Newbie DOF question

[chrisv2]

OK, I'm still trying to figure out how to take decent pictures at car shows. I am very much a newbie and still learning the basics. This is with an APS-C camera.

So, for example a 16mm lens, I can use a pretty wide aperture indoors and fairly low ISO and get a good result -- but with the distortion and "foreshortening" issues that come with a wide angle lens.

My favorite lens is a 32mm Zeiss I've been using a lot lately. But, based on my DOF calculations, if I'm 10' away from a car and I want around 12' of focus depth, then I'd need to stop the lens down to around f/8. Which means I'm probably shooting ISO-2500, which (I think?) means not very sharp photos. Outdoor photos don't seem to be an issue, I am more worried about indoor. Good lighting indoor, but no flash and not like outside lighting.

So what does one do in this case? I can use a utility on my camera called "focus bracketing", which will take three photos using a wider aperture but at three different fixed focus points, then I can merge in PS. Is that a reasonable idea?

 

[jaomul]

Moving or stationary cars? re-read, I think stationary.

Are you allowed use a tripod here? Likely not. At f8 iso 2500 what ss are you. A good monopod, using live view and timer function so no movement on camera may bring that iso down a few stops

 

[chrisv2]

I can carry around a tripod, yes. Timer won't work; too many people milling around the cars. And I did invest in a good monopod which I am going to try. I am not sure what the ss is, but I'd like to be at least 1/60.

 

[jaomul]

I'll make one more suggestion so. Try get a cable release or an infra red release and use live view to focus (just so there is no mirror slap etc). If you can use a tripod, no reason not to use a ss of 1/10th sec. Now your iso is circa 400 instead of 2500

 

[chrisv2]

ok cool - thanks for the tips. I am going to practice at home, ahead of time. My camera does have live view and is mirror-less.

 

[fmw]

The tripod, sadly is the best solution.

 

[chrisv2]

I'm not against the tripod idea and I would never argue against it . It's just that at these car shows it is tough sometimes to get a picture, much less take time to set one up then remotely trigger the camera. I might try it though!

 

[SCraig]

There's no way to use a tripod at a car show. Far too crowded and far too many people tripping over it. However you should be able to use a much slower shutter speed than 1/60 second at 32mm. I looked at some of my car show photos from earlier this year and they were at 1/8 second hand-held, ISO 400, around 20mm. Most of them were at f/5.6 and should have been at f/8 so your number on that is about right.

 

[480sparky]

Using a 32mm lens, you should be able to shoot hand-held with reliable results. Maybe you just need to work on your technique.

Click here.

 

[chrisv2]

that's a great tutorial, thanks!

I was just experimenting with focus bracketing and doing a layer alignment/auto-blend in PS -- and it actually works very well. My camera does focus bracketing (three steps) with one shutter click producing three images ("close", "mid" and "far" focus) -- so it is fairly easy to do.

This, plus the above advice should give me some great options to try.

 

[Derrel]

A monopod would probably gain you at least two f/stops slower a shutter speed setting with adequate stability, as compared against what you'd get with 100% purely hand-held shooting. It might not seem like it would do much, but just eliminating the up-and-down camera position variation by using a monopod could be helpful.

You could also try a "shooting string", a strong small-diameter rope (1/4 inch) length fastened to an eye bolt threaded into the tripod mounting hole on the underside of the camera; this type of camera support has been known about for probably 70 years. You step on the bottom of the string, and pull upward, and the tension on the string or rope does what the monopod does: it keeps up-and-down camera movement limited, as compared against pure, 100% un-aided hand holding technique.

A stabilized lens, or a camera that has in-body stabilization is another option. One of the best uses for a stabilized lens or in-body stabilized camera is for shooting in poor lighting, when you want to stop the lens down to get deep depth of field, but cannot use a tripod for whatever reason.

As with ALL slow-speed, on-the-margins shooting, it's usually best to fire shots in Continuous shooting mode, with one, single shutter release press, then allowing the camera to shoot 3 or 4 or 5 shots per string, then take another breath, and repeat. Not every single image will be as sharp as the best images. If you take 10 frames at say, 1/5 or 1/6 second, there might be two that are critically sharp, five that are pretty good, and three that are somewhat dubious; this is a general thing I've found over the years: not every shot will be as crisp as every other one, and at the very,very margins, you might have to shoot 15 frames to get one where everything comes into perfect balance.

