Depth of Field (Bokeh) lesson

[Bebulamar]

Didn't see any bokeh in either posted images. Lack of Depth of Field isn't a good thing.

Bokeh is apparent in both images. And both photos exhibit depth of field. How can a photograph lack depth of field?

Joe

I don't see the bokeh. The blur isn't all that good to call bokeh. Both photo lack depth of field that is the depth of field is too narrow.

 

[Ysarex]

Didn't see any bokeh in either posted images. Lack of Depth of Field isn't a good thing.

Bokeh is apparent in both images. And both photos exhibit depth of field. How can a photograph lack depth of field?

Joe

I don't see the bokeh. The blur isn't all that good to call bokeh. Both photo lack depth of field that is the depth of field is too narrow.

bo·keh
bōˈkā/
noun
Photography
noun: bokeh
the visual quality of the out-of-focus areas of a photographic image, especially as rendered by a particular lens.

If there's blur, and there is, then it has a visual quality. It doesn't become bokeh only when you like the visual quality. If a photo's depth of field is "too narrow" then there must be depth of field so the photo can't lack depth of field.

Joe

 

[Derrel]

The word bokeh was originally brought to the entire English-speaking world back in the late 1990's. Searches on-line using The Online Photographer + bokeh will reveal several good hits. Perhaps THE best search result is Mike Johnston's 2009 post about what bokeh is, and what it is not. Found at What Is Bokeh?

A brief excerpt: "The original articles about bokeh were published in the March/April 1997 issue of Photo Techniques magazine, which I edited at the time. (Long sold out, unfortunately.) Carl Weese introduced me to the term. The articles were written by John Kennerdell, Oren Grad, and Harold Merklinger. Harold's article is onlineat The Luminous Landscape. Oren and John still write for me on occasion here at The Online Photographer (John just the other day). The only reason we added the "h" to the end of the Japanese word in the magazine was that English speakers persistently mispronounce "boke." It's properly pronounced in two syllables, "bo" as in "bone" and "ke" as in "Kenneth" with equal stress on each syllable. "Bokeh" simply renders that a little more accurately. At least adding the "h" stopped all the "toke" and "smoke" jokes. Er, and the "joke" ones."

Additional excerpt: "
ADDENDUM: Just to further clarify the terminology:

Boke: Japanese for "out-of-the-depth-of-field blur" or "out-of-focus blur."
"Out-of-the-depth-of-field blur" or "out-of-focus blur":English for boke.
Boke-aji: Japanese for "flavor of blur," i.e., what kind of boke it is or how the boke might be described.
Bokeh: Alternate spelling of boke meant to forestall mispronunciation.
Selective focus: Tactic by photographers of deliberately putting some parts of a picture in sharp focus and other parts not.
Poor focusing: Indiscriminate or inadvertent misfocus."

 

[Didereaux]

Ok Here is my contribution. This photo has what I consider excellent bokeh, it is done with a super telephoto at med aperture, the second photo gives an excellent example of DoFand is using a med zoom 70-200 lens..

Merlin magic in Nature forum F7.1 @600mm

Snowy on a railing BW GAllery F4 70-200@200 the bird was about 50' away.

 

[Tim Tucker]

So I say c when I mean COC.

Also I have been very busy hence the no reply, (having to finish building the new house so we could move in as we had notification that the purchasers wanted to complete in 5 days which thankfully fell through).

But my real problem with your argument (that smaller sensors give greater dof) is and always has been this:

The only comparison that makes any logical sense is to take the same photo.

Why? Why do you insist that the only comparison that you can make has some very real limitations as to what you can compare? You will only make a comparison when you change focal length and aperture diameter in exact proportion to the change in sensor size and will not consider any other comparison.

So what? With that condition you can say that dof is proportional to sensor size, (though it is not sensor size that controls it), but in all other cases it is not. So you cannot say that when you impose the restriction that you change focal length and aperture diameter in exact proportion to the change in sensor size that smaller sensors produce larger dof when that restriction is removed because they do not.

Entertain me a little longer.

I said, a lot earlier on, that the relationships regarding dof are beautifully symmetrical. You change one thing and another has to change by an equal amount. It also hold true that if you hold one thing constant, (such as fov) then the others have to change in an exact proportion to each other.

