| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/23/2006 02:04:48 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
To be honest, and in all due respect to those that disagree, I believe the Blue Ribbon absolutely earned its place.
|
Although I made reference to the blue ribbon winner, one thing that I don't intend to do on this thread is to promote any disrespect towards anybody or their entry. As I said, I am learning a lot from the replies to this thread, and as long as it remains productive, I will continue checking in.
Considering the way some threads have gone recently, I just want to ensure that this is clear.
Thanks again everybody for your comments. |
|
|
|
01/23/2006 02:25:36 PM · #27 |
| Wow, this is one of those spot-on threads that are really useful... see, I think your elevated shot is very good, actually better than the one you entered, but as you said, no DOF effect, so I can see why you didn't enter it. |
|
|
|
01/23/2006 02:31:19 PM · #28 |
bear in mind, there are a fair amount of differences between rules, requirements, and suggestions...
the goal was to produce a candid shot where an individual was isolated from a group of people. for the most part, more people would be better than few people, but a huge crowd was not necessarily required. also, while a short dof was suggested as a means to isolating a subject, it was not a requirement.
there are 2 keys to scoring well: producing strong images, and interpretting the challenge in a way that most voters can accept without question. the trick isn't how literally you interpret the challenge, but how creatively you can do it while connecting with your audience. read more about this here. i had a ton of outtakes for this challenge, and went with the one i did not because it was my favorite, but because i thought it was the most unique.
fwiw, i would have gone with the mime, for all the reasons stated; it really was a stronger image. |
|
|
|
01/23/2006 02:34:01 PM · #29 |
| Thanks skiprow, your comments are always informative. |
|
|
|
01/23/2006 02:45:30 PM · #30 |
It is worth mentioning as a technical side here that not all f/2.8's are equal. DOF is a function of the physical size of the aperture, and f/stop is a ratio between the diameter of the aperture and the focal length of the lens. And as we all ought to know by now, the smaller the sensor, the shorter the focal length to cover the same angle of view.
For example, 10mm on my Canon 20D covers the same angle of view as a 16mm lens on the full-frame Canon 5D. For ease of calculation, let's use f/2.0 as a reference. On my 10mm lens, f/2.0 would be a 5mm opening. On a 16mm lens, f/2.0 would be an 8mm opening. IN order to have the same DOF on the 16mm lens as I have on my 10mm lens at a hypothetical f/2.0, the 5D user would have to stop down to f/3.2.
The larger the film/sensor, the less DOF at a given f/stop for the same angular coverage. 4x5 view cameras use a 70mm lens to get the same angular coverage as a a 24mm lens on a 35mm film camera, and you have to stop WAY down to get useable DOF.
So the controlling factor is NOT whether the P&S "has f/2.8" (although f/2.8 helps compared with f/4.0, for example) but simply the fact that the P&S uses a MUCH shorter focal length so it is almost impossibel to have really shallow DOF even with zoom fully extended, unless you go to macro.
R. |
|
|
|
01/23/2006 02:58:50 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by skiprow:
bear in mind...
also, while a short dof was suggested as a means to isolating a subject, it was not a requirement.
|
For the record, I gave the Blue a 9 because it was strong on so many fronts but I did read the rules as stating the use of dof not only as a suggestion...I saw it as a requirement...well, at least for me it was. Sadly my misinterpretation limited me but I had a lot of fun trying and learned a hell of a lot in doing so...
I don't mean in any way to slag the image or the photographer...his work speaks for itself...I wish I were nearly as good. |
|
|
|
01/23/2006 05:49:08 PM · #32 |
Before I veer back on course, one thing about the use of DOF in this challenge.
To me those "details" in the challenge discription are very strong guidelines. Kind of like when my wife "suggests" I go to the mall with her on Sunday. She's not going to divorce me if I stay home and watch football, but I won't be expecting my favorite meal to be cooked for dinner for quite a while.
So just like my wife rewards me with a tasty dinner, I reward those who follow the guidelines set in the "details." Eye Contact is an amazing photo, and I'd probably buy a print, should one come available. But that being said, I would have given it a 6 in this challenge. I apply the same logic to the photos I take as well, and although I used DOF effectivley, I didn't have much of a crowd in my photo, so I'm happy with the 5.something I got.