With Nikon VR, using the "Active" mode can work pretty well at the ridiculous speeds; at long shutter times with long lenses in Active VR, the human body is the virtual equivalent of "a moving platform", which is what Active VR was designed for. The old 80-400 VR can do 1/3 to 1/6 second at 400mm with me leaning against a wall in Active VR, and get 30% sharp frames, which is better than it can do in Normal VR mode.

I recall one night, during blue hour at the ocean beach, I saw a shot I really,really wanted. It was getting dark, and I took 30 shots at about f/2.8 at 200mm at 1/6 second...almost every shot was a kill-filer...but there was one that was PERFECT. That is an extreme example, but it's one I will never forget. I had already packed up the tripod and was getting ready to head home when--BOOM! Shot opportunity. I knew I had no chance to get the pod out, set it up and frame..the shot would be gone in seconds.

 

[Big Mike]

So, for example a 16mm lens, I can use a pretty wide aperture indoors and fairly low ISO and get a good result -- but with the distortion and "foreshortening" issues that come with a wide angle lens.

Just FYI, but the perspective distortion has more to do with the distance to your subject, than it does with the fact that it's a wide angle lens. With the same lens, if you simply back up, you get less distortion of your subject.

Of course, if you back up and use the same focal length, you won't get the same composition so you'd have to zoom in or crop etc.

So in practical terms, we end up with more distortion when using wide angle lenses....but it's mostly because of distance.

Which means I'm probably shooting ISO-2500, which (I think?) means not very sharp photos

Higher ISO doesn't necessarily mean that your photos won't be sharp. Sharpness is usually a quality that comes from how well the shutter speed freeze movement, how accurate the focus is and how well the lens renders the image.

High ISO will, however, give you digital noise...pixels that are the wrong tone or color. You can still have 'sharp' photos that have a fair bit of noise....and that is usually a better option than a blurry image with less noise.

Then you have to consider that you can apply noise reduction. This can really help to suppress digital noise in the image, but the way it works, it blurs the image on a very small level. The trouble is that the more you apply it, the more it will start to soften the details of your image. There is also sharpening that can be applied in post and there is a balance between that and noise reduction. There is a real art to making the most of noise reduction & sharpening, and it's worth it to learn what you can, especially if you will be shooting at higher ISO.

 

[Ihatemymoney]

Woe is me,
You guys cant profile all wide angle lenses, they are not all equal...
And not all of them distort the edges ..................................
And I don't use a tripod or at least I didn't on these .

 

[chrisv2]

ok, thanks I understand. When I said high-iso = not sharp, you are right I was really talking about noise - which I really don't like to see especially if I'm going to want to print any enlargements.

I still have to practice this at home but based on what I think is going to happen, I will end up being around 10' away from a car at this car show and I will want to have sharp focus from that 10' mark to another 12' away (generally speaking). In some cases, depending on angle, the DOF requirement could be less.

I am going to use a monopod. I thought over the tripod idea and it will be too cumbersome. I can walk around with the camera on a monopod much easier.

I'll also use my "focus bracket" in-camera app; it can't hurt. I should be able to get consecutive shots of the car with the front part in focus, then the back part in focus. I'm very happy with the experiments in PS so far, with the auto-alignment and auto-blend of shots like this; I end up with effectively doubling the DOF this way, f/5 and ISO-400 with my crappy lighting in our kitchen when I was trying this out. I'm sticking with the Zeiss 32mm/F1.8 lens; no image stabilization - but I really like the results I get with this lens.

I can do this and as Derrel suggests, take multiple consecutive shots to try to get the yield up. I have a couple of weeks to practice before the car show in NYC

P.S. money -- those are really nice pictures and I can get that result pretty easily with my 16mm wide-angle lens; the exaggerated size at the front of the shot (foreshortening, as Darrel clued me in on) is a cool effect in a lot of cases -- but most of the time I'm looking to get a shot of the vehicle with correct proportions.