If you maintain constant effective aperture diameter (equivalent aperture, but I do not hold with the use of it though the maths is correct) then with truly equivalent photos the smaller sensor will alway produce a smaller dof simply because you have to magnify the latent image more. If you use the same lens at the same f-stop (exactly equivalent aperture) on two sensors then the smaller will have less dof because of image magnification

From Wikipedia (Depth of field - Wikipedia):

Relationship of DOF to format size[edit]
The comparative DOFs of two different format sizes depend on the conditions of the comparison. The DOF for the smaller format can be either more than or less than that for the larger format. In the discussion that follows, it is assumed that the final images from both formats are the same size, are viewed from the same distance, and are judged with the same circle of confusion criterion. (Derivations of the effects of format size are given under Derivation of the DOF formulas.)

"Same picture" for both formats[edit]
When the "same picture" is taken in two different format sizes from the same distance at the same f-number with lenses that give the same angle of view, and the final images (e.g., in prints, or on a projection screen or electronic display) are the same size, DOF is, to a first approximation, inversely proportional to format size (Stroebel 1976, 139). Though commonly used when comparing formats, the approximation is valid only when the subject distance is large in comparison with the focal length of the larger format and small in comparison with the hyperfocal distance of the smaller format.

Moreover, the larger the format size, the longer a lens will need to be to capture the same framing as a smaller format. In motion pictures, for example, a frame with a 12 degree horizontal field of view will require a 50 mm lens on 16 mm film, a 100 mm lens on 35 mm film, and a 250 mm lens on 65 mm film. Conversely, using the same focal length lens with each of these formats will yield a progressively wider image as the film format gets larger: a 50 mm lens has a horizontal field of view of 12 degrees on 16 mm film, 23.6 degrees on 35 mm film, and 55.6 degrees on 65 mm film. Therefore, because the larger formats require longer lenses than the smaller ones, they will accordingly have a smaller depth of field. Compensations in exposure, framing, or subject distance need to be made in order to make one format look like it was filmed in another format.

Same focal length for both formats[edit]
Many small-format digital SLR camera systems allow using many of the same lenses on both full-frame and "cropped format" cameras. If, for the same focal length setting, the subject distance is adjusted to provide the same field of view at the subject, at the same f-number and final-image size, the smaller format has greater DOF, as with the "same picture" comparison above. If pictures are taken from the same distance using the same f-number, same focal length, and the final images are the same size, the smaller format has less DOF. If pictures taken from the same subject distance using the same focal length, are given the same enlargement, both final images will have the same DOF. The pictures from the two formats will differ because of the different angles of view. If the larger format is cropped to the captured area of the smaller format, the final images will have the same angle of view, have been given the same enlargement, and have the same DOF.

As you quote, in the only example you will consider for comparison, that you must also change focal length and aperture diameter in exact and unvarying proportion to maintain your rule of same photo, then might it not possibly be one of those that gives the true explanation of why using smaller sensor cameras generally gives larger dof? If you look at one thing at a time and adjust one thing at a time then you will find the following:

Reducing sensor size and keeping as many other variables constant will generally result in reduced dof.

In all cases reducing effective aperture diameter and keeping as many other variables constant will generally result in increased dof.

As I said before, to maintain exposure on a smaller sensor with a shorter focal length lens you must use the same f-stop which is a smaller effective diameter and it is this that gives the increased dof not the sensor size. The sensor size actually has a negative effect on dof.

Lenses create COC dependant on subject distance and effective aperture diameter, (focal length/f-stop), shorter focal length lenses have smaller effective aperture diameters at the same f-stop. COC is magnified dependant on sensor size, the smaller the sensor the more magnification needed reducing dof.

You originally argued that smaller sensors gave greater dof, I argue that they do not, in fact smaller sensors decrease dof and it is the smaller effective aperture diameters used with the shorter focal length lenses to maintain f-stop (exposure) that account for the increased dof.

EDIT: It's interesting to note that smaller sensors do not have always have greater dof even when you impose the condition of same photo and same exposure, it is at best only an approximation that works for middle focussing distances.
If you consider the extreme of shooting the stars, then with the subject at infinity (light from the subject is parallel) everything is in focus regardless of the format, f-stop and focal length, dof is the same in this case.
As you get progressively more distant when focusing you will get to a point where the dof from both formats is very similar (past the near limit for the hyper-focal point for infinity in the smaller format there is no further increase in dof but the larger format continues to improve and can actually have better dof than the smaller format as it's magnified less). Again it comes down to how much you magnify the 'latent' image to the final size and the smaller sensors are magnified more.

