Auto and f stops.

[petrochemist]

It seems to me that Photography has always had this compromise, and those who are the very best "compromisers", produce the better images.

Cordially,

Mark

There's certainly a never ending need for balancing conflicting aspects, though perhaps this is getting less of a requirement as cameras manage ever better low light performance.
For the best images I'm sure a good eye for composition is needed too. Bracket wildly & shooting random scenes might end up with good compromises but few if any great images.

 

[Derrel]

Propeller aircraft and panning are both good situations for the use of shutter priority or what Canon calls Tv or Time value exposure mode.

 

[smoke665]

Those of us fortunate to have the "Pentax Magic Green Hyper Mode Button", find it easy to slip between full auto to all the modes and back again with a flick of the thumb or finger, without taking the eye from the viewfinder.

 

[Pixeldawg1]

It seems to me that Photography has always had this compromise, and those who are the very best "compromisers", produce the better images.

Cordially,

Mark

There's certainly a never ending need for balancing conflicting aspects, though perhaps this is getting less of a requirement as cameras manage ever better low light performance.
For the best images I'm sure a good eye for composition is needed too. Bracket wildly & shooting random scenes might end up with good compromises but few if any great images.

All true, but I was speaking more in a technical sense than an artistic one. I have been shooting for 40+ years now, and I rarely if ever bracket. With 1/3rd stops and shooting in RAW, there really isn't a need. My department is building a new, state of the art facility for Digital Media, Film and Television production and last week, we were allowed into it for the very first time. I shot several images available light, and with the above combination, I was able to view both inside and outside perfectly well (I am posting an example here to show what I mean.)

. No bracketing required. The only exception to this would be shooting HDR, which requires the bracketed images. But again, I generally don't shoot HDR any more simply because shooting RAW works so well. Just my take, and of course, your mileage may vary.

 

[Ysarex]

Most of the auto-aperture settings are now simplified to "Flowers", "Low Light", "Sports" and other basic descriptors. If you want to set things up automatically, try using the shutter-priority in the camera. This is where you set the shutter speed and the camera sets the aperture. This way, you have a much greater control over the depth of field by changing the shutter speed until you are at the desired aperture setting that you want. As far as Bokeh is concerned, there is a distinct difference between it and Depth of Field and in basic photography, there is a lot of confusion about these. Bokeh is the quality of the softness in the background. Some lenses, because of glass, design and other factors, can have a more visually pleasing blur in comparison to other lenses. Each lens is unique in this quality level and again, some lenses are better at this than others.

Now, Depth of Field is a bit more technical. the lower your aperture number, (say, F2.8) the LESS depth of field you'll have. Increase that aperture number, (say, to F16) and you will have a greater apparent sharpness on the Z axis of the image (think here about your high school geometry for a moment. You had X, Y and Z axis. X and Y are vertical and horizontal, and Z goes into the depth of the image, so in a 3D image, you could move toward the subject physically, but since your 2D in a photo, it is only "apparent", but works when we discuss Depth of Field.) There is an old rule too that says that Depth of Field is also broken up into "1/3rd and 2/3rds". Meaning that if you focus at 8 feel away, and you have 9 feet of depth of field at your camera setting, everything from 5 feet to 14 feet will be in focus. 1/3rd BEFORE the point of focus and 2/3rds After the point of focus for that Depth of field number, so 3 feet in front of the focus point at 8 feet (8-3=5) and 6 feet AFTER the point of focus (8+6=14) Now, this is a graduated change. Some photographer disagree with this, which is OK, but generally it is pretty accurate for general situations.

Nope, that old 1/3 -- 2/3 rule just isn't correct. DOF distributes unequally around the focus plane, yes. There's more DOF behind the focus plane than in front of the focus plane, yes. A .33 -- .66 distribution will occur but so will a .49 -- .51 and so will a .01 -- .99 and so will a .20 -- .80 and in a whole lot of photos so will a .0......1 -- infinity. What's a "general situation"? You posted a photo here on this thread and the DOF distribution is .0......1 -- infinity. I posted the most recent photo I took this morning: Surprise Visit from Proctologist It's a very general situation and the DOF distribution is .0.....1 -- infinity. A landscape photographer in her/his general situations may encounter .33 --.66 rarely. For most of the photography I do and I'm very much a generalist, a .33 -- .66 DOF distribution is uncommon compared with everything else I generally get.

Now, this is the basics.

