Today's dumb question: Gather Around!

[jwbryson1]

As an amateur photographer, I have a tendency to rely on my camera to do a lot of the work for me, and I do not spend a great deal of time checking "this" or "that" before I take the shot. I suspect pros or advanced amateurs will follow a more detailed approach to taking a photo.

When taking an image, my tendency is to rush too much and not to stop and THINK :scratch: about what I am trying to capture. Bryan Peterson does a good job, I think, of describing his approach to taking an image as a "story telling" approach (small f/stop, f/22, with good DOF) or a shall DOF image (I can't think of his exact words at the moment).

When I take a photo, I tend to compose the shot, zoom in or out on my subject, hold down the shutter release until the focus appears to have locked and then take the image.

I never use the markings on the lens to check for DOF in terms of actual distance in front of and behind the subject. I just know intuitively that a larger f/stop (f/2.8) will yield a shallow DOF and a smaller f/stop (f/16) will yield a longer DOF.

So my question is this: should I be checking the markings on the lens to determine my "actual DOF" when composing an image? Why not just rely on the autofocus sensors and knowledge of f/stops to take the shot? Do advanced amateurs and pros routinely use the lens markings in their work?

Just wondering.

 

[jwbryson1]

My question arose when I watched this really good video on using the markings to determine DOF:

 

[analog.universe]

In rare circumstances I'll use the markings on the lens. If I'm doing street photography and shooting from the hip, I'll go to f/16 and focus to about 2.5-3m using the distance scale. That way I don't have to bring the camera to my eye to focus each shot. Usually this happens with a 24 or 35mm lens, any longer and shooting from the hip isn't so straightforward and I may as well actually focus.

In most situations, as a result of shooting a bunch, I've gotten a feel for what a specific aperture looks like at various focal lengths and subject distances, and it's sort of an intuitive guess based on that.

I think now that we have live view, even hyperfocal focusing isn't as useful as it once was. If I'm doing landscapes at a small aperture, I'm more likely to just zoom way in on live view to see what's in focus rather than relying on the DOF scale. (although the scale is a nice reference for a starting point)

...As a side note, I don't throw f/22 around willy nilly... On most lenses, the diffraction at that aperture is really unpleasant, and I'll only shoot f/22 if I have absolutely no other choice to get the shot I want. Most times when I'm composing a deep shot I try to do it at f/11, and go to 16 if it needs it, and then deliberate for a while and curse Isaac Newton and the trillions of photons whizzing past my iris and then try and recompose and finally settle on f/22 if a more creative solution doesn't appear.

 

[480sparky]

If I can shoot at anything f/11 or wider, I'll just use the DOF preview button and look in the viewfinder.

 

[12sndsgood]

I have begun just learning in my head or at least ballparking how deep a focus I will have so when i'm out shooting it's in my head to think about. I had allot of problems with just point and shooting at the beginning and it showed. slowing down and spending more time thinking about what you want out of the picture I feel helps allot to get better photos.

 

[Derrel]

I use the depth of field preview button more so than the DOF scales. Remember, there is only ONE actual plane of focus,and things within the DOF zone are only "acceptably sharp", based on CoC and appropriate expected viewing distance and image size. Also, keep in mind that the DOF scales on the majority of lenses in the Canon,Pentax,and Nikon system are calibrated for 24x36 capture size, and NOT APS-C, so the DOF marks are not really accurate.

With the low cost of digital captures, if a scene relies on critical depth of field,or creative focusing, it's best to perform "focus bracketing" in order to ensure that the "right" depth of field is achieved for the final photo. In one-shot scenarios, a focus bracketing sequence takes only a few seconds to perform. Many lenses suffer from focus shift when stopped down, so, in many situations, focus bracketing is a good idea if focusing is going to be "critical". If a shot has been hard to get to, set up for, and achieve, it only makes sense to do some focus bracketing. Sometimes, back at the computer, you can see how a little bit more emphasis on the foreground, or maybe a little bit sharper mid-ground, can really,really make a photo work better than if the focus is placed a bit differently.

I do not think it's a good idea to use hyperfocal focusing...it's never AS SHARP as focusing on the MOST-critical distance, and then allowing depth of field to work its magic. For landscape shooting, where CRITICAL focusing and maximum detail rendering can be a big deal, I NEVER rely on hyperfocal focusing. My experience is that its better to focus on the most-critical distance.

 

[jwbryson1]

With the low cost of digital captures, if a scene relies on critical depth of field,or creative focusing, it's best to perform "focus bracketing" in order to ensure that the "right" depth of field is achieved for the final photo.

Is a tripod necessary when using focus bracketing? I have not tried this before.

 

[DiskoJoe]

During the day when I'm out shooting I mainly just use a-mode and adjust to the depth of field I want and let the camera adjust the shutter for what ever iso I have set. I like to set it to 100 if possible and will adjust up from there. For more important events I usually use all manual to ensure consistency in the images and so I can control adjustments to correct for bad lighting.

 

[Derrel]

Focus bracketing can be done while shooting by hand. Either in manual focusing mode, or by pressing and holding the AF-lock button, or by re-focusing on slightly different targets. Try it sometime on all types of scenes where the focus is an important part of the final effect. In manual mode, you can vary the precise focusing quite easily.

Keep in mind that when focusing from FAR to NEAR, the focusing ring changes its distances VERY rapidly with even very slight rotational movement...and when focusing from CLOSE to FAR, the focusing ring's rotational travel moves the focusing MUCH MORE-SLOWLY!!!!!!!!! Take a good long look at a lens and its focusing scale, and you will see what I mean by this.

