Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: acorreia on July 26, 2007, 04:39:10 am

Title: Depth of field
Post by: acorreia on July 26, 2007, 04:39:10 am
[span style=\'font-size:9pt;line-height:100%\']How I did it[/span][span style=\'font-size:9pt;line-height:100%\']Next photo I want to do – if I got the time because my sun asked to go and shoot kitesurf again tomorrow evenning – will be envolving 3 planes/surfaces/areas:[/span]At f/2.8 the 16mm with the lens focused to 1 meter will give me sharpness from 0.83 to 1.26 – the street at the far end will be out of focus and so will be the main lights.

  How about this ?
  Tell me !
(http://antoniocorreia.smugmug.com/photos/176949873-L.jpg)
Title: Depth of field
Post by: Khun_K on July 26, 2007, 06:18:20 am
Quote
[span style=\'font-size:9pt;line-height:100%\']How I did it[/span]
  • [span style=\'font-size:9pt;line-height:100%\']In this table (http://www.dofmaster.com/doftable.html) I  have choosen my camera, my lens and my distance      (I use meters of course).[/span]
  • [span style=\'font-size:9pt;line-height:100%\']Consulting the table, I could see that[/span]
    • [span style=\'font-size:9pt;line-height:100%\']if I set a distance of 1 meter in the lens       and
    • [span style=\'font-size:9pt;line-height:100%\']if I use f/22 that would give me a depth of       field between 0.38 and infinity.

  • [span style=\'font-size:9pt;line-height:100%\']Then, I measured the distance with na instrument like      a tape or whatever, between the sensor plain/layer/surface to a target      which was 1 meter      away.[/span]
  • [span style=\'font-size:9pt;line-height:100%\']I target the central point of the focusing      screen to that point and focus.[/span]
  • I switch off the auto focus from the lens.[/span]
  • I set the aperture at f/22[/span]
  • I compose the scene[/SIZE]
  • I placed an object at 40 cms (40 cms = 0.40 meter)[/SIZE]
  • I now have the object and infinity in focus.[/SIZE]
  • I didn’t care with the speed, or I do and have      to think the hole thing over again.[/SIZE]
    • [span style=\'font-size:9pt;line-height:100%\']If I had too much light I would have used the       NDF and/or the CPF.[/span]
    • [span style=\'font-size:9pt;line-height:100%\']I used flash because now I am a maniac of this       kind of light, which is gorgeous (http://strobist.blogspot.com/) as you can see here in my photos (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=66367) and here (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=64619).[/span]
[span style=\'font-size:9pt;line-height:100%\']Next photo I want to do – if I got the time because my sun asked to go and shoot kitesurf again tomorrow evenning – will be envolving 3 planes/surfaces/areas:[/span]
  • [span style=\'font-size:9pt;line-height:100%\']Near the lights of the car - 0.83 cms
  • Medium distance the car door or so - 1.26 m
  • Far distance, like the street.[/span]
At f/2.8 the 16mm with the lens focused to 1 meter will give me sharpness from 0.83 to 1.26 – the street at the far end will be out of focus and so will be the main lights.

  How about this ?
  Tell me !
(http://antoniocorreia.smugmug.com/photos/176949873-L.jpg)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129952\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Depend on the print size you will get different perspective of depth, the larger you print, the out-of-focus becomes more visible. The best solution is a camera with swing control or just use Helico Focus software to merge pictures of different focus. For digital capture, you may not get clear/sharp picture when the f stops down too much.
Title: Depth of field
Post by: acorreia on July 26, 2007, 06:32:11 am
Quote
Depend on the print size you will get different perspective of depth, the larger you print, the out-of-focus becomes more visible. The best solution is a camera with swing control or just use Helico Focus software to merge pictures of different focus. For digital capture, you may not get clear/sharp picture when the f stops down too much.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=129966\")


You do know that DOF has an intimate connection with CoC.
The thing here is: Do it KISS (Keep It Simple and Short).

This photo is from an assignment here. [a href=\"http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=66970]http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=66970[/url]

Thank for commenting.
Title: Depth of field
Post by: X-Re on July 26, 2007, 09:59:45 am
Quote
At f/2.8 the 16mm with the lens focused to 1 meter will give me sharpness from 0.83 to 1.26 – the street at the far end will be out of focus and so will be the main lights.

