Too much DOF

[buster]

Hi all

I am a proffesional studio photographer, and I used too have no problem throwing backgrounds out of focus on my 5/4 camera because the of the size of the film plane.

However having switched too Canon 1ds mK11 the depth of field is still too much with the aperture at widest. So does anyone know if their is a lens /system I can use with a very shallow depth of field, like the film industry use?.

Cheers bustercat

[n1x0n]

It's not about lens... it's about film/sensor format and maximum lens aperture. There's no way to have DOF like at 4x5 on 35mm camera... Stick to widest possible aperture setting, increase distance between the model and the background.

[David White]

However having switched too Canon 1ds mK11 the depth of field is still too much with the aperture at widest. So does anyone know if their is a lens /system I can use with a very shallow depth of field, like the film industry use?.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66833\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You didn't say what lens you are using.  With the 70-200 f2.8L I find that the depth of field can be very narrow on close subjects.

[dlashier]

So does anyone know if their is a lens /system I can use with a very shallow depth of field, like the film industry use?.

85mm f1.2

- DL

[Sheldon N]

and 35mm f/1.4 L

and if you like telephoto, 200mm f/1.8 L

plenty shallow depth of field, and all amazing pieces of glass.

[gmitchel]

and 35mm f/1.4 L

and if you like telephoto, 200mm f/1.8 L

plenty shallow depth of field, and all amazing pieces of glass.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Most people are not going to find a 35mm f/1.4 "L" very flattering for portraits. Wide angles have their occasional use in portrait photography, but the typical refrain will be that it makes them appear fat.

Although 50mm is considered "normal" on a 35mm SLR, most people find they prefer the result from a slight telephoto. Something between 85 and 135mm. (I stopped buying cameras with the stock 50mm decades ago, because I never found it to be all that practical. I always found something around 85-100mm to be a better all-around focal length with a 35mm SLR.)

If you want to reduce DOF, I have a tutorial that shows you how to use the Lens Blur filter in Photoshop CS to simulate a narrower DOF.

[a href=\"http://www.thelightsrightstudio.com/tutorials/TakingControlOverDepthOfField.pdf]http://www.thelightsrightstudio.com/tutori...epthOfField.pdf[/url]

If you prefer HTML to PDF, Uwe Steinmueller published it on his site, too:

http://www.outbackphoto.com/workflow/wf_49/essay.html

As a macro photographer, I typically fight to get as much DOF as possible. But there are times when I want to get maximum DOF for the subject but still blur a distracting background. The Lens Blur filter helps *A LOT*.

Enjoy!

Cheers,

Mitch

[BJL]

Hi all

I am a proffesional studio photographer, and I used too have no problem throwing backgrounds out of focus on my 5/4 camera because the of the size of the film plane.

However having switched too Canon 1ds mK11 the depth of field is still too much with the aperture at widest. So does anyone know if their is a lens /system I can use with a very shallow depth of field, like the film industry use?.

Cheers bustercat
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66833\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

1) This makes no sense to me: the far lower minimum f-stops available in 35mm format primes (85/1.2, 100/2, 135/2) if anything give less DOF wide open than medium format or 4"x5" large format lenses of focal lengths suitable for portraits.
2) The film industry gets more DOF wide open than 35mm foramt stil photography, not less due to the smaller formats used: 35mm movie format frame sizes are all smaller than 18x24mm "singel frame" and the lenses do not reach f-stops as low as the f/1.2 of the Canon 85mm L.
3) The numerous spelling errors and other errors (it is 4"x5" or 5"x4", not 5/4) are suprising coming from a "proffesional" like buster.
4) Buster's failure to respond to questions and suggestions is also a little puzzling, no?


Without wanting to be too cynical, we might be wasting time and resources responding in this thread.

[buster]

1) This makes no sense to me: the far lower minimum f-stops available in 35mm format primes (85/1.2, 100/2, 135/2) if anything give less DOF wide open than medium format or 4"x5" large format lenses of focal lengths suitable for portraits.
2) The film industry gets more DOF wide open than 35mm foramt stil photography, not less due to the smaller formats used: 35mm movie format frame sizes are all smaller than 18x24mm "singel frame" and the lenses do not reach f-stops as low as the f/1.2 of the Canon 85mm L.
3) The numerous spelling errors and other errors (it is 4"x5" or 5"x4", not 5/4) are suprising coming from a "proffesional" like buster.
4) Buster's failure to respond to questions and suggestions is also a little puzzling, no?
Without wanting to be too cynical, we might be wasting time and resources responding in this thread.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66897\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[buster]

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66908\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thank you, and sorry Iem late on reply, been real busy. I am mostly shooting still life subjects or roomsets, and still getting to grips with digital small format, although The cambo Ultima may help me, I will have to try it out, at Calumet and get back to everyone.

My refrence to the film industry is based on their lenses. I think they have specialist lenses with very short depth of field. I was hopeing someone might put me in touch with a lens maker, I could contact. Sorry you dont like my typing and abreviations I have been an Advertising photographer for 17 years and my customers have never asked me for a spelling test before.