Depth of field gets more complicated when you change lenses and when you move physically closer or farther away from your subject. So, if you are photographing bugs for example and your using F16 with a 105mm macro lens and are 5 inches away from your subject, you may have less than an inch of depth of field. If you take that same lens and photograph something more distant, say 30 feet away at F16, you will have several feet of depth of field with the very same lens. ( BTW, lenses that produce the subject from 1/4 to 1/1 of its' actual size on the film or on the sensor are called "macro". Anything above that- larger than life, is Micro).

Also, lens focal length plays a part in this as well. A wide angle lens has more depth of field at the same aperture (let's say F16 again) than our 105mm at F16 and focused side-by-side at the very same object. Also, there is a change in perspective as well.

There's a framing change with the wider lens (greater angle of view) including more of the scene and the longer lens (smaller angle of view) including less of the scene, but if the two photos are taken from the same place the perspective will be the same.

Joe

The wide angle makes things look farther apart in comparison to real life while a telephoto compresses things and makes them look closer together than they really are. When you see photos where the sun looks HUGE in comparison to other objects that it normally appears to be in the frame, it is made with a telephoto lens. When you see a photo of a tree with a lot of detail on the left side of the frame, and mountains far off in the distance and EVERYTHING is sharp, it was made with a wide angle lens.

Most likely more than you wanted to know, but hope it is helpful.

Cordially,

Mark

 

[Ysarex]

This is true in ANY macro lens and not just the Nikons. Canon, Sigma and other macro lenses are all designed as flat field lenses. Additionally, so are enlarger lenses. In fact, in the bad-old-days of photography (Read, 1980) I knew MANY photographers who would take a high quality 75mm enlarging lens, put it on a bellows and that was their macro rig. Worked pretty well in most situations, but not nearly as good as the current crop of macro lenses.

Hold on there. I've been using enlarging lenses for macro/close-up work for a long time including in those bad-old-days. One of my favorite lenses for macro/close-up work right now on my Fuji cameras is a 60mm Rodagon enlarging lens and I'll put it up against any current macro lens. In fact here you go: Here's a side by side comparison: 60mm Rodagon versus 100mm Makro-Planar The two full images are at 50%. The inset of the right eye shades frame (focus point) is at 100%. You can almost say the 60mm Rodagon has a slight edge. I'm going to hem and haw over that because I had to remove CA from the shot with the 100mm Makro-Planar and that dinged the edge for that lens. Also the contrast from the Rodagon is slightly higher and I think that creates a false sense of added detail. AT the same time there was no trace of CA from the 60mm Rodagon.

I don't need a bellow to use the enlarging lens. Simple matter of buying a helical adapter which you can get for about $50.00. The enlarging lens is small and very light weight -- works great with IQ performance equal to the current crop of macro lenses.

Joe

And a technical point that is important to remember, Nikon calls their (macro) lenses "Micro", which is technically inaccurate because unless you place it on a bellows or have an extension tube in use with it, it is a true "macro" lens and is capable of 1:1 reproduction (Meaning again, the object size on the film or sensor is exactly the same size as it is in real-life.). The "micro" reference is strictly a marketing thing. And even still, I LOVE my ancient, bakelite 105mm "micro" lens!

 

[Pixeldawg1]

Hi Joe,

You may well use that and get good results, but when writing for PopPhoto, lab test show that the modern macros that are designed for macro work specifically yield sharper images with better saturation and image fidelity. But, if you are happy with the results, rock on.

 

[Pixeldawg1]

Most of the auto-aperture settings are now simplified to "Flowers", "Low Light", "Sports" and other basic descriptors. If you want to set things up automatically, try using the shutter-priority in the camera. This is where you set the shutter speed and the camera sets the aperture. This way, you have a much greater control over the depth of field by changing the shutter speed until you are at the desired aperture setting that you want. As far as Bokeh is concerned, there is a distinct difference between it and Depth of Field and in basic photography, there is a lot of confusion about these. Bokeh is the quality of the softness in the background. Some lenses, because of glass, design and other factors, can have a more visually pleasing blur in comparison to other lenses. Each lens is unique in this quality level and again, some lenses are better at this than others.

Now, Depth of Field is a bit more technical. the lower your aperture number, (say, F2.8) the LESS depth of field you'll have. Increase that aperture number, (say, to F16) and you will have a greater apparent sharpness on the Z axis of the image (think here about your high school geometry for a moment. You had X, Y and Z axis. X and Y are vertical and horizontal, and Z goes into the depth of the image, so in a 3D image, you could move toward the subject physically, but since your 2D in a photo, it is only "apparent", but works when we discuss Depth of Field.) There is an old rule too that says that Depth of Field is also broken up into "1/3rd and 2/3rds". Meaning that if you focus at 8 feel away, and you have 9 feet of depth of field at your camera setting, everything from 5 feet to 14 feet will be in focus. 1/3rd BEFORE the point of focus and 2/3rds After the point of focus for that Depth of field number, so 3 feet in front of the focus point at 8 feet (8-3=5) and 6 feet AFTER the point of focus (8+6=14) Now, this is a graduated change. Some photographer disagree with this, which is OK, but generally it is pretty accurate for general situations.