I also don't buy the equipment argument, for two reasons. First I've got no idea if the picture was taken with a $15 Wal*Mart special or a D9000D with a -1.0 lens until after the voting is over, so I can't use the photographer's lack of equipment as a factor. Second, I don't think it's a valid excuse anyway. If I don't have the right equipment for a shot, I'm not going to get a particular shot. That's fine with me, I just won't enter that challenge. I'm not going to get a respectable shot for the "Lunar Closeup" challenge if the only lens I have is a 12-24. C'est La Vie.
Anyways, as yakatme stated, this was not the point of his thread, so I'll stop hijacking it now. :)
Yakatme, your out-take of "dog guy" is 1000% better than your first one. The elevation makes all the difference. I feel like an observer, instead of a member of the mob scene that was present in your first shot. You have such a more full view of the guy. Even the lighting is perfect on this one. Sadly, as you pointed out, there's not much seperation of the subject using DOF in this shot. So you entered the right one. ;) But the out-take could be a 10 in the right challenge.
Another $.02 for ya. :)
|
|
|
|
01/23/2006 05:57:36 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by livitup:
Another $.02 for ya. :) |
Hey, alright, another "tip" from livitup! I think I'm up to $.06 now, but I'm getting rich on insight, experience, and knowledge.
Thanks a lot. |
|
|
|
01/23/2006 06:07:32 PM · #34 |
the point i'm trying to make is that even though most voters keep the general spirit of the challenge in mind, they are more interested in a great photograph that meets most of the challenge details. it is very easy to lose the forest for the leaves when you start debating the intention of every single word in the description.
there is a huge difference between complete and total disregard of the challenge description, and using it to guide your entry. if you get too hung up on the meaning, either while shooting or voting, you're apt to find yourself in the lower tip of the bell curve...
just my nickle's worth ;-)
Message edited by author 2006-01-23 18:08:00. |
|
|
|
01/23/2006 06:15:38 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by skiprow:
just my nickle's worth ;-) |
That more than doubles my D2X fund (that's what I'm shooting for now) to $.13! Woohoo!
(typo)
Message edited by author 2006-01-23 18:16:04. |
|
|
|
01/23/2006 06:28:34 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It is worth mentioning as a technical side here that not all f/2.8's are equal. DOF is a function of the physical size of the aperture, and f/stop is a ratio between the diameter of the aperture and the focal length of the lens. And as we all ought to know by now, the smaller the sensor, the shorter the focal length to cover the same angle of view.
For example, 10mm on my Canon 20D covers the same angle of view as a 16mm lens on the full-frame Canon 5D. For ease of calculation, let's use f/2.0 as a reference. On my 10mm lens, f/2.0 would be a 5mm opening. On a 16mm lens, f/2.0 would be an 8mm opening. IN order to have the same DOF on the 16mm lens as I have on my 10mm lens at a hypothetical f/2.0, the 5D user would have to stop down to f/3.2.
The larger the film/sensor, the less DOF at a given f/stop for the same angular coverage. 4x5 view cameras use a 70mm lens to get the same angular coverage as a a 24mm lens on a 35mm film camera, and you have to stop WAY down to get useable DOF.
So the controlling factor is NOT whether the P&S "has f/2.8" (although f/2.8 helps compared with f/4.0, for example) but simply the fact that the P&S uses a MUCH shorter focal length so it is almost impossibel to have really shallow DOF even with zoom fully extended, unless you go to macro.
R. |
I liked the "as we all ought to know"! I didn't know any of that. I thought I was past the absolute beginner stage, but apparently not. If I understand correctly, this would explain why my shot with my Tamron 28-75mm lens, set at an aperture of 2.8 but zoomed almost all the way out didn't give me a satisfyingly shallow DOF. Am I understanding correctly? I was wondering if I wasn't too far from my subjects. If I understand properly, that was true but only because of the zoom I was using.
Is that right? If I had used the lens at 28mm rather than 75mm, my 2.8 aperture would have given me a much shallower DOF?
Many many thanks for answers on this one!
Edit: grammer & spelling!
