Weekly challenge 5/23 - 5/29 DOF

[zulu42]

 

[sleist]

...I could use more angst!!

 

[otherprof]

Very clever!

 

[photoflyer]

I got to thinking about this challenge and the difference between bokeh, deep depth of field and which is more difficult.

With a reasonably fast lens, for me at least, shallow depth of field is easy to achieve. I find myself struggling more when I want deep depth of field.

As I usually do, I compare it to flying. At air shows the public is always in awe of the airplanes that go fast. But the pilots in the audience are enamored with the slow flight demonstration. Going fast simply takes power. Maintaining control while going slow takes skill.

I find there are so many more variables to deal with when I want both the foreground and the background to be in focus. Close the lens down, then raise the ISO and maybe increase noise. The shutter speed comes down and now maybe I need a tripod. What f stop really will result in the depth required: better pull the app out and see. Ouch, this is going to be tough with a long lens but I need it to achieve the desired compression. Macro shot... forget it. I still haven't mastered that.

Thoughts?

 

[SquarePeg]

Just to clarify, this challenge is not really about shallow dof - it is about using the proper dof for your subject and getting background blur for the rest.

 

[Tropicalmemories]

I got to thinking about this challenge and the difference between bokeh, deep depth of field and which is more difficult.

With a reasonably fast lens, for me at least, shallow depth of field is easy to achieve. I find myself struggling more when I want deep depth of field.

As I usually do, I compare it to flying. At air shows the public is always in awe of the airplanes that go fast. But the pilots in the audience are enamored with the slow flight demonstration. Going fast simply takes power. Maintaining control while going slow takes skill.

I find there are so many more variables to deal with when I want both the foreground and the background to be in focus. Close the lens down, then raise the ISO and maybe increase noise. The shutter speed comes down and now maybe I need a tripod. What f stop really will result in the depth required: better pull the app out and see. Ouch, this is going to be tough with a long lens but I need it to achieve the desired compression. Macro shot... forget it. I still haven't mastered that.

Thoughts?

I agree that there are technical challenges to using a narrow aperture to get a wide depth of field, but there are 'aesthetic' or artistic challenges to using a narrow dof effectively.

You need to decide what parts of the image you want to be in focus to produce the desired impact, then adjust aperture, distance or focal length to get the result you want.

Both eyes in focus, but background out of focus for example is quite challenging.

On the image I posted earlier I was aiming for a different take on glamour photography, focussing on the technical aspects of the equipment, and using the model as the out of focus background to give context. I also wanted the quite 'brutal' form of the light panel to contrast with the soft form of the oof model.

So I don't think narrow dof images are just 'open wide and fire away' any more than I think a well composed, wide dof landscape is just a picture of a scene. Both take effort to do properly.

Here's another attempt for this weeks challenge, not sure if either works, but it was fun trying.

 

[smithdan]

Shot the obligatory dandelion pix with one flower completely in focus and the bg ones blurry. Somehow it just didn't look right. Back to the laneway for a reshoot. Tried some with all the flowers OOF but liked this one with just a hint of focus on the near petals.

 

[Dean_Gretsch]

Shot the obligatory dandelion pix with one flower completely in focus and the bg ones blurry. Somehow it just didn't look right. Back to the laneway for a reshoot. Tried some with all the flowers OOF but liked this one with just a hint of focus on the near petals.
View attachment 192259

Not sure if it's the proper term or not, but I always liked shooting photos with " selective focus ". Have you tried triptychs with this method?

 

[photoflyer]

So I don't think narrow dof images are just 'open wide and fire away' any more than I think a well composed, wide dof landscape is just a picture of a scene

Agree. Both take an intentional approach. I am challenged more by deep shots where both foreground and background are sharp.

 

[Photo Lady]

Having fun with this weekly practice..

 

[zulu42]

I got to thinking about this challenge and the difference between bokeh, deep depth of field and which is more difficult.

With a reasonably fast lens, for me at least, shallow depth of field is easy to achieve. I find myself struggling more when I want deep depth of field.

As I usually do, I compare it to flying. At air shows the public is always in awe of the airplanes that go fast. But the pilots in the audience are enamored with the slow flight demonstration. Going fast simply takes power. Maintaining control while going slow takes skill.

I find there are so many more variables to deal with when I want both the foreground and the background to be in focus. Close the lens down, then raise the ISO and maybe increase noise. The shutter speed comes down and now maybe I need a tripod. What f stop really will result in the depth required