Shooting indoor with wider dof for handheld without a tripod.

[tecboy]

Do you guys use wider dof indoor or just leave lower f-stop as much as possible?

 

[Derrel]

When the light sucks, I shoot indoors with flash. I actually have a 400 Watt-second Speedotron Black Line D405 power pack with a 102 head and 7-inch reflector flash aimed at the corner of my living room's wall/ceiling junction, and use a PW trigger to shoot flash shots indoors with the light set at 200 Watt-seconds, which brings the indoors "up" reasonably close to the outdoor window exposure if I elevate the ISO to 400 or 500 or 640 on dark days. I use it on low power and my main living room lighting is from the flash head's 150 Watt quart-halogen bulb.

I used to use an SB-800 flash, but it's just soooo much less powerful than the Speedo.

I dunno...the thing is, indoors at f/1.8 to f/4, the SPEEDS are soooooo sloooow where I live. If I lived in sunny California or FLorida, or near the beach, where there's a crap-ton of light being reflected inside, it might be different, but I live in the dim, dark Pacific Northwest. So, even with wide apertures, my family pics have wayyy too slow a shutter speed to be really useful. It's just so much easier to shoot bounced flash, and be able to pull f/8 at 1/125 second.

 

[DanielLewis76]

Um i shot with the right DOF for the right shot for the right lens....

I am not really sure what the question is about... sorry

 

[480sparky]

What is 'wider DOF' and 'lower f-stop'?

 

[Derrel]

Wider depth of field means, "With the lens stopped down so it gives a relatively wider depth of field zone", as in f/8, and not f/1.8, nor f/2.8.

Lower f-stop means lower aperture NUMBER, like say f/1.4, or f/1.8, or f/2, or f/2.8.

THis is the way many relative newcomers talk about aperture these days.

The old manner of properly talking about "wider apertures" has been replaced in many cases by on-line newbie-speak that talks about the "f/NUMBER"....as in "low f-number."

It used to drive me crazy, but hey....I've adapted...

We used to go to an aerodrome to see aeroplanes, too,so....

 

[Designer]

Do you guys use wider dof indoor or just leave lower f-stop as much as possible?

This is very confusing. Since DOF stands for DEPTH of field, one might more correctly say "DEEPER" depth of field, not "wider".

A "lower f-stop" could mean either wider (as in Derrel's post) which could reference a lower NUMBER, but that means a WIDER aperture. It could also be interpreted as smaller if the writer means a smaller aperture corresponding to a LARGER number.

Confusing, huh?

I'm going to put the kettle on.

 

[tecboy]

Oh, I meant, when I shoot indoor like in the hotel, I was shooting a lot of cosplays. All the times, I set my aperture lower to f3.5. I get slight blurry when the cosplayers posed with the hands forward. Sometimes, the hands are sharped, but the bodies are soft. Other times, the hands are soft, but the bodies are sharped. I figured should I increase the dof or higher than f3.5? I may have issues with underexposures, unless I increase the power of the flash or increase the iso.

 

[tecboy]

Sorry. I was confused myself.

 

[480sparky]

I'd rather have the noise that comes from a higher ISO as opposed to an OOF portion of the image. Noise can be dealt with in post........ OOF portions of an image are lost forever.

 

[Designer]

Oh, I meant, when I shoot indoor like in the hotel, I was shooting a lot of cosplays. All the times, I set my aperture lower to f3.5. I get slight blurry when the cosplayers posed with the hands forward. Sometimes, the hands are sharped, but the bodies are soft. Other times, the hands are soft, but the bodies are sharped. I figured should I increase the dof or higher than f3.5? I may have issues with underexposures, unless I increase the power of the flash or increase the iso.

Ah, that helps a lot. Yes, when you are trying to get the entire person in focus, the DOF is important. Important enough to make some changes. First, set the aperture to allow for a deeper depth of field, (say around 2.5-3ft) or more if needed. Then, set your shutter speed based on the lens, hand-held, any motion, etc. Keep the shutter speed up to where motion will be "stopped". Then check/change your ISO to some reasonable number, and for this you will have to have intimate knowledge of how well you camera handles high ISO. Then, if you still can't get the shot, you will need to add light somehow.

