my portfolio where I believe that shallow depth of field is effective...
These are not 'extreme' cases of shallow depth of field. Extreme is definitely possible.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/30/2025 04:27:31 PM EDT.