 

[Ysarex]

So I say c when I mean COC.

Also I have been very busy hence the no reply, (having to finish building the new house so we could move in as we had notification that the purchasers wanted to complete in 5 days which thankfully fell through).

But my real problem with your argument (that smaller sensors give greater dof) is and always has been this:

The only comparison that makes any logical sense is to take the same photo.

Why? Why do you insist that the only comparison that you can make has some very real limitations as to what you can compare? You will only make a comparison when you change focal length and aperture diameter in exact proportion to the change in sensor size and will not consider any other comparison.

So what? With that condition you can say that dof is proportional to sensor size, (though it is not sensor size that controls it), but in all other cases it is not. So you cannot say that when you impose the restriction that you change focal length and aperture diameter in exact proportion to the change in sensor size that smaller sensors produce larger dof when that restriction is removed because they do not.

Entertain me a little longer.

I said, a lot earlier on, that the relationships regarding dof are beautifully symmetrical. You change one thing and another has to change by an equal amount. It also hold true that if you hold one thing constant, (such as fov) then the others have to change in an exact proportion to each other.

If you maintain constant effective aperture diameter (equivalent aperture, but I do not hold with the use of it though the maths is correct) then with truly equivalent photos the smaller sensor will alway produce a smaller dof simply because you have to magnify the latent image more. If you use the same lens at the same f-stop (exactly equivalent aperture) on two sensors then the smaller will have less dof because of image magnification

From Wikipedia (Depth of field - Wikipedia):

Relationship of DOF to format size[edit]
The comparative DOFs of two different format sizes depend on the conditions of the comparison. The DOF for the smaller format can be either more than or less than that for the larger format. In the discussion that follows, it is assumed that the final images from both formats are the same size, are viewed from the same distance, and are judged with the same circle of confusion criterion. (Derivations of the effects of format size are given under Derivation of the DOF formulas.)

"Same picture" for both formats[edit]
When the "same picture" is taken in two different format sizes from the same distance at the same f-number with lenses that give the same angle of view, and the final images (e.g., in prints, or on a projection screen or electronic display) are the same size, DOF is, to a first approximation, inversely proportional to format size (Stroebel 1976, 139). Though commonly used when comparing formats, the approximation is valid only when the subject distance is large in comparison with the focal length of the larger format and small in comparison with the hyperfocal distance of the smaller format.

Moreover, the larger the format size, the longer a lens will need to be to capture the same framing as a smaller format. In motion pictures, for example, a frame with a 12 degree horizontal field of view will require a 50 mm lens on 16 mm film, a 100 mm lens on 35 mm film, and a 250 mm lens on 65 mm film. Conversely, using the same focal length lens with each of these formats will yield a progressively wider image as the film format gets larger: a 50 mm lens has a horizontal field of view of 12 degrees on 16 mm film, 23.6 degrees on 35 mm film, and 55.6 degrees on 65 mm film. Therefore, because the larger formats require longer lenses than the smaller ones, they will accordingly have a smaller depth of field. Compensations in exposure, framing, or subject distance need to be made in order to make one format look like it was filmed in another format.

Same focal length for both formats[edit]
Many small-format digital SLR camera systems allow using many of the same lenses on both full-frame and "cropped format" cameras. If, for the same focal length setting, the subject distance is adjusted to provide the same field of view at the subject, at the same f-number and final-image size, the smaller format has greater DOF, as with the "same picture" comparison above. If pictures are taken from the same distance using the same f-number, same focal length, and the final images are the same size, the smaller format has less DOF. If pictures taken from the same subject distance using the same focal length, are given the same enlargement, both final images will have the same DOF. The pictures from the two formats will differ because of the different angles of view. If the larger format is cropped to the captured area of the smaller format, the final images will have the same angle of view, have been given the same enlargement, and have the same DOF.

As you quote, in the only example you will consider for comparison, that you must also change focal length and aperture diameter in exact and unvarying proportion to maintain your rule of same photo, then might it not possibly be one of those that gives the true explanation of why using smaller sensor cameras generally gives larger dof? If you look at one thing at a time and adjust one thing at a time then you will find the following:

Reducing sensor size and keeping as many other variables constant will generally result in reduced dof.