Alternatively, START with the idea that you are going to use your flash, and if you can bounce it or get it off camera, do that. THEN see above, and go through the procedure again. Often, flash done correctly will yield a better photograph anyway.

Whew!

 

[weepete]

Use a DOF calculator, as it will depend on your distance to subject. You can use a wider apeture but you will have to be further away to get your entire subject in focus. I found with shooting portraits of my mates I needed to be at f7.1 or f8 to get the depth of field I wanted where I wanted.

If I can use flash I will, but in situations where I can't I'll bump the iso up to expose the subject properly while getting the depth of field I want.

 

[Derrel]

Do you guys use wider dof indoor or just leave lower f-stop as much as possible?

This is very confusing. Since DOF stands for DEPTH of field, one might more correctly say "DEEPER" depth of field, not "wider".

A "lower f-stop" could mean either wider (as in Derrel's post) which could reference a lower NUMBER, but that means a WIDER aperture. It could also be interpreted as smaller if the writer means a smaller aperture corresponding to a LARGER number.

Confusing, huh?

I'm going to put the kettle on.

The proper use, the traditional use, the conventional and long-accepted use of photography terminology has been "morphing" ever since AOL got millions of people onto the internet...

Deeper depth of field is a way of thiniking of it from the camera position; "wider depth of field" is a manner of viewing or conceptualizing depth of field as SEEN IN ON-LINE depth of field calculator illustrations, or in drawings of depth of field situations, or depth of field diagrams, which show the front and the rear depth of field in a LEFT-hand and a RIGHT-hand manner of speaking, hence the term "wider depth of field" has gained widespread usage.

If we were to shoot across the rows of a strawberry field, withy out lens set to f/16, the number of rows in good focus would be a "wider" area than if we set the lens to f/1.4.
***************

The big issue is the way noobs often learn about "f/number"....many of the self-taught YouTube Yahoos who make how-to videos these days refer to using ,"A low f/number, like 1.8," for shooting those baby portraits...it's an epidemic..."And make sure to use a high f/number when you want to get everything in good, sharp focus."

The idea of "stopping down the lens", to f/11 or to f/16, is an OLD,old,old one. The idea of "opening up the lens" to f/2 is an OLD one. Even some of the old-school writers, like Thom Hogan, have started referring to "f/5.6 and lower", meaning f/5.6 and SMALLER f/stops, which is I think, a bastardization of the proper way of talking about aperture.

Again...we used to go to the aerodrome to see aeroplanes landing and taking off. Nancy Drew's father Carson often invited her to luncheon. My old departed grandmother thought "brassieres" were for hussies, and that a lady wore an undershirt...and she thought dungarees were for men-folk...

 

[Designer]

Yea, I've been noticing the degradation of our language for years, much to my chagrin. It's one of my pet peeves, and I seldom let an opportunity go by to make "corrections".

As to photographic terms, and in fact most terms, I still prefer the old-fashioned definitions.

Going back into my cave now.

 

[Derrel]

Yea, I've been noticing the degradation of our language for years, much to my chagrin. It's one of my pet peeves, and I seldom let an opportunity go by to make "corrections".

As to photographic terms, and in fact most terms, I still prefer the old-fashioned definitions.

Going back into my cave now.

Yes, I understand fully...it bugged me for several years, but it became impossible to buck the tide of newcomers with their typical "lower f/number" and their "high f/number" usage...I just had to let it be...maybe we could get together and listen to some 45 RPM records on our phonographs after school some time...you know, and feel all sorry and such...I "lol", and yet...yeah, well...I know...I will telephone after supper, provided the party line is free...you still at Beechwood-4-5789?

 

[sk66]

If you need to have more DOF and balance that with low light/high ISO's a good option may be to shoot "looser." Either by using a wider lens of from further away. This will probably introduce the requirement to crop, but focal length and working distance both have 2x the effect on DOF as compared to changing the aperture.
For instance, using a 50mm on a DX body from 5ft at f/4 you would have a DOF of ~ 6". Just increasing the distance by 50%/ 2.5ft (not that big of a change of FOV) would increase the DOF to ~1ft... you would have to stop down to f/8 for ~ the same effect.

**All DOF's are approximate because I just SWAGGED them.