Message edited by author 2006-01-23 18:29:52. |
|
|
|
01/23/2006 06:35:08 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by Bebe:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It is worth mentioning as a technical side here that not all f/2.8's are equal. DOF is a function of the physical size of the aperture, and f/stop is a ratio between the diameter of the aperture and the focal length of the lens. And as we all ought to know by now, the smaller the sensor, the shorter the focal length to cover the same angle of view.
For example, 10mm on my Canon 20D covers the same angle of view as a 16mm lens on the full-frame Canon 5D. For ease of calculation, let's use f/2.0 as a reference. On my 10mm lens, f/2.0 would be a 5mm opening. On a 16mm lens, f/2.0 would be an 8mm opening. IN order to have the same DOF on the 16mm lens as I have on my 10mm lens at a hypothetical f/2.0, the 5D user would have to stop down to f/3.2.
The larger the film/sensor, the less DOF at a given f/stop for the same angular coverage. 4x5 view cameras use a 70mm lens to get the same angular coverage as a a 24mm lens on a 35mm film camera, and you have to stop WAY down to get useable DOF.
So the controlling factor is NOT whether the P&S "has f/2.8" (although f/2.8 helps compared with f/4.0, for example) but simply the fact that the P&S uses a MUCH shorter focal length so it is almost impossibel to have really shallow DOF even with zoom fully extended, unless you go to macro.
R. |
I liked the "as we all ought to know"! I didn't know any of that. I thought I was past the absolute beginner stage, but apparently not. If I understand correctly, this would explain why my shot with my Tamron 28-75mm lens, set at an aperture of 2.8 but zoomed almost all the way out didn't give me a satisfyingly shallow DOF. Am I understanding correctly? I was wondering if I wasn't too far from my subjects. If I understand properly, that was true but only because of the zoom I was using.
Is that right? If I had used the lens at 28mm rather than 75mm, my 2.8 aperture would have given me a much shallower DOF?
Many many thanks for answers on this one!
Edit: grammer & spelling! |
I could be completely wrong and Grizzly Ada...er Bear_Music will probably come in and swat me down but my understanding in simple terms is that telephoto compresses the image thus widening what would be considered a narrow depth of field (because more space would be in the "field of focus") |
|
|
|
01/23/2006 07:29:45 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by livitup:
I wouldn't have given the blue a 10 because it did not use DOF, which the challenge specifically called for. It's a GREAT photo, but not (IN MY OPINION) right for this challenge.
|
lot of people do not care about the description, they just vote on the title and appeal to their eye. We can not really complain, its their vote and they shall use it as they please. |
|
|
|
01/23/2006 08:57:01 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Bebe:
I liked the "as we all ought to know"! I didn't know any of that. I thought I was past the absolute beginner stage, but apparently not. If I understand correctly, this would explain why my shot with my Tamron 28-75mm lens, set at an aperture of 2.8 but zoomed almost all the way out didn't give me a satisfyingly shallow DOF. Am I understanding correctly? I was wondering if I wasn't too far from my subjects. If I understand properly, that was true but only because of the zoom I was using.
Is that right? If I had used the lens at 28mm rather than 75mm, my 2.8 aperture would have given me a much shallower DOF?
|
One factor very often forgotten is DISTANCE to subject.
DOF is determined by three things: focal length, aperture (which is a relationship to focal length) and DISTANCE.
So even if you have a 200mm f/2.8 lens, if you're focusing on something 100 feet away, the DOF is going to be 8 FEET. Not 8 inches. To get your DOF down to a mere 8 inches with the same lens and same aperture, you must focus on something that is closer to 30 feet away instead of 100 feet away. And to get razor thin DOF you'll have to focus on a subject even closer, say 6 feet away, where your DOF is now just .25 inches.
Edit: The above figures are based on a 1.6x crop sensor such as your Digital Rebel. As Bear_Music said, the focal length is a ratio of your lens length to your sensor size, so smaller sensors have a harder time yielding shallow DOF.
