Leaf on the Sidewalk. C&C please

[tnvol]

My question is, why are we taking pictures of leafs on the ground? Lol.

Why not?

Why take pictures of people? Pets? Cars? Buildings?

I took a picture of a leaf too. For me it stands as a symbol of the seasonal change and is a beautiful expression of mother nature.

Good call.

 

[inTempus]

Was the majority of the blur done in Photoshop? In my experience, the blur is heavier than the 18-55 can produce (at 5.6).

Really? In my experience f/5.6 is more than enough to get a nice heavy background blur.

Here's a leaf I shot this morning at f/8:

Here's the EXIF data:

I also shot it at f/5.6:

If you understand how to achieve background blur you can do it at pretty much any f/stop. The problem is that you think it's done strictly with the f/stop and it's not. There's a couple pieces of the equation you're leaving out. 1) distance of subject from lens. 2) distance of subject from background. 3) focal length. 4) f/stop. Together they help you control the blur. As you can see from my f/5.6 shot I managed to keep the whole leaf in focus vs. blurring part of it. That is because I chose to do things differently than the OP and manipulated the 4 control methods to get the effect I wanted.

 

[Felix0890]

Thanks for the info on the DOF "equation". You answered it in a way I couldn't. :thumbup:

As for the "why take a picture of it" comment: I named this shot Life in Death because even though the leaf is dead, you can still see the veins running through it. Also, this is the best way I can capture fall in Miami, since we have no such thing. The rest of my response would be echoing what inTempus said.

 

[Rifleman1776]

Sorry. It does nothing for me. Leaf is not attractive or interesting. Partially out of focus looks tacky. Background is worse than distracting.
An autumn leaf can be eye catching and story telling. But this doesn't do it at all, IMHO.

 

[Brian L]

I am not judging your photo just is crazy for that lens. Blew me away your were able to make it happen. Even at 55mm but then again distance to subject is taken into play as too. Way cool!

I think every photo has something to say. I get a fall feeling from your shot with a leaf. I feel to the other guys comment of why you are shooting leaves is that you would not have ever been able to show us a cool shot like this. I really like it. Thats like saying all I am gonna shoot is dogs and pets but who cares about the rest of the things that makes art. Wait such as a leaf. Who would know. Only the photography can express that.

 

[jsoeung]

lovin that DOF

 

[Derrel]

What--nobody is going to comment on the lovely rimlighting on the leaf's top edge? And how that delineates the shape of the leaf,and contrasts strongly with the shadowed portions of the leaf? It's not too bad of a shot!

As far as people doubting the degree of out of focus blur and the 18-55 kit lens at f/5.6; like Homer Simpson says, "Doah!". When a lens is focused to a very close focusing distance,and the background is very far away, the depth of field will be very shallow. Even with an 18-55mm lens on a small capture format like APS-C; however, as the focusing distance grows longer, short focal lengths like 18-55 mm on APS-C will quickly gain depth of field. InTempus' samples above are not really relevant due to the huge increase in capture format size (his 5D-II has a sensor 2.5x larger than a small-format Canon body has, and DOF that is roughy 2.5 to 1.6x shallower than APS-C with identical focal lengths,depending on camera-to-subject distances).

But at focusing distances like 1o to 20 feet, achieving "shallow" depth of field on APS-C with an 18-55 kit lens is almost impossible,even with the lens wide-open at f/5.6. But with the subject close to minimum focusing distance,and the background 200 to 300 times farther away than the camera-to-subject distance, the kit lens even at f/8 at 18mm is going to produce a shallow DOF effect. Camera-to-subject distance is in fact, the single largest controller/determinant of depth of field; notice how BIG that leaf is????

I agree with those who suggest that the OOF white objects are distracting from the main subject,which is the leaf seen close-up.

 

[inTempus]

InTempus' samples above are not really relevant due to the huge increase in capture format size (his 5D-II has a sensor 2.5x larger than a small-format Canon body has, and DOF that is roughy 2.5 to 1.6x shallower than APS-C with identical focal lengths,depending on camera-to-subject distances).

I understand the DOF is different between sensor sizes, but that's not really the point. The point is, even with a APS-C sensor I can get similar results well past f/5.6. All I have to do is play with the 4 variables and poof, instant shallow depth of field regardless if it's 1.6x or full frame. What you're saying is only true if you apply the exact same conditions and variables to the 1.6x body. No one has suggested doing that, I've suggested the exact opposite actually. That being, adjust the variables in your favor to get the desired results. This is even true for the 1.6x bodies. So, if I'm reading you right - you're mistaken.

My example isn't irrelevant.

Here, let me demonstrate. This shot was taken with a 1.3x crop body. It's shot at not f/5.6, f/8 or even f/10. I decided to shoot this one at f/13 to further illustrate my point.

 

[UUilliam]

Its not the lens you use its how you use the lens you have.
I use my 18-55mm, I love the distortion on the 18mm end and it is Surprisingly sharp and the 55mm does give a great DOF if you do as InTempus earlier stated.

Enough about the lens though, lets talk about the lovely photograph, The first thing I noticed was the rim lighting and i was like :O nice one! then the white spots.

 

[Photoform]

It sort of looks like a liver, but the white on the background did get too much of my attention. Also the right side just isnt sharp. I'm just an amateur of course but the picture has potential.