| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/28/2009 10:39:26 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by kandykarml:
I wonder how many people didn't even see the whole alphabetical nonsense... I didn't... In fact, I was so thrilled to see this as a challenge, I just went on my merry way and didn't bother to read into it.. I'm sure I'm getting slammed because of it, no one has specifically said so in their comments, but it matters none to me..
I just wonder how many people were like me, and just simply didn't see it.. Honest mistake, stupid and careless too.. Won't happen again, but I can say that I for one am not penalizing anyone for this.. :-) |
Honestly...that's the story of my life. I quickly dismiss, ignore, bury, forget...blow off things that don't make sense to me. It's an art, IF then end product works. Some people make a good living swerving around and beyond what's expected.
"...but it matters none to me.. "
That will pay righteous dividends. |
|
|
|
10/28/2009 10:43:40 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by Ja-9:
ahhhh yep again...the pictures really help alot as well...but lets say someone has a landscape picture and the foreground is in sharp focus but the background is in relative sharp focus (Bear's picture from the Deep DOF Challenge discussion) then that would be deep DOF not Shallow right...(I know this sounds very stupid to everyone else...sorry) |
If this is the photo you are referring to then, yes definitely deep DOF.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2009 10:44:38 PM · #78 |
It's not too complicated. Deep depth of field means that the image was shot using a small aperture like f11 or 16, and most of the image is in focus from bottom to top. Shallow depth of field would mean that the image was most likely shot at big aperture like f4, f2.8 or maybe 1.4 or larger. This produces images where only one band across the image is in sharp focus, and helps to bring attention to the subject. The band of focus can be either foreground, mid area, or background. It actually has little to do with the distance from the camera to the subject. Deep DOF can be an image of a tiny bug or a broad landscape with mountains.
Shallow DOF, shot with a 105mm at f2.8;
Deep DOF, shot with 55mm at f8
Both are macro shots, but they look completely different due to the effect of DOF.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2009 10:57:32 PM · #79 |
So of late the majority of my shots are Shallow DOF (which is what I had thought). As I try to get a very nice Bokeh in the background to compliment the subject. And I can rarely get a Deep DOF with my Macro Lens right...not impossible but harder. when this is over I want to pick my picture apart...I think I have other elements in it and I know I buggered up the title. But I really wasn't to sure...(bear in mind I have never done this kind of photography ever...not until I joined here 1 year ago...thanks for being so patient)
|
|
|
|
10/28/2009 11:06:29 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by MelonMusketeer:
It actually has little to do with the distance from the camera to the subject. |
It has everything to do with it as focal distance is one part of calculating dof. |
|
|
|
10/28/2009 11:15:05 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by kandykarml:
I wonder how many people didn't even see the whole alphabetical nonsense... I didn't... In fact, I was so thrilled to see this as a challenge, I just went on my merry way and didn't bother to read into it.. I'm sure I'm getting slammed because of it, no one has specifically said so in their comments, but it matters none to me..
I just wonder how many people were like me, and just simply didn't see it.. Honest mistake, stupid and careless too.. Won't happen again, but I can say that I for one am not penalizing anyone for this.. :-) |
Honestly...that's the story of my life. I quickly dismiss, ignore, bury, forget...blow off things that don't make sense to me. It's an art, IF then end product works. Some people make a good living swerving around and beyond what's expected.
"...but it matters none to me.. "
That will pay righteous dividends. |
I didn't mean it disrespectfully... I meant it as, I know I blew it, so this one is a wash for me... Sorry if that came off as flippant.. |
|
|
|
10/28/2009 11:21:09 PM · #82 |
Here's a deep DOF shot with the same macro lens used for the fly shot in the above post.
I wanted the barbed wire fence in the foreground to be out of focus just enough to blur it, but wanted the rest of the image sharp. I was shooting flowers and looked up just in time to get the magpies flying by when I heard them coming.
If you happen to have an older lens, like on a film SLR, have a look at the aperture ring and the focus ring. You will notice that they usually had pairs of colored marks at the focus scale which corresponded to colors of the numbers on the aperture ring. The markings were there to indicate depth of field, and as the aperture numbers go higher, the corresponding marks at the focus ring get farther apart.
On a lens where f8 was blue, everything between the distances covered by the two blue marks at the distance scale should be within acceptable focus.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2009 11:27:44 PM · #83 |
| This is making alot more sense to me....I had a very narrow box (in my mind) for what I thought the various DOF were and how they were used...great examples guys...Thanks... |
|
|
|
10/29/2009 12:47:47 AM · #84 |
|
|
|
10/29/2009 12:57:56 AM · #85 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by kandykarml:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
[quote=kandykarml]
"...but it matters none to me.. "
That will pay righteous dividends. |
I didn't mean it disrespectfully... I meant it as, I know I blew it, so this one is a wash for me... Sorry if that came off as flippant.. |
I didn't take it that way at all. In fact, I was praising your take on things. It's a cool Challenge to watch a mix of ideas.
|
OH good... I wasn't sure and after I read it and wanted to clarify what I meant... To make it hurt just a little more, this image just happens to be one of my favorites... EVER.. I should have saved it for the free study... It may have faired just a tad better.. maybe not.... who knows..... |
|
|
|
10/29/2009 12:59:21 AM · #86 |
Originally posted by aplomb76:
Simply shallow DOF  |
Silky smooth bokeh! |
|
|
|
10/29/2009 01:01:52 AM · #87 |
|
|
|
10/30/2009 09:46:52 AM · #88 |
Hopefully they'll run this type of Challenge again but not have techniques that are closely related.
Shallow dof produces bokeh but if it's listed, as we have here or a Challenge by itself, I'd like to see it (bokeh) showing as a major, primary element to the feeling of the shot. In other words, the image should probably be about the bokeh as the main player. I suppose "soft focus" is also in the same area or can produce similar effects seen in a shot.
Looking at The Bokeh V Challenge I noticed the first two winners are nice and of course have bokeh but the shots aren't really about the effect itself. It's present but not really dominant. The 4th, 5th, 8th, 12th and 13th place images really use the effect well, as a special part of the visual energy in the shot.
Message edited by author 2009-10-30 10:10:08. |
|
|
|
10/30/2009 10:26:48 AM · #89 |
Most DSLR's have a "DOF" preview control or button. For a simple demo of DOF, set the cam to aperture priority, f8, and look thru the viewfinder. Focus on an object then hold the preview button and see how the DOF changes.
It will be a lot darker at f8, and this works best with a tripod, so you can study the view without moving the camera. You can actually see in the viewfinder how much the DOF changes as the aperture changes, and the way the change alters the way the scene looks.
|
|
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: 06/17/2025 04:16:32 PM EDT.