Message edited by author 2006-01-23 21:00:06. |
|
|
|
01/23/2006 09:05:35 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
Originally posted by Bebe:
I liked the "as we all ought to know"! I didn't know any of that. I thought I was past the absolute beginner stage, but apparently not. If I understand correctly, this would explain why my shot with my Tamron 28-75mm lens, set at an aperture of 2.8 but zoomed almost all the way out didn't give me a satisfyingly shallow DOF. Am I understanding correctly? I was wondering if I wasn't too far from my subjects. If I understand properly, that was true but only because of the zoom I was using.
Is that right? If I had used the lens at 28mm rather than 75mm, my 2.8 aperture would have given me a much shallower DOF?
|
One factor very often forgotten is DISTANCE to subject.
DOF is determined by three things: focal length, aperture (which is a relationship to focal length) and DISTANCE.
So even if you have a 200mm f/2.8 lens, if you're focusing on something 100 feet away, the DOF is going to be 8 FEET. Not 8 inches. To get your DOF down to a mere 8 inches with the same lens and same aperture, you must focus on something that is closer to 30 feet away instead of 100 feet away. And to get razor thin DOF you'll have to focus on a subject even closer, say 6 feet away, where your DOF is now just .25 inches.
Edit: The above figures are based on a 1.6x crop sensor such as your Digital Rebel. As Bear_Music said, the focal length is a ratio of your lens length to your sensor size, so smaller sensors have a harder time yielding shallow DOF. |
Many thanks to you, and to Megatharian, for answering this question. I'm getting close, I think. Are the three factors (focal length, aperture & distance) all equally related? Is there a formula (you used very specific numbers, but I couldn't eke out the exact relationship.)
Again, many thanks. I love shallow DOF images, and if I'm going to do more I want to figure what distance & aperture I need for each lens I have. |
|
|
|
01/23/2006 09:13:24 PM · #41 |
To be very specific, assuming the same reproduction ratio of subject to image size, the DOF will be identical at any given aperture regardless of the focal length of the lens or sensor size.
R. |
|
|
|
01/23/2006 09:15:59 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Bebe:
Is there a formula (you used very specific numbers, but I couldn't eke out the exact relationship.) |
I'm still monitoring this thread also and am looking forward to the reply to Bebe.
Thanks again for the info.
Nevermind, you posted as I was composing
Message edited by author 2006-01-23 21:17:47. |
|
|
|
01/23/2006 09:29:32 PM · #43 |
Here is an online DOF calculator
DOF Calculator
//www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
Can't get that #$%@ link to work!
Fixed it!
Message edited by author 2006-01-23 21:32:48. |
|
|
|
01/23/2006 09:30:21 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
To be very specific, assuming the same reproduction ratio of subject to image size, the DOF will be identical at any given aperture regardless of the focal length of the lens or sensor size.
R. |
Uh oh. I thought I was understanding, but now I'm lost again. Bear, are you disagreeing with dwterry, or have I missed the point? |
|
|
|
01/23/2006 09:39:27 PM · #45 |
O.K. Just for fun, I wanted to show two more outtakes for Singled-Out and see how you all think these would have done:
 and  |
|
|
|
01/23/2006 09:41:51 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by yakatme:
O.K. Just for fun, I wanted to show two more outtakes for Singled-Out and see how you all think these would have done:
and |
I didn't know Sideshow Bob had a kid! :P |
|
|
|
01/23/2006 09:43:40 PM · #47 |
| I'll bite, who is Sideshow Bob? |
|
|
|
01/23/2006 09:45:01 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by Bebe:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
To be very specific, assuming the same reproduction ratio of subject to image size, the DOF will be identical at any given aperture regardless of the focal length of the lens or sensor size.
R. |
Uh oh. I thought I was understanding, but now I'm lost again. Bear, are you disagreeing with dwterry, or have I missed the point? |
dwterry is precisely correct except that sensor crop factor is irrelevant, a smaller sensor is still seeing a portion of the image that a 35mmm frame sees, same dof. |
|
|
|
01/23/2006 09:46:24 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by yakatme:
I'll bite, who is Sideshow Bob? |
sorry, he's on the TV show The Simpsons
 |
|
|
|
01/23/2006 09:51:41 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by Megatherian:
sorry, he's on the TV show The Simpsons
|
OK, I knew that. I thought maybe there is someone on DPC who annoyingly posts lots of images (slideshow) that I was emulating. |
|