In all cases reducing effective aperture diameter and keeping as many other variables constant will generally result in increased dof.

As I said before, to maintain exposure on a smaller sensor with a shorter focal length lens you must use the same f-stop which is a smaller effective diameter and it is this that gives the increased dof not the sensor size. The sensor size actually has a negative effect on dof.

Lenses create COC dependant on subject distance and effective aperture diameter, (focal length/f-stop), shorter focal length lenses have smaller effective aperture diameters at the same f-stop. COC is magnified dependant on sensor size, the smaller the sensor the more magnification needed reducing dof.

You originally argued that smaller sensors gave greater dof, I argue that they do not, in fact smaller sensors decrease dof and it is the smaller effective aperture diameters used with the shorter focal length lenses to maintain f-stop (exposure) that account for the increased dof.

EDIT: It's interesting to note that smaller sensors do not have always have greater dof even when you impose the condition of same photo and same exposure, it is at best only an approximation that works for middle focussing distances.
If you consider the extreme of shooting the stars, then with the subject at infinity (light from the subject is parallel) everything is in focus regardless of the format, f-stop and focal length, dof is the same in this case.
As you get progressively more distant when focusing you will get to a point where the dof from both formats is very similar (the hyper-focal point for infinity for the smaller format). Again it comes down to how much you magnify the 'latent' image to the final size and the smaller sensors are magnified more.

Same spurious rational.
Explanation already given in previous post.
In previous post you were asked a question. Please answer it.
I'll repeat it for you: "In all equations used to calculate DOF the value of c is changed when the size of the sensor is changed. That's obvious from the screen shots above. Please provide a link to a DOF calculator that doesn't do that. That doesn't mean that Coc is a function of sensor size. It doesn't mean that sensor size alters the physics of optics. It simply means that we can't calculate DOF without a value that references the size of the sensor. An accommodation in the equation is made to account for the size of the sensor. Please provide a link to an online DOF calculator that doesn't do that.

Same hang-up, you're trying to calculate DOF at the sensor. It's not defined that way. You can't calculate DOF without including a value that is predicated in part on the size of the sensor. As such changing the size of the sensor changes the result of the calculation. Show us a calculator that doesn't do that."

Please provide a link to or show us a DOF calculator that does not alter the value of CoC relative to format size. In other words show us a DOF calculator that doesn't account for sensor size in the MATH used to calculate DOF.

Waiting for your answer.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The only comparison that makes any logical sense is to take the same photo.

Why? Why do you insist that the only comparison that you can make has some very real limitations as to what you can compare?

Because that's what the word compare means. Duuuuh. An analogy: Let's compare the suitability of two different woods; poplar and cherry. Let's use the cherry to make a musical instrument -- a wooden flute, and the poplar to make a kitchen cutting board. And now we compare the suitability of the woods. Can you see where we went wrong?

Common photo knowledge: Smaller format cameras generally produce photos with deeper DOF when compared with larger format cameras. True/false?

The appropriate test for this common photo knowledge: Give an Olympus Pen m4/3 camera to photo group A (5,000 people) and a Nikon D800 to photo group B (5,000 people). All participants are instructed to take 10,000 photos in a month of the "world that surrounds them." All live similar lives. They go to work, they spend weekends with the family, etc. etc. All participants are free to use lenses as they see fit but are reminded of the instruction to take general photos that depict their world. Compare the 50,000,000 photos as a whole from each group and in general the photos in group A will exhibit deeper DOF than the photos in group B. True/false?

Joe

 

[robbins.photo]

Oh goodie. Another Bokeh Brawl. Back in a couple, need popcorn.

 

[robbins.photo]

Ok, so quick suggestion to the admins, could we just put bokeh (and all related spellings) into the profanity filter, so from now on when someone tries to start a simple thread about DOF the term just gets asterisked out?

 

[astroNikon]

Ok, so quick suggestion to the admins, could we just put bokeh (and all related spellings) into the profanity filter, so from now on when someone tries to start a simple thread about DOF the term just gets asterisked out?

that would put the popcorn manufacturers out of business.

 

[robbins.photo]

that would put the popcorn manufacturers out of business.

True, but it's a rerun.

