DOF issue/quesiton

[o hey tyler]

Total noob question, but shouldn't you compensate exposition if you are trying to compare DOF?

Yes, you should... But if you're just experimenting, it's not that big of a deal. But naturally you'd want to expose correctly.

 

[yerlem]

English is not my first language, I apologize. What I meant to say was that the photos didn't seem to be equally exposed, and I was wondering if it wouldn't have been appropriate to compensate the changes in aperture with shutter speed.
Thanks Tyler for your answer!

 

[Josh66]

I don't know for sure, but I think those were both different examples of the same aperture.

 

[Ernicus]

Mine were close...and close enough to compare dof, as the minor differences in exposure would not throw off the answers that I needed. The first one I think I adjusted levels a bit then realized I was wasting time as my question was about the dof anyway.

 

[yerlem]

If you mean the OP he shot 3 pictures with different apertures to test DOF (he didn't compensate the exposition, which was my initial question). The pictures posted after that do seem to have the same exposition.

 

[yerlem]

OP no offense to you, I was just asking a noob question.

 

[Josh66]

If you mean the OP he shot 3 pictures with different apertures to test DOF (he didn't compensate the exposition, which was my initial question). The pictures posted after that do seem to have the same exposition.

Sorry, I thought you were talking about the pictures cgipson1 posted. I see what you were saying before, and it's totally obvious now, lol. Sorry for "calling you out" on your English.

 

[Ernicus]

OP no offense to you, I was just asking a noob question.

No offense taken , and I did adjust shutter speed, but not enough for exact exposure. But again, it was an experiment, so it was not that important.

pic 1 f/5.6 shutter 250 (was adjusted in Capture NX2 a bit so that explains the larger difference between the rest)
pic 2 f/7.1 shutter 200 (probly should have hit 150)
pic 3 f/9 shutter 200 (this one I should have dropped down to 150 or 100 even, but it started raining on me and I really didn't care much about it as I was just testing dof

 

[yerlem]

Sorry, I thought you were talking about the pictures cgipson1 posted. I see what you were saying before, and it's totally obvious now, lol. Sorry for "calling you out" on your English.

Haha, no problem, I was really starting to question my English there.


OP thanks for the details!

 

[imagemaker46]

Buy a tripod and shoot at as closed down as you want, you can work around the iso, keeping it to a point where grain will be acceptable(or wait for sunny days) and use a shutter speed in relation to the dof and the iso, however you will have to be aware of the wind factor if you are shooting outdoors and movement with a slower shutter speed.

 

[KmH]

I hate cranking up iso. I have been testing with that lately, but i hate grainy pictures.

Fortunately, digital cameras don't produce any 'grain', only film cameras have grain issues.

Digital cameras produce image 'noise'.

Film grain is evenly distributed. Image noise isn't. Image noise is always worse in the darker portioins of a photo, because that is where the least luminosity data is in a digitally made photograph.

Here is a short article that may be helpful- http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/linear_gamma.pdf

As far as DoF, point of focus (PoF) distance has a big effect on how deep or shallow DoF is. The closer the PoF the shallower the DoF.

 

[jake337]

Your options would be to stop down and use a tripod or flash or crank iso or a combination of these.

Back up, crop in post.

Change you angle to the flower so less DOF is needed.

The most expensive route would be to use a tilt/shift lens so you can manipulate your plane of focus.

 

[Ernicus]

Film grain is evenly distributed. Image noise isn't. Image noise is always worse in the darker portioins of a photo, because that is where the least luminosity data is in a digitally made photograph.

Here is a short article that may be helpful- http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/linear_gamma.pdf

.

good read, thanks.