Shallow DOF at long range

Applejuice · Jun 11, 2015

Hi to all.

I was wondering how you can achieve a shallow-ish DOF at with subjects at medium-to-long range. I only seem to be able to achieve a shallow DOF when shooting close-ups.

The effect I'm looking for is often seen in vintage photos, like this one. The subject (lumberjacks) are sharp and shot at long range, but the background has that nice blur/bokeh going on. If I was to try and mimic this **** with my gear, everything would appear sharp and in focus.

Regarding my gear: I only want to immortalize my travels and experiences as beautiful as possible, but don't want to become a professional. As such, I didn't invest a whole lot of money when purchasing a camera. I bought myself a Nikon D5200 a few years ago that came with 2 kit lenses (18-55mm f3.5-5.6 and a 55-300mm f4.5-5.6) and purchased a 50mm f1.8 last year.

Is above mentioned effect even possible with my gear? Like I said, as an amateur without professional ambition, I don't want to spend $500+ on lenses and what not, so if my gear is not up to the task, then I'm afraid I'll have to stick with the close-ups I'm doing right now

Thanks in advance!

jaomul · Jun 11, 2015

Your best chance is with your 50mm wide open, but I suspect this won't work as well as the photo you have posted, which may have been done with a medium or large format film camera.

Google the Brenzier method and you might get the effect you want with your own gear

goodguy · Jun 11, 2015

The further you are from a subject the wider the deapth of field will be.
In such a shot using wide lens, setting lens to be as open as possible (f1.4 if you have such a lens) and getting as close to your subject as possible is the best way to get the results you want, still it might not be possible and maybe "jaomul" is right and Medium format might be only way to get this shallow DOF under such coiditions.

Applejuice · Jun 11, 2015

Alright, thanks for the replies!

Am I correct in assuming that a 85mm 1.2/1.4 lens for this DX body, would be the equivalent of a 135mm on a full frame camera, with the possibilities of creating that shallow DOF effect?

Additionally, that Brenizer method looks promising. I'll give that a try one of these days.

Braineack · Jun 11, 2015

you could do the same with any of your lenses.

KmH · Jun 11, 2015

Applejuice said:
I was wondering how you can achieve a shallow-ish DOF at with subjects at medium-to-long range.

You use a long focal length.

Using a 200 mm focal length on a crop sensor camera, an aperture of f/5.6, and a point of focus (PoF) distance of 40 feet the total DoF is only 2.58 feet, split 48% in front of and 52% behind the PoF.
At a PoF distance of 60 feet the total DoF is 5.85 feet, also split 48% in front of and 52% behind the PoF.
Online Depth of Field Calculator

Derrel · Jun 11, 2015

KmH said:
Applejuice said:

I was wondering how you can achieve a shallow-ish DOF at with subjects at medium-to-long range.

Click to expand...

You use a long focal length.

Using a 200 mm focal length on a crop sensor camera, an aperture of f/5.6, and a point of focus (PoF) distance of 40 feet the total DoF is only 2.58 feet, split 48% in front of and 52% behind the PoF.
At a PoF distance of 60 feet the total DoF is 5.85 feet, also split 48% in front of and 52% behind the PoF.
Online Depth of Field Calculator

The only problem with the above "advice" is that it will not make a picture that is ANYTHING AT ALL like the illustrated logging scene, because with a 200mm lens at 40 feet on a crop-frame camera, the actual picture area will be four feet, 9 inches wide and three feet and 2.4 inches tall, and 5 feet on the diagonal!!! The advice here is not correct.

Using some estimated sizes of 6 feet tall for the men, and the actual scene shown, using CORRECTED numbers, I arrive at this: using a 200mm lens at f/5.6, the needed camera to subject distance is 180 feet from the men. That gives a depth of field of from 157 feet to 210 feet, with a depth of field band of 53 feet deep.... and a picture area that is 14 feet high and 21 feet across. ( http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm )

So, no, you cannot use a 200mm lens at f/5.6 to make the kind of photo shown...

Braineack · Jun 11, 2015

buy a hasselback. problem solved.

Derrel · Jun 11, 2015

The lumberjack photo looks like it was taken with a short telephoto lens on a 4x5 camera. I say this because of the aspect ratio, and the era it was made in. Also, there is some slight telephoto compression look to the image, with the background appearing "magnified"...and the distance compressed--see the aerial perspective on the ridge behind them? Aerial perspective is the photographic term for the hazy look of something distant. This was shot with a slight telephoto lens, on a large-format camera, but not from a long ways away from the men.

And that is the key--"not from a long ways away". YOU have a very tiny-sensor camera compared to a 4x5 inch film camera; your camera uses shorter lenses, with teeny-tiny aperture holes for all of the smaller f/stops like f/11 and f/8 and even f/5.6. For each angle of view, your modern, small-format APS-C camera has deep depth of field, compared against what a 4x5 camera can create. In the olden days, photographers battled to get enough in-focus...today, we have the exact opposite problem--we often have MORE in focus than we would like.