  How about this ?
  Tell me !
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129952\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

     What's the actual question??? How do you get everything appearing sharp, or??? The simple answer is.... stop down. Looks like f/16 would do it....
Title: Depth of field
Post by: acorreia on July 26, 2007, 10:10:11 am
Quote
What's the actual question??? How do you get everything appearing sharp, or??? The simple answer is.... stop down. Looks like f/16 would do it....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129986\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


The actual question is to get a sharp picture from 0,92 cms to infinty and prove it
Or from 0,63 m to 2,41m and prove it
Visualy
This table is useful
Sorry too small !
Title: Depth of field
Post by: kaelaria on July 27, 2007, 08:23:33 am
Welcome to photography??
Title: Depth of field
Post by: acorreia on July 27, 2007, 08:35:24 am
Quote
Welcome to photography??
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=130113\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Excuse me ??!! ...
I'm not getting what you mean. Sorry  
Title: Depth of field
Post by: joedevico on July 27, 2007, 08:59:49 am
Quote
Excuse me ??!! ...
I'm not getting what you mean. Sorry 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=130115\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Antonio -

Your post is taken from another board that you've been posting in...Now that I've read that thread I understand what is going on. Your post here doesn't make much sense taken out of context.

People here are just wondering if you have a question or not? It seems you are just trying to explain how you achieved a large DOF with this shot using an online calculator. If so that's fine - although you should write something at the top of the post that states this.  

jdv
Title: Depth of field
Post by: acorreia on July 27, 2007, 10:44:58 am
Quote
Antonio -

Your post is taken from another board that you've been posting in...Now that I've read that thread I understand what is going on. Your post here doesn't make much sense taken out of context.

People here are just wondering if you have a question or not? It seems you are just trying to explain how you achieved a large DOF with this shot using an online calculator. If so that's fine - although you should write something at the top of the post that states this.  

jdv
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=130120\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


OK I accept the critique and I will try to do something better next time.

However, I see no harm in posting the same subject in different foruns.
It's kind of curious: always different points of view.
Title: Depth of field
Post by: joedevico on July 27, 2007, 11:13:55 am
Quote
OK I accept the critique and I will try to do something better next time.

However, I see no harm in posting the same subject in different foruns.
It's kind of curious: always different points of view.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=130131\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Antonio -

It's not that you posted in different forums, it's that at the end of you post, you ask the question

"How about this ?
Tell me !"

I think it boils down more to a language barrier more than anything else. If the top of your post said - "Here's a shot I took to demonstrate extreme DOF." There would not be anyone wondering whether or not you had a problem. People were wondering if you were looking for help and since they don't have the background about why you were posting this image they were a bit confused.  

jdv
Title: Depth of field
Post by: acorreia on July 27, 2007, 11:22:10 am
Quote
Antonio -

It's not that you posted in different forums, it's that at the end of you post, you ask the question

"How about this ?
Tell me !"

I think it boils down more to a language barrier more than anything else. If the top of your post said - "Here's a shot I took to demonstrate extreme DOF." There would not be anyone wondering whether or not you had a problem. People were wondering if you were looking for help and since they don't have the background about why you were posting this image they were a bit confused.   

jdv
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=130134\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


OK OK.
May be also a question of culture ?!

I mean my problem not yours ...
Title: Depth of field
Post by: trigeek on July 28, 2007, 11:34:54 am
Antonio,
Thanks for posting this work flow. It's something that one could figure out if thought about for a bit, but having the step by step is a real time saver. I printed it out and is in my notebook. Also thanks for the link.
Regards,
Jim
Title: Depth of field
Post by: acorreia on July 29, 2007, 07:08:02 pm
Quote
Antonio,
Thanks for posting this work flow. It's something that one could figure out if thought about for a bit, but having the step by step is a real time saver. I printed it out and is in my notebook. Also thanks for the link.
Regards,
Jim
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=130285\")


Thank you Jim.
I have re-writen the work flow, trying to correct what I think it was wronge.
Here is the final text. I hope you find this better than before.

[span style=\'font-size:9pt;line-height:100%\']How I did it[/span]I didn't care about diffraction (http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm) either !
Lots of infos about this subject here (http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials.htm).

0.38 centimeters = 0.013 feet/0,150 inches - 0.40 centimeters = 0.0131 feet/0,157 inches - 1 meter = 3.281 feet/39.370 inches
[attachment=2902:attachment]