What about DOF

[bsdunek]

Well, jaapv, as an engineer, I think you gave a good explaination of DOF. If you took into account all the possible factors, the server would choke on the size of your post.

Other posts point out some additonal factors, while other posts show the typical misunderstanding of DOF. Even further, somd don't care, which is fine.

I find this is something that, first knowing the genera technical details, requires experience to use well. If DOF is critical in a photo, I spend time focusing on the different elements of the subject, and then select the aperature to result in what I want, using the DOF scales on the lens. I know they're not perfect, but again, experience helps. If you want to be master of your medium, you must use both sides of your brain! 😎

 

[Finder]

such as a 21mm lens diaphram at f/22 or f/32, are traveling on a nearly parallel path when striking a film plane approximatley 30mm away from the lens and so will not demonstrate any perceptible variance in sharpness between near and far objects.

Actually, the angle of the light cone will be exactly the same at a given aperture regardless of focal length. So whether you have a 21mm lens or a 2100mm, the angle of the light cone intersecting the image plane is the same at f/22; f-numbers are proportional to the angular size of the exit pupil. The difference is the relative change in the image space do not correspond to the same change in object space, so the 21mm lens has greater depth of field.

 

[somecanuckchick]

There are a number of articles (RE: DOF) located at the DOF Master.


🙂 N

 

[mc_vancouver]

... a big fat bloated Krispy Creme thing ...

SO that's what DOF is! Mmmm. I think its important to know about depth of field, circles of confusion (i.e. my life) and Bokeh, but one can also get awfully wrapped up in it all. Bokeh, for instance: I only began to read about this term on this site, and then did some investigation on my own, coming up with a few web pages on this phenomenon. See Rick Denney's site for detailed photo examples. ( Google doesn't find anyone identifying themselves as Bokeyman yet, if you want to set yourself up with a catchy title.)

 

[ElrodCod]

not a controversy for me in the least.

i decide before hand if i want shallow or deep dof and i completely ignore this made up crap about bokeh.

Me too. Everyone wants the sharpist lens that they can afford & then many are concerned about how blurry the blurry part is. I don't get it.:bang:

 

[wlewisiii]

Me too. Everyone wants the sharpist lens that they can afford & then many are concerned about how blurry the blurry part is. I don't get it.:bang:

Eh? Not all of us give a rat's as* about sharpness. Bokeh, however, is a very valid issue to me. It's not the only thing by any means, but I'd be even more of an idiot, than I already am, if I didn't consider it in my compositions. Just because _you_ don't get it does not make it any less real than the various cr*p I read about M6 Classic vs M6 TTL vs M7. I'll take my collapsible over _ANY_ more recent 'Cron. I'll also take a good Tessar (and even a I-61 L/D counts in this case ... 😉 ) over that 'Cron any time because it has a very real signature that the 'Cron will never touch...

So it goes.

William

 

[fgianni]

I suppose I am even more greedy than William, I want both, In focus part sharp and out of focus part smooth.
I am happy with the Summilux 75, Cron 35 4th, and a CV Nokton 1.5.
I am not sure about the bokeh of the CV 12 since I don't see much of it 😀

 

[mc_vancouver]

Perhaps I’m just not sophisticated enough...

One can say the out of focus buildings symbolize the inhumanity of...etcetera, or one could say: it was shot that way because if it had been shot with greater depth of field one would hardly be able to distinguish the barbed wire from the background. I work in film, and we are forever hearing, after the fact, why something was shot the way it was, when in fact it was often very practical considerations that made us shoot in a particular style. I'm not saying this photographer didn't think of other, metaphorical reasons when shooting Auschwitz; I imagine one could hardly visit this site and not have your emotional response affect your photography. Just that sometimes the shot is the way it is for very practical reasons. And I too think its a great shot.

 

[JohnL]

I didn't vote because I don't seem to fit any of the categories.

I really don't try to fine-tune DOF: either I want plenty or as little as possible. In the first case I set something like f/5.6 or less (even f/22 for extreme cases), depending on the composition and the lens. If I'm using an SLR, then sometimes I check, but generally I don't. Otherwise I just go wide open, with as long and fast a lens as suits.

 

[Stephanie Brim]

When I had my Nikon and the 50/1.4 Nikkor AI that I valued above all other photographic equipment at the time, shallow DOF was what I loved to play with. It's seen in a lot of early photographs...from the time I first got the camera. With the rangefinder I'm finding that I spend less time playing with shallow DOF and more time composing...

Interesting, that.