Thank you for your replllys

[buster]

and 35mm f/1.4 L

and if you like telephoto, 200mm f/1.8 L

plenty shallow depth of field, and all amazing pieces of glass.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66887\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks for the reply I think I will be too far away from the subject though.

[buster]

85mm f1.2

- DL
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66858\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Havent tried this lens I will give it a go tar. I am also looking at the Cambo Ultima so I can keep my DOF on the areas I want.

[buster]

Most people are not going to find a 35mm f/1.4 "L" very flattering for portraits. Wide angles have their occasional use in portrait photography, but the typical refrain will be that it makes them appear fat.

Although 50mm is considered "normal" on a 35mm SLR, most people find they prefer the result from a slight telephoto. Something between 85 and 135mm. (I stopped buying cameras with the stock 50mm decades ago, because I never found it to be all that practical. I always found something around 85-100mm to be a better all-around focal length with a 35mm SLR.)

If you want to reduce DOF, I have a tutorial that shows you how to use the Lens Blur filter in Photoshop CS to simulate a narrower DOF.

http://www.thelightsrightstudio.com/tutori...epthOfField.pdf

If you prefer HTML to PDF, Uwe Steinmueller published it on his site, too:

http://www.outbackphoto.com/workflow/wf_49/essay.html

As a macro photographer, I typically fight to get as much DOF as possible. But there are times when I want to get maximum DOF for the subject but still blur a distracting background. The Lens Blur filter helps *A LOT*.

Enjoy!

Cheers,

Mitch
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66893\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks for the Info Although I use Photoshop CS2 every day, I like too get it right in camera as it never looks as good, and is time consuming when your running a business.

Cheers

[BJL]

Buster,

   tell us what focal lengths and apertures you are using with your larger format gear and with 35mm.

Without that information, I find it very hard to see how larger format lenses with their far higher minimum f-stops could be giving you less DOF wide open than some rather obvious lens choices for portraiture in 35mm format.


P. S. movies can display extremes of low DOF and strong OOF effects because we view those images from tiny film frames, about 13.5x24mm, at such huge enlargments. Print your portraits at movie screen size and view them from the front rows of a cinema and your "DOF surplus" problems will be gone!

[Ray]

Isn't there a very simple formula for finding DoF equivalents amongst the various formats? For lens/format combinations that produce an equivalent FoV from the same distance, the DoF will vary with the diagonal of the format at a given f stop.

The diagonal of 4x5 format is about 3.5x the diagonal of 35mm format, therefore the 35mm f stop number should be multiplied by 3.5 to get  the f stop on 4x5 which will produce the equivalent DoF. Eg. a 50mm lens at f1.4 on 35mm should give the same DoF as a 150-180mm lens at f5 on 4x5.

[gmitchel]

Thanks for the Info Although I use Photoshop CS2 every day, I like too get it right in camera as it never looks as good, and is time consuming when your running a business.

Cheers
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66916\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

My point in the tutorial is that sometimes you cannot "get it right" in the camera. You really should see the image featured in the tutorial. It is a white iris. To get the iris sharp, tip to tip, front to back, and have a reasonable subject size, I had to allow a wide DOF and that meant a distracting background.

Shooting a wide DOF and then using the Lens Blur to selectively give the image the appearance of a narrower DOF allowed me to capture my artistic vision.

Getting it right in the camera, would have gotten it wrong in the image I had in mind.

For me, it is more important to capture an image that gives me maximum flexibility for my creative vision.

Cheers,

Mitch

[danag42]

Hi all

I am a proffesional studio photographer, and I used too have no problem throwing backgrounds out of focus on my 5/4 camera because the of the size of the film plane.

However having switched too Canon 1ds mK11 the depth of field is still too much with the aperture at widest. So does anyone know if their is a lens /system I can use with a very shallow depth of field, like the film industry use?.

Cheers bustercat
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66833\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's why God made the Photoshop CS2 Lens Blur filter.  

[BJL]

Isn't there a very simple formula for finding DoF equivalents amongst the various formats?

The diagonal of 4x5 format is about 3.5x the diagonal of 35mm format, therefore the 35mm f stop number should be multiplied by 3.5
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66962\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Almost, except that for situatons like portraits (whch I suspect is what buster the proffesional studio photographer wants his shallow DOF for), the prints are likely to be in formats like 8"x10", 11"x14", 16"x20" and so on, which requires no crop from 4"x5" but a cropping of 35mm format down to 24x30mm. So the size difference is a simpler factor of about four.

To take the examples of some obvious Cann portrait lens choices, 85/1.2, 85/1.8, 100/2, 135/2, 135/2.8 soft focus,
f/1.2 in 35mm matches f/4.8 in 4"x5" (if LF lenses that fast existed!)
f/1.8 in 35mm matches f/7.2 in 4"x5"
f/2 in 35mm matches f/8 in 4"x5"
f/2.8 in 35mm matches f/11 in 4"x5"

The fastest LF lenses long enough for portraiture that I know of are f/5.6 wide open, matching f/1.4 in 35mm for DOF.


I am still waiting for buster to tell us what apertures and focal lengths he has been using!