You really can not re-create the magnified background/compressed sense of distance of the lumberjack image with regular, low-cost lenses for an APS-C camera, but you can crete a sort-of-similar-b ut-not-exactly-the-same sort of feel by 1) shooting from CLOSE distance and with 2)a lens with the widest aperture you can afford to buy and that is 3)as long as possible for the picture angle you want to create.

With a small-format, APS-C camera, that means shooting with something like a 28mm f/2 lens from close range, or a 35mm f/1.4 lens from moderately close range, or a 50mm lens at wide aperture like f/2 to f/2.8 from as close a distance as possible, or a fast 85mm lens from as close as possible; once you start going past about 85mm, then the problem becomes that the lens's angle of view is so narrow, that it forces you to move BACK; and increasing the distance is what builds deeper depth of field extremely rapidly, and that is most especially true as sensor size gets smaller.

With a small-format camera, being closer is the first key to getting shallow depth of field. There is a fine line between distance to the subject, lens aperture, and focal length and the magnification the length gives...it's difficult to explain it, but for "scenes", like say the 21' x 14 ' lumberjack scene, the best way to get that defocused look is to shoot with a WIDE lens aperture, from as CLOSE as you can. This is why the fast, new wide-angles like the Nikon 28mm f/1.8, have been developed... the second key for the APS-C photographer to get shallow DOF is using a wide aperture, like f/1.8 or f/2 or even as small as f/2.8, used in conjunction with being as close as is possible. With APS-C cameras, once you start needing to "move back", you lose the background defocus....this starts at 85mm and gets worse as lenses get longer....as I pointed out, at 180 feet distance to get the two lumberjacks into their "scene" with a slow, f/5.6 aperture and 200mm lens, you have 53 feet of depth of field--annnnnnd, the thing that the numbers do not show is that, yes, the background is OOF, but it is also quite recognizable, and identifiable. This is why lenses like the 24mm f/1.4, 28mm f/1.8, and 35mm f/1.4 are popular these days with high-end shooters; because APS-C cameras build depth of field so,so fast as distance increases, and with smaller lens openings like f/4 and f/5.6.

KmH · Jun 11, 2015

Derrel said:
The only problem with the above "advice" is that it will not make a picture that is ANYTHING AT ALL like the illustrated logging scene,

Pay attention Derrel. I did not say those number would reproduce the photo postes.

I was only trying to demonstrate that a longer focal length allows the photographer to be further from the subject yet still have a relatively shallow DoF. It's also why I included a link to DoF Master so others could apply numbers appropriate for their set-up

All anyone needs to do is increase the PoF distance appropriately to get subject scale in the frame the way they want it.

Derrel · Jun 11, 2015

KmH said:
Pay attention Derrel. I did not say those number would reproduce the photo postes.

I was only trying to demonstrate that a longer focal length allows the photographer to be further from the subject yet still have a relatively shallow DoF. It's also why I included a link to DoF Master so others could apply numbers appropriate for their set-up

All anyone needs to do is increase the PoF distance appropriately to get subject scale in the frame the way they want it.

Keith, maybe next time you will actually put a little effort in, and try and follow the OP's example photo, and the OP's scenario, and take note that he says his equipment can NOT reproduce the effect of the sample photo.

The OP posted an example photo, of a type he would like to be able to emulate or to re-create it; I'm sorry, but both the "answer" and the "example" you supplied were utterly flat-out irrelevant.

I happen to know first-hand and exactly WHY his gear cannot shoot shallow depth of field shots like his example, and I gave him the correct answers to help him solve his problem, which he CLEARLY defined.

That's called solving the OP's question. Correctly. With useful information, and concrete suggestions. Which happen to be germane to the actual topic at hand. Both in general, and with utmost specificity. Maybe I did pay attention, eh?

Applejuice · Jun 12, 2015

Whoa, a whole lot of useful info here. Thanks!

I chose the 50mm f1.8 over the 35mm f1.8 DX because I read somewhere that 50mm is the closest match with what our human eyes see.

That was, of course, before I knew that on a cropped sensor DSLR, a 50mm is actually, roughly equal to a 75mm. So while I do have a pretty good portrait medium-tele lens with that one, I'm still missing a good wider-angle lens that can take in more of the environment, with a shallower DOF than the 18-55mm kit lens. And thus this thread was created.

A 35mm f1.8 DX is something I'd consider buying at this point, mainly because it's cheap, and it's actually a 35mm on cropped sensor DSLRs. A 28mm f1.8 costs quite a bit more and will be a 42mm on the D5200, si I'll get a wider angle with the 35mm DX.

Do you think this is a good call (keeping in mind the type of photo's I'd like to shoot)?

goooner · Jun 12, 2015

I think there is a new Sigma 18-35/1.8 out. It is quite pricey, but from what I've read and heard its a beast. I think it will be good to try and get that kind of picture. Getting close at say F2.2 with the background further away should get you in the ballpark. Will probably be my next lens.

Alexr25 · Jun 12, 2015

That photo look like it was taken with a large format camera, probably a full-plate or 8"X10" view camera and a 200mm-300mm lens giving a normal angle of view. You are not going to come close to replicating that DOF effect on any digital, 35mm or even medium format camera.