Nope, that old 1/3 -- 2/3 rule just isn't correct. DOF distributes unequally around the focus plane, yes. There's more DOF behind the focus plane than in front of the focus plane, yes. A .33 -- .66 distribution will occur but so will a .49 -- .51 and so will a .01 -- .99 and so will a .20 -- .80 and in a whole lot of photos so will a .0......1 -- infinity. What's a "general situation"? You posted a photo here on this thread and the DOF distribution is .0......1 -- infinity. I posted the most recent photo I took this morning: Surprise Visit from Proctologist It's a very general situation and the DOF distribution is .0.....1 -- infinity. A landscape photographer in her/his general situations may encounter .33 --.66 rarely. For most of the photography I do and I'm very much a generalist, a .33 -- .66 DOF distribution is uncommon compared with everything else I generally get.

Now, this is the basics.

Depth of field gets more complicated when you change lenses and when you move physically closer or farther away from your subject. So, if you are photographing bugs for example and your using F16 with a 105mm macro lens and are 5 inches away from your subject, you may have less than an inch of depth of field. If you take that same lens and photograph something more distant, say 30 feet away at F16, you will have several feet of depth of field with the very same lens. ( BTW, lenses that produce the subject from 1/4 to 1/1 of its' actual size on the film or on the sensor are called "macro". Anything above that- larger than life, is Micro).

Also, lens focal length plays a part in this as well. A wide angle lens has more depth of field at the same aperture (let's say F16 again) than our 105mm at F16 and focused side-by-side at the very same object. Also, there is a change in perspective as well.

There's a framing change with the wider lens (greater angle of view) including more of the scene and the longer lens (smaller angle of view) including less of the scene, but if the two photos are taken from the same place the perspective will be the same.

Joe

The wide angle makes things look farther apart in comparison to real life while a telephoto compresses things and makes them look closer together than they really are. When you see photos where the sun looks HUGE in comparison to other objects that it normally appears to be in the frame, it is made with a telephoto lens. When you see a photo of a tree with a lot of detail on the left side of the frame, and mountains far off in the distance and EVERYTHING is sharp, it was made with a wide angle lens.

Most likely more than you wanted to know, but hope it is helpful.

Cordially,

Mark

If you read my reply, I did state that "Some will not agree with this..." and that it is for general conditions as well. It is a basic guide. You have to remember as well that the person who wrote the original post here is a "beginner" and as such, complicating things rather than breaking them down into simple terms that are understandable generally adds to the overall confusion.

Cordially,

Mark

 

[Ysarex]

If you read my reply, I did state that "Some will not agree with this..." and that it is for general conditions as well.

I addressed your statement that it is for general conditions. I don't agree that it applies for general conditions.

It is a basic guide. You have to remember as well that the person who wrote the original post here is a "beginner" and as such, complicating things rather than breaking them down into simple terms that are understandable generally adds to the overall confusion.

No better way to confuse a beginner than to present them with a "rule of thumb" that's false. I've encountered that 1/3 -- 2/3 rule before including long before. I've looked into it carefully and it's bogus.

Joe

Cordially,

Mark

 

[Ysarex]

Hi Joe,

You may well use that and get good results, but when writing for PopPhoto, lab test show that the modern macros that are designed for macro work specifically yield sharper images with better saturation and image fidelity. But, if you are happy with the results, rock on.

I have the very best of those modern macro lenses. I know what they're capable of because I use them. An enlarging lens holds it's own along with them. I showed a real test. Show me your lab tests.

Joe

 

[Pixeldawg1]

If you read my reply, I did state that "Some will not agree with this..." and that it is for general conditions as well.

I addressed your statement that it is for general conditions. I don't agree that it applies for general conditions.

It is a basic guide. You have to remember as well that the person who wrote the original post here is a "beginner" and as such, complicating things rather than breaking them down into simple terms that are understandable generally adds to the overall confusion.

No better way to confuse a beginner than to present them with a "rule of thumb" that's false. I've encountered that 1/3 -- 2/3 rule before including long before. I've looked into it carefully and it's bogus.

Joe

Cordially,

Mark

Ha. What fun. Sorry I can't get into a peeing match with you right now, Joe... Gotta' go teach my photography class. Sincerely hope you have a good day and stay well.

Cordially,

Mark

 

[petrochemist]

No better way to confuse a beginner than to present them with a "rule of thumb" that's false. I've encountered that 1/3 -- 2/3 rule before including long before. I've looked into it carefully and it's bogus.

Joe

It is indeed false, varying between nearly 1:1 at macro distances and infinity:1 when focusing all the way out. However at moderate distances where portraits are taken its reasonably close. Many years back when i was a beginner, without a DOF preview or rangefinder/measure, I found it useful.
For landscapes 1/3 of the way was more of an anglular ratio than a distance one(something that I believe I was told when introduced to the 'rule'). As I started taking closeups I found it no longer applied but an estimated third was a fair compromise for most shots.

A rule of thumb doesn't have to be accurate to be useful. I suspect I still subconsciously use it as a starting point for many shots, making it closer to half way as I get closer in. Things like this only confuse if you treat them as gospel.

 

[RVT1K]

When I travel on vacation shooting shots off the cuff, I leave it in Auto mode and let the camera do all the work while I have fun watching the view and ignoring the camera.

This is a dilemma for me...I either experience something or I photograph it, doing both is difficult. My favorite example was MotoGP, I took all my shots during practice and qualifying and left my camera behind for the race so I could actually watch.

 

[Ysarex]

No better way to confuse a beginner than to present them with a "rule of thumb" that's false. I've encountered that 1/3 -- 2/3 rule before including long before. I've looked into it carefully and it's bogus.

Joe

It is indeed false, varying between nearly 1:1 at macro distances and infinity:1 when focusing all the way out. However at moderate distances where portraits are taken its reasonably close. Many years back when i was a beginner, without a DOF preview or rangefinder/measure, I found it useful.
For landscapes 1/3 of the way was more of an anglular ratio than a distance one(something that I believe I was told when introduced to the 'rule'). As I started taking closeups I found it no longer applied but an estimated third was a fair compromise for most shots.

A rule of thumb doesn't have to be accurate to be useful. I suspect I still subconsciously use it as a starting point for many shots, making it closer to half way as I get closer in. Things like this only confuse if you treat them as gospel.

As a rule of thumb it's been around a long time. I was presented with it when I was a beginner and that's over 50 years ago. I'm not sure of it's origins but if you spend some time with a DOF simulator you're going to have a hard time finding any kind of general use scenario where it comes close to applying. What would be an example: Put a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera (not too common any more but it was). Go out on a sunny day with some friends and have two friends stand in front of an attraction -- say a fountain. Stop the lens down to f/11 (that's why I said sunny day) and frame your two friends side by side full body with some room to spare. You'll be about 8 or 9 feet away and that's .33 -- .66 DOF distribution.

But for portraits we're going to get closer by hopefully mounting a longer lens. We're not going to use f/11 and very quickly DOF distribution is headed for .49 -- .51. For portraits it's much better to rule of thumb the DOF distribution as 50/50. For landscapes and cityscapes a much better rule of thumb would be to just say most of the DOF will be behind the focus point. Put a 35mm lens on a 35mm camera, stop down to f/8 and shoot a cityscape and 95% of the DOF is behind your focus point.

We've all noted it's an old rule. I used to shoot sheet film and 120 roll film 35 years ago. Landscapes with those bigger formats had less DOF than what I get from a modern smaller format digital camera and a .33 -- .66 distribution may have been more common. Here's another rule of thumb: Almost nobody does that anymore. The progression of technology has been an unrelenting move toward smaller formats and with that comes increased DOF. Portrait photographers make an effort to keep the background blurry. To do that they use larger f/stops and send the DOF distribution straight to 50/50 even with smaller cameras like APS formats. For the rest of us with smaller sensor cameras used "generally" a much more useful rule of thumb is most of the DOF will distribute behind the focus point.

So we're teaching beginners and want to help them with a useful rule of thumb using modern cameras. Rule: Try and focus about 1/3 into your subject for maximized DOF placement. Or rule: Focus on your subject. If you want deep DOF use a small f/stop and if you want shallow DOF use a large f/stop.

My biggest gripe with the 1/3 -- 2/3 rule of thumb is that some beginners try to apply it and that invariably screws them up.

Joe

 

[AlanKlein]

Didn't the 1/3 application have to do with placement of the focus in the viewfinder, not necessarily the actual distance? In other words, on a landscape shot where there's foreground, medium distance and horizon, focus on an object around 1/3rd up and set a relatively small aperture. Or between the closest and furthest point you want in focus, again 1/3 up from the closest. That would get you in the ballpark for a quick shot.