 

[lynn]

When I had my Nikon and the 50/1.4 Nikkor AI that I valued above all other photographic equipment at the time, shallow DOF was what I loved to play with. It's seen in a lot of early photographs...from the time I first got the camera. With the rangefinder I'm finding that I spend less time playing with shallow DOF and more time composing...

Interesting, that.

I have a NIkon FE, and use the 50/1.4 almost exclusively.
I do both.

 

[Stephanie Brim]

I'd buy another in a split second if I had the money...

But yeah...now that I use rangefinders almost exclusively I find myself caring less and less about shallow DOF...though I do break down and shoot the occasional wide open shot.

 

[Abbazz]

Nowadays, I could buy a digital point-and-shoot camera and effortlessly take perfectly sharp pictures with vibrant colors and no visible grain. The pictures I would get would be flawless, with everything in focus from a few inches to infinity... But, wait a minute, I don't like flawless pictures, they are boring!

By using a film camera, I have control over many parameters to make my pictures look unique. According to my mood, I can choose to shoot Adox 25, Ilford Delta 3200, Fuji Provia or Kodak Portra. I can pick a subminiature Minox, a 35mm rangefinder, a MF TLR or a 5x7 Linhof in the collection of cameras that I have accumulated over the years. Then I can decide to equip my camera with a Heliar, a Super-Angulon or a Summicron. And, of course, I can control shutter speed and DOF. By using a shallow DOF, I emphasize the main subject and cause the fore and background elements to melt away. IMHO, having DOF under control is today the main advantage of film cameras.

Of course, I could buy a full frame digital SLR or a digital MF back. But it would cost me a fortune (more than the total cost of my film camera collection), and the results wouldn't be as good as a LF camera costing 1/10 or 1/100 of the price.

For a few dollars, anybody can buy a FSU rangefinder with a nice lens, allowing to control DOF and take pictures which look like artistic interpretations of the reality and not like everybody's everything-in-focus snapshots.

Cheers,

Abbazz

 

[payasam]

There are many who hold that most work should be done at the "sweet spot" of the lens in use, generally f/5.6 or f/8, with focus being on the principal subject. Obvious exceptions are those portraits in which the photographer wants the background to be not a distraction at all and those in which the subject's environment -- book case, garden, and so on -- is is very much a part of the subject. In a crowded market place too, for example, the greatest possible depth of field might be wanted.

 

[dazedgonebye]

I figure three types of subjects re: dof.
1) I need all the dof I can get. I stop down all that light and diffraction will allow...sometimes compromising on the diffraction issue.
2) I want the main subject in focus but the rest of the world isn't important. I stop down to f8-f11.
3) I want a very narrow dof to isolate the subject. I shoot from .5 stop to 2 stops from wide open...depending on the lens/distance/subject.

For my purposes, analysis beyond that point is wasted and over-thinking at the time of taking the picture just interrupts the process.

 

[pvdhaar]

I figure three types of subjects re: dof.
1) I need all the dof I can get. I stop down all that light and diffraction will allow...sometimes compromising on the diffraction issue.
2) I want the main subject in focus but the rest of the world isn't important. I stop down to f8-f11.
3) I want a very narrow dof to isolate the subject. I shoot from .5 stop to 2 stops from wide open...depending on the lens/distance/subject.

For my purposes, analysis beyond that point is wasted and over-thinking at the time of taking the picture just interrupts the process.

I couldn't agree more, Steve. Let the effect that you want to achieve dictate the aperture.

Still, I'm guilty of fretting over the dof markings on the barrel, always trying to squeeze out that half aperture stop at the borders of the shutter speeds that I think I can handhold.

Actually, it's the 50mm M-Hexanon which is to blame. The markings are so conservative, that you're led to believe that dof is still paper thin at F16.

 

[DougK]

I first decide what should be in focus, then I look at the DOF scale and worry about how much light is available because I forgot my @!@$# tripod again. I don't worry about bokeh at all.

 

[arbib]

I used to, long ago, when modern SLR lens had DOF scales on all of them, use them. But many of todays lens only have a distance scale. RF lens still publish DOF scales. And I have found them useful at times,

I typicaly use the "Sunny 16" rule. And set my shutter to the film speed under 1/ ???. That way, I am shooting from F/16 - F/8 85% of the time.

If I am taking a person or group, I try to focus on the the eyes of the main subject. and with more people, I try to use F/16 -F/11 and Slit the Focus so both will be in focus. Not easy, but doable.

For Things, it is much easier, focus on the main point of intrest. And if you have a deep subject, like a Gov. Building with Stairs and Collums, I use smaller F/no's. I may test focus the near and far point I want in focus and set the F/stop accordinly too.

But most of the time, I use F/16-F/8 and focus on the main point of interest and fire away.