 

[cgipson1]

With the low cost of digital captures, if a scene relies on critical depth of field,or creative focusing, it's best to perform "focus bracketing" in order to ensure that the "right" depth of field is achieved for the final photo.

Is a tripod necessary when using focus bracketing? I have not tried this before.

The Focus bracketing that Derrel mentions, is merely shooting several different shots at different apertures (or by focusing as slightly varying distances at the same aperture).... so that you have a variety of DOF's to pick from. No tripod needed (unless your shutter speeds are too slow for hand holding at the apertures you choose. (raise your ISO))

Now if you were focus stacking... you might need a tripod!

 

[unpopular]

here is my advice. First of all, ditch your lazylens. Zoom lenses are really good for a lot of photographers, but theyare not the best tool to learn photography. Aside from the obvious "why get closer when you can just zoom in" problem with zooms, you also have a tendancy to look at focal length with only one quality in mind: magnification. Focal length is likely the single most significant camera-side variable in how an image is presented. Focal length affects how space is perceived and how depth of field is rendered - this affects a sense of intimacy, action, dynamics, movement, contemplation amongst other things. Zoom lenses give the photographer a false sense of security, allowing them to believe that everything can be captured provided that you just turn the zoom ring. A prime will allow you to slow down, experiment more, and learn to move on when the shot just isn't possible - rather than just snapping away in hopes that one focal length or another will work. Second, I am a huge believer in full manual exposure.

Second, If you are not shooting manual now, START. Manual exposure and basic exposure control should not be an advanced subject. It wasn't an advanced subject when I was going to college, and it shouldn't be now. The best part of this statement is that I'm only 30, a lot has changed in teh last 10 years - but one thing that hasn't is exposure. Having to think about exposure while composing will help you understand how your camera operates and under what circumstances which choices should be made. This idea that beginners should use computerized AE mode only hinders photoraphic storytelling, composition and technique and does not improve it.

I would even go so far that someone in your position find a "preset" lens, like the old Zeiss Jennas or Pentax Takumars in M42 screw mount. You can get an adapter for whatever camera you use. This will force you to use manual exposure in "stopdown metering" and will provide a DOF preview if you don't already have one. This will force you to work much, much slower - at first even frustratingly - but this is essentially "total emersion", and is probobly the best education you can get for less than $100 depending on the lens of choice. If you're truely comitted, sell your AF/AE lens so that you are not tempted.

 

[jwbryson1]

here is my advice. First of all, ditch your lazylens. Zoom lenses are really good for a lot of photographers, but theyare not the best tool to learn photography. Aside from the obvious "why get closer when you can just zoom in" problem with zooms, you also have a tendancy to look at focal length with only one quality in mind: magnification. Focal length is likely the single most significant camera-side variable in how an image is presented. Focal length affects how space is perceived and how depth of field is rendered - this affects a sense of intimacy, action, dynamics, movement, contemplation amongst other things. Zoom lenses give the photographer a false sense of security, allowing them to believe that everything can be captured provided that you just turn the zoom ring. A prime will allow you to slow down, experiment more, and learn to move on when the shot just isn't possible - rather than just snapping away in hopes that one focal length or another will work. Second, I am a huge believer in full manual exposure.

Second, If you are not shooting manual now, START. Manual exposure and basic exposure control should not be an advanced subject. It wasn't an advanced subject when I was going to college, and it shouldn't be now. The best part of this statement is that I'm only 30, a lot has changed in teh last 10 years - but one thing that hasn't is exposure. Having to think about exposure while composing will help you understand how your camera operates and under what circumstances which choices should be made. This idea that beginners should use computerized AE mode only hinders photoraphic storytelling, composition and technique and does not improve it.

I would even go so far that someone in your position find a "preset" lens, like the old Zeiss Jennas or Pentax Takumars in M42 screw mount. You can get an adapter for whatever camera you use. This will force you to use manual exposure in "stopdown metering" and will provide a DOF preview if you don't already have one. This will force you to work much, much slower - at first even frustratingly - but this is essentially "total emersion", and is probobly the best education you can get for less than $100 depending on the lens of choice. If you're truely comitted, sell your AF/AE lens so that you are not tempted.

My only zooms are the 18-55mm kit that came with my D40 (I now shoot with a D90), and my 18-200mm that I bought in 2008 for a trip to Maui. All my other lenses are primes.

 

[unpopular]

ditch the zooms, at least until you manage to slow down a bit. It's not that they are inherently bad, but they just aren't going to be conducive. You know that you have a problem going too fast.

Choose a mid-prime and stick with it for a solid month. You might just have too many options.

But really, it's awesome that you can recognize the area you need improvement.

 

[DiskoJoe]

ditch the zooms, at least until you manage to slow down a bit. It's not that they are inherently bad, but they just aren't going to be conducive. You know that you have a problem going too fast.

Choose a mid-prime and stick with it for a solid month. You might just have too many options.

But really, it's awesome that you can recognize the area you need improvement.

Go old school. Grab the 35mm if you got one and learn it inside and out. You can do like a friend of mine did and set up on a tripod and run all the way through the aperture range. Just stick on a tripod and find something cool to shoot at and see how the aperture effects the shutter speed. After a while I will become second nature.

 

[KmH]

I just know intuitively that a larger f/stop (f/2.8) will yield a shallow DOF and a smaller f/stop (f/16) will yield a longer DOF.

Yes. But. How much different and how does the DoF distribution change.

I think it's a very common amateur mistake to consider DoF only in terms of lens aperture, ignoring the several other factors that affect DoF, particularly the focus point distance.

When I shoot, I am always keenly aware of my focus point distance relative to the lens focal length and aperture I am using.