 

[Derrel]

Common photo knowledge: Smaller format cameras generally produce photos with deeper DOF when compared with larger format cameras. True/false?

Joe

A resounding, emphatic TRUE! in the 1970's Kodak in point of fact, invented an entirely BRAND-NEW, ultra-tiny negative area film FORMAT, to get hyperfocal depth of field that extended from approximately 3 feet to Infinity, at around f/8, with the incredibly teeny-tiny Kodak Disc Format.

The negative size of 110 cartridge film (about the size of an old-school USA postage stamp) was too LARGE of a format for snapshot cameras, and many,many images inside of 6 feet were out of focus on low-end cameras. Kodak scientists understood that the easiest way to achieve a focus-free camera with almost infinite depth of field was to make the film size much smaller. Interestingly....the size of the Disc Format was about the same size as the sensor in an iPhone.

The story of this was related in a lengthy piece written by Herbert Keppler, the long time editor at Modern photography, and then the new, combined version of Modern photo and Popular Photography magazines.

Small-format cameras, like the Kodak Disc Camera, or the Apple iPhone, take photos that have VERY expansive, deep depth of field in everyday situations, at f/8 or f/9 or f/10, or even at f/2.8 with the iPhone; the teeny-tiny sensor in these types of cameras provides deep DOF, even at relatively fast f/stops, like f/2.8 at distances like 6 feet. With something like an 8x10 film camera, you'd be lucky to get the tip of the nose to the back of the head in-focus on a portrait shot with a 360mm lens set to f/8; on large-format film like 4x5, I ALWAYS started thiking of around f/22, may f/32, maybe f/45, or f/64 if needed, to get decent DOF on small-product shots. With an iPhone, I could snap the same pictures and get immense DOF at f/4.5.

 

[Tim Tucker]

Because that's what the word compare means. Duuuuh. An analogy: Let's compare the suitability of two different woods; poplar and cherry. Let's use the cherry to make a musical instrument -- a wooden flute, and the poplar to make a kitchen cutting board. And now we compare the suitability of the woods. Can you see where we went wrong?

You still don't get it do you? You're saying y=x but in your proof you're specifying that the condition y=x must be met to be a valid comparison. I'm not making kitchen boards out of sugared cherries but explaining the flaws in your theory because you seem hell bent on linking smaller sensors to greater dof when all the evidence says it is the smaller effective aperture diameters that create greater dof, the smaller sensors do not always have greater dof.

I've shown you where your model breaks down, I've shown you where larger formats have greater dof, I've shown you the two variables that are consistent with increasing and decreasing dof and yet you still dismiss them as invalid because they do not fit your theory.

n other words show us a DOF calculator that doesn't account for sensor size in the MATH used to calculate DOF.

Of course dof calculators account for sensor size!!! c is directly defined by dividing the finished print size by the sensor size, that's how you calculate c! But please note that the smaller the sensor then the less dof for any given COC, by your very own maths as you've presented???

Same hang-up, you're trying to calculate DOF at the sensor.

NO!!!! I am not trying to calculate dof at the sensor at all. I'm fully aware of dof and what it is.

Basics.

Light is reflected of two point objects at different distances to the lens. The lens then bends each "ray of light" by an equal amount. If you adjust the focus so the light from the distant object is focussed on a point on the sensor then the light from the nearer object will be focussed beyond it creating a "circle of unfocussed light at the plane of the sensor (COC).

These are point light sources focussed on a plane. Fov does not come into the equation here. The COC formed at the sensor is independent of sensor size.

The image at the sensor is then magnified to produce the final print at the designated size for determination of dof, etc...

Now I'm completely failing to see how a smaller sensor can possibly produce greater dof here. With my maths the smaller sensor needs more magnification, and the more you have to magnify an image to produce a 10"x8" print then the more you'll magnify the COC s formed at the sensor and reduce dof.

Yet within a range of focusing distances (as explained before it's really noticeable at portrait distances for landscapes the larger formats can have either more or less dof, in short they are more adjustable) smaller sensor cameras appear to have greater dof (appear because dof is an illusion).

So what causes it? If reducing sensor size has a negative effect on dof, which it clearly does, then there must be something else at work.

One thing controls dof: the more parallel the light from the two point objects at different distances is when entering the lens then the more parallel it is when leaving the lens and thus the smaller the COC produced at the sensor is for the out of focussed object.

Two things affect this and neither are sensor size. The more distant the objects are then the more parallel the light coming from the two point object will be entering the lens (just move both objects back away from the lens in my above diagram and see what happens).

The smaller the effective aperture diameter is in front of the lens then the more parallel the rays passing through them lens from the two point objects will be (try introducing a smaller aperture in the diagram above and see what happens).

Sensor size does not affect any of this. In fact all I see is that the smaller the sensor is then the more you have to magnify the COC produced on the said sensor thus reducing apparent dof. To me this is simple and plain.

Now with your example of same photo and same exposure. You set the conditions of constant fov and constant f-stop. You will not compare f5.6 against f5.7 or an fov of 36 degrees against 35 degrees. You specify and set the condition of the test that comparison must be made only when the effective aperture diameter is adjusted in exact proportion, and so to compensate, to the change in sensor size. Then you tell me that I cannot rule sensor size out of the equation because it's a condition that you specify must be met before you even evaluate the results. (To achieve the same fov on different formats then you must reduce focal length. f-stop (exposure) is the ratio of the focal length to the aperture diameter. So to maintain fov across sensors you must reduce the effective aperture diameter in exact proportion to the sensor size. This is the condition that you have set, this is the condition that you will not deviate from, this is the only condition that you will accept as a valid test and because the condition of the test you have set inextricably linked sensor size to effective aperture diameter you say you've proved that smaller sensors have greater dof.)


So what happens when you don't meet that specific proportion? What happens when the photos on the two sensors are not exactly the same and are just slightly different, (much like real photography)? What happens when we change sensor size while maintaining the effective aperture diameter? (Smaller sensors have less dof). What happens when we reduce the effective aperture diameter while maintaining sensor size? (Dof increases).

Can you see a simple rule that holds true in all cases yet? (Dof is proportional to the subject distance and effective aperture diameter, [distance, f-stop and focal length], not sensor size).

A resounding, emphatic TRUE! in the 1970's Kodak in point of fact, invented an entirely BRAND-NEW, ultra-tiny negative area film FORMAT, to get hyperfocal depth of field that extended from approximately 3 feet to Infinity, at around f/8, with the incredibly teeny-tiny Kodak Disc Format.

Yes, but as I stated before, once you get passed this hyper-focal distance then the dof of the smaller sensor does not improve, yet the dof on the larger sensor does improve. So at f8 with the closest subject at a distance of say 300' (landscape) to infinity is the extra dof of a smaller sensor an advantage, or would you actually get better results from a larger sensor that needs less magnification to the finished print?

This is the very real limit of smaller sensors, that when you hit that hyper-focal distance there is less improvement in stopping down than you get from a large sensor. The gap closes and in some instances the larger sensors are better because they require less magnification. I ran into this wall very often when I briefly used APS-C cameras. Not because I wanted to increase dof but because with the kit lens once your subject exceeds the hyper-focal distance it is very difficult to decrease dof!

 

[Derrel]

A lot of diagrams and text, but most unconvincing to me in this discussion. Sorry. Not interested in hearing your point of view, since it is at odds with what I know, and what thousands and thousands of experts know. Depth of field from 300 feet to Infinity? I could give a crap.

 

[Tim Tucker]

A lot of diagrams and text, but most unconvincing to me in this discussion. Sorry. Not interested in hearing your point of view, since it is at odds with what I know, and what thousands and thousands of experts know. Depth of field from 300 feet to Infinity? I could give a crap.

I'm simply saying that the smaller sensor looses it's dof advantage once you get past the hyper-focal distance to infinity. In short and simply terms it does not have more dof than larger formats (whether you give a crap or not) when the dof of the subject is within the range of the larger formats, and everything at distance comes within the range of dof for the larger formats so smaller sensors only have greater dof over a limited range of portrait to middle distance. This is simple, (and well documented), stuff whether you want to believe it or not.

Thousands of experts will agree with it.

I'm sorry you felt compelled to give the reply you did.

 

[pixmedic]

the circle of confusion is in my head.


i am the walrus.


coo coo ka-choo.


just out of curiosity, (and since i have been totally lost since math was introduced into the conversation) is there any usefulness to DOF from the hyper-focal distance to infinity? is that an area where I am likely to look at in a photo?