Question for a shoot I have today

[Guinness Man]

Im shooting this girl with a city line background. the city line is across the bay. So its a good distance from her

In order to get them both in focus I would use an aperture as wide as I can get, but are there any other tricks to make her pop and keep everything in focus?

thanks

 

[rufus5150]

Actually you want a narrow aperture (larger f/#) not wider. Wider apertures result in less DOF.

To make her 'pop' you could light the foreground so it exposes 1/2-1 stop above the background.

 

[Guinness Man]

so shoot at an f15 or something?

I can use my SB-900 to light her up

 

[Aayria]

Hi, I'm fairly new to this as well, and loving it! I agree with the above poster - you want a nice, narrow aperture to get the best depth of field. I'd try several shots, and raise your f-stop in increments until you get the effect you're most happy with.

What time of day will you be shooting? I'm not a huge fan of flash photography if I can avoid it (personal preference), and do you have a tripod? To help your subject pop from the background, maybe you could experiment with some lighting or reflectors?

Best of luck!

 

[Guinness Man]

thanks

in this photo:
http://www.photoreview.com.au/reviews/digitalslr/D5000_LCD_graphic.jpg

the f stop is at 5.6 and the yellow circle is the size it is.
If I go to f15 or whatever the circle gets smaller. wont that result in a smaller DOF meaning less background in focus?

seems I would need to go to f2.8 or something.

Im confused.

 

[Dao]

It is the other way around.

Smaller the aperture, larger the F/ number will give you deeper DoF.

Play around with this and see

Online Depth of Field Calculator

 

[TJ K]

No the smaller the hole the more things are in focus. The bigger hole something like 2.8 lets a lot of light in really quickly and you get a shallow DOF. When you shoot at something like f/16 it's a pretty small hole and takes a bit longer for the same amount of light to get in and hit the sensor. This gives you a larger area that's in focus. You want a small circle. That is why when you shoot at something like f/1.4 or 1.2 there is such a shallow DOF it might look like the whole shot is out of focus. Hope that helps.
TJ

 

[DerekSalem]

thanks

in this photo:
http://www.photoreview.com.au/reviews/digitalslr/D5000_LCD_graphic.jpg

the f stop is at 5.6 and the yellow circle is the size it is.
If I go to f15 or whatever the circle gets smaller. wont that result in a smaller DOF meaning less background in focus?

seems I would need to go to f2.8 or something.

Im confused.

No, the smaller the aperture (larger f number) the larger the depth of field. If you drop it down to 2.8 the background will be *more* out of focus. In many prime lenses with wide apertures (sometimes called quick lenses -- f/2.8, f/1.8, or lower) the depth of field can be so shallow that if you took a picture focused on one end of a can of pop the other end could be completely out of focus.

Most people like to take portraits and model pictures around f/8. Gives a pretty wide depth of field and many people say it's the clearest f-stop for most lenses.

 

[Guinness Man]

WOW. Ive had it backwards all this time.

Thanks for the help. It really cleared things up

 

[gsgary]

Are you after something like this (famous UK actor from 70's-80's)
Settings were ISO200 (wish i had uped it to 400) 1/400 F11 50mm and some fill flash,Taken late afternoon metered for the sky
http://gsgary.smugmug.com/People/Actor-Dudley-Sutton/Image00001/267790105_G3LHv-L.jpg

 

[Guinness Man]

Are you after something like this (famous UK actor from 70's-80's)
Settings were ISO200 (wish i had uped it to 400) 1/400 F11 50mm and some fill flash,Taken late afternoon metered for the sky
http://gsgary.smugmug.com/People/Actor-Dudley-Sutton/Image00001/267790105_G3LHv-L.jpg

Thats the perspective I want but more balanced lighting. Your background seems a bit blurred. but yes, she'll be that distance form the city line.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

So, you have a photography "business", and you have had no understanding of DoF all this time? Really?

 

[gsgary]

Are you after something like this (famous UK actor from 70's-80's)
Settings were ISO200 (wish i had uped it to 400) 1/400 F11 50mm and some fill flash,Taken late afternoon metered for the sky
http://gsgary.smugmug.com/People/Actor-Dudley-Sutton/Image00001/267790105_G3LHv-L.jpg

Thats the perspective I want but more balanced lighting. Your background seems a bit blurred. but yes, she'll be that distance form the city line.

I didn't have much time to set my camera, thats why i said i would have uped the iso to 400 to let more ambient light to lighten the back ground.
One thing you could try is use a telephoto lens from further back and that will bring your city scape nearer to the model

 

[Guinness Man]

So, you have a photography "business", and you have had no understanding of DoF all this time? Really?

Well, Ill take your question as a question instead of the implied insult

I understand DOF its just that sometimes it is a bit confusing and I typically don't shoot landscape or city lines. If the pic doesnt have the desired "blur" in the background I adjust in photo shop.

Im trying to become a better photographer instead of a great editor.

all the while... having a business. (website is new as of last weekend)

Its start-up though

 

[DerekSalem]

So, you have a photography "business", and you have had no understanding of DoF all this time? Really?

After reading this comment I looked at your website and I have to agree with Bitter...how is it that you don't have a firm grasp of depth of field if you own your own photography business?

Even more so, the pictures on your website look very professional...and you did it all without understanding one of the basics of photography? I don't understand how that's possible.