DOF:billiards comments please!

[cosmoepic]

thanks everyone should my focus have been on the center of the 8 ball?

im assuming the felt is out of focus cuz of that, since the "8" is further away with the ball turned like that if that makes sense

 

[Arch]

ahhhhhhhhhh ......... and yet again ......... are you suuuuuuuuurrrre it's not a one dimensional plane ( not including the minute distortion from glass shape .... which i'm sure you will throw in there somewhere). what makes up DOF? surely you know, everybody should know this, that's all that is talked about in this forum! in laymens terms ....... dof is the portion of the scene that appears sharp in the image. so, how the hell does one ball get in focus when everything on that same PLANE (or distance) from the lens manage to stay out of focus? hell, i guess my camera is broke more than i thought becuase my depth of field works like this ............... if my focal point is 3' from the lens, EVERYTHING 3' from my lens is in focus, depending on my fstop, from 1" to infinity. my camera doesn't distinguish or single out an object from a scene and then within processing only make that subject appear in focus............... are you tracking yet? do you see where i'm going with this? ....... or do you wish to continue telling me and whoever else is reading this "that's not how it works"?

Do you have to sound quite so condescending? please stop the pissing contest.

Im affarid to say too that ANDS! is correct in what he said... he wasn't trying to make you look stupid.
It is possible to create a very narrow focus plain, which would only keep the 8 (and anything on its narrow plain) in focus.
However, the blur does look a little strange in this image, like it has gaussian blur applied.

 

[cosmoepic]

no glaussian blur

 

[bradsperry]

thanks everyone should my focus have been on the center of the 8 ball?

im assuming the felt is out of focus cuz of that, since the "8" is further away with the ball turned like that if that makes sense

the focal point is fine, there is nothing wrong with that. the composition is good too. your photo appears to be an attempt at depth of field, correct? i ask becuase it has the design of textbook study. this exact example is often used to show students how depth of field works and how to change the depth of what appears in focus within the image. the reason for my very first question was becuase it looks like the blurring was done in an editing program.

picture this .......... imagine yourself as the camera and pick a point in front of you (any distance, it doesn't matter). now, that point you chose is your focal point (the point at which the lens has correct focus for a given distance). now, from the point you just chose, imagine a line 90 degrees left & right, 90 degrees up & down ... everything that is on this line, WILL be in focus. as with your photo, the felt on the table is not in focus. if i look at the shadow under the 8 ball, it should be in focus with the 8 ball ( or somewhere in that area) including 90 degrees left and right of the ball.

i apologize that this thread has gone off the path and forgotten about your photo. i just didn't want to come out and say, "it looks photoshoped". my intent was to ask you and see how you did it,( and if i was correct about editing), you would understand what i was talking about and what to watch for the next time. but at the same time, not make you feel i was attacking you.

 

[bradsperry]

Do you have to sound quite so condescending? please stop the pissing contest.

Im affarid to say too that ANDS! is correct in what he said... he wasn't trying to make you look stupid.
It is possible to create a very narrow focus plain, which would only keep the 8 (and anything on its narrow plain) in focus.
However, the blur does look a little strange in this image, like it has gaussian blur applied.

hmmmmm, now that you mention it, ... yeah, it does sound condescending, but it's not ....... that's just how i talk (or type). i'm actually laughing right now. but, if i'm wrong why is it in the gun pics, everything in line (left and right) with the end of the gun barrel, is in focus?

but, i'm stopping now, becuase i have this image in my head ...... brandon frasiure is raising his guns up and saying "here we go again!!"

 

[cosmoepic]

ok i reshot it today same cam setup and everything does this look better?

 

[ShutterSpeed]

still didn't clean the eight ball??

j/k

i thought the first one looked good as was.

 

[cosmoepic]

haha thanks

 

[cosmoepic]

opinions?

 

[GeneralBenson]

It's not the same setup. The aperture was smaller, and the camera angle ins slightly lower. The DOF in the second shot is significantly greater, which negates anything people are trying to prove about focal plane. I would say that you are shooting with a high camera angle (shooting down on the eight ball, and since it is a wide angle, it still looks like you are shooting straight at it. Because of the high angle, the eight ball is in fact closer to the lens than anything else in the picture is and nothing else is on the same focal plane. So even though the felt next to the eight ball looks like it's the same distance away, it's actually below the eight ball and thus, further and out of focus.

 

[Samanax]

ok i reshot it today same cam setup and everything does this look better?

It's the same exact photo. I downloaded both and then compared them in IrfanView...everything is in the same exact spot...balls, dust, scuff marks...everything.

Is this supposed to be a joke?

 

[samal]

according to opanda EXIF editor, first shot was taken at 2009-01-17 02:55:31, ISO 80, F/4.5, shutter 0.8", focal lenght 8.95 mm

second on was on same day at 15:06:17, same exact settings. Both pics where passed through Adobe photoshop CS3, though no indication if it was used to edit anything or just import them to JPG.

looks like balls were not moved at all in between shots - all the dust ans markings on 8-ball look in the same spots. 2 exposures taken with exact same settings, but DOF is so different! and the focus is different as well.

I believe first pic was touched up in PS with some Gaussian blur, it probably would be extremely hard to get that shallow DOF on PS camera

 

[Mgw189]

I dont know but I believe I would agree with Samanax after looking at them side by side. EVERYTHING is in the same exact spot.

 

[samal]

if the camera was on tripod and never taken off it and the balls were not moved - it's is possible that these are 2 different shots, I guess. or, he just edited the EXIF data...

 

[cosmoepic]

so if i dont move the camera everything would be the same why is that so hard to believe u can tell the difference by the felt being out of focus in the first

the only touch up i did in PS was contrast and shadowing the cam was left in the same spot with the same lighting for both