Depth of field and in print

[chrirons]

Good afternoon all,

I've been trying to get my grips around getting a feel for depth in my prints and on screen.

I use a Nikon D70s and though I go to f/22, somehow, when I look at the picture on the screen or on print, I don't have this depth effect.
I've tried with a 70-300mm lens, a 18-70mm lens (both Nikon) and still to no avail.

I had a look through a Nikon D-200 and was surprised at the quality of said depth even by just looking through it.

Could it be the qualty of the lens I use or the camera?


Can anybody please help me - if my question makes sense :er:
Thank you,
Chris

 

[Big Mike]

Welcome to the forum.

I'm not sure I understand your question...what 'depth effect' are you looking for?

Using a small aperture like F22 will give you a deep Depth of Field, which will mean that your area of things in focus will be bigger.

Can you show us a link to an example of what you are trying to achieve.

 

[chrirons]

Hi Mike,
thanks for the answer.
I'm not explaining myself properly.

What I'm trying to say is when I see pictures from people like Steve McCurry, in print, there a sort of depth in the photo - as if it had a 3D effect. Like you could almost have this scene in front of you and go behind the subject to see what's in the background.

Where as the ones I get printed somehow are flat. No 'life' into them.

Am I making sense?

 

[hyakuhei]

Could be the lens or the camera but I hate it when people attribute good photos purely to equipment.

I don't know the photo's your referring to but how much post processing is going on - HDR can also produce the effects your describing - if done well...

 

[Groupcaptainbonzo]

This I feel is a question regarding Composition. Some images are ink on paper, And some are a window on the world, where you could almost reach in and pick up the articles depicted...

You have to remember that the world is a three dimentionl place and a sheet of paper on which the print appears is only (for the sake of argument) a two dimentional one (Yes I know it has depth, but it is measured in fractions of millimeters not in miles and therefore to all intents and purposes is flat).
Therefore we have to work quite hard to fool the eyes into percieving the depth of the original.


Yes. Quality gear does help in this... the sharpness and contrast is affcted by the kit you use. But overall not as much as people would have you believe. The best photographic kit on the planet, is behind the eye, not infront of it.

You need to pick up all the little "rules" Then when you understand how they work, you can fly in the face of them to help you create what you want.

I think that one of the most basic and helpful is the "Rule of thirds"
NB. DO NOT FORGET THAT THIS A 3 D RULE...
If you draw an imaginery noughts and crosses (Tic tac toe ?) box on your view finder, it often helps to have the centre of the SUBJECT on one of the intersecting lines. You also need to put forground , mid ground, and background interest in the composition. If the SUBJECT is in the mid ground there should be an object of some sort in front of it (NOT COVERING IT UP), and one behind it (A backdrop). This will give some context to the image with regard to size, and enviorenment. And maybe the use of "lead in" lines, Maybe a railway line, or road, a fence maybe, in fact anything which starts towards the front of the image and "Leads" the eyes towards the subject. Also the use of the correct apperture will keep the right amount, of the right objects, in focus to the correct degree, so that they will hold the information of context without detracting from the SUBJECT.
Lost yet?.... Yeah .. me too... In spite of the long winded reply I feel I may have over simplified for some people. But I will allow them to add more posts describing where I went wrong, and which scientific journals I failed to quote. But I hope I have given you enough to put you on the right track.
If you look at shots from well known photographers (McCulin, Delgardo etc), you will see how they put the subject in context with just the right amount of information.
But you can look at other peoples work all you like. What you need to do is go out and take the shots while thinking about the construction. At first this will make your brain boil. But after a while it will be second nature, and you will not even think about it.
Hope this helps. Good luck, And remeber this is only a hobby. Don't forget to enjoy what you are doing.

 

[chrirons]

Thanks Hyakuhei for the info regarding the lens.

Please note I'm not saying that good pictures are down to equipment only, but down to composition, seezing the moment and lighting (I think we'll all agree to that) - but I do feel like as nice as a picture can be taken, I'm still not satisfied with the way it's on screen or on print.

It looks flat and lacks this impression of depth (3D).

I'll have a look into lenses - if only they weren't so expensive...

 

[hyakuhei]

Thanks Hyakuhei for the info regarding the lens.

Please note I'm not saying that good pictures are down to equipment only, but down to composition, seezing the moment and lighting (I think we'll all agree to that) - but I do feel like as nice as a picture can be taken, I'm still not satisfied with the way it's on screen or on print.

It looks flat and lacks this impression of depth (3D).

I'll have a look into lenses - if only they weren't so expensive...

Depending on where you are its not so hard to hire lenses for a week or two. Then you can judge for yourself the difference it will make.

 

[chrirons]

Thanks Bonzo.
Sorry, it's not the rule of thirds or composition - I read this in the National Geographic book 'Photography Field Guide' and found it very useful.

What I'm trying to explain, but can't seem to find the words for, is really the feeling (illusion) of deepness in the printed photo. As if your hand could go in and grab the subject.

It's maybe all down to lighting, but still I'm not quite sure.
The lens theory sounds possible, having put my hands on a D200 Nikon last week and looking through the viewfinder, the depth feeling was quite obvious, whereas through my D70s, it still looked flater.

 

[chrirons]

Depending on where you are its not so hard to hire lenses for a week or two. Then you can judge for yourself the difference it will make.

good thought. Thanks.
will sniff around Brussels

 

[Groupcaptainbonzo]

I may have got it wrong... But If you read it again I think you will find that we are on the same track. To create the illusion that the print is about five miles deep....
It is almost totally down to composition, and a slice of that will be rule of thirds, as it places the subject in a position where the eye can see it and reference it against its surroundings, as it does in the "Real World". This will (If done properly) "Confuse" the brain into thinking that it is not dry ink in front of it. But a window onto "Reality".

 

[chrirons]

I may have got it wrong... But If you read it again I think you will find that we are on the same track. To create the illusion that the print is about five miles deep....
It is almost totally down to composition, and a slice of that will be rule of thirds, as it places the subject in a position where the eye can see it and reference it against its surroundings, as it does in the "Real World". This will (If done properly "Confuse" the brain into thinking that it is not dry ink in front of it. But a window onto "Reallity".

Good point - something I never really thought of and seems quite tru when thinking of it - even logical.
Practice - practice - practice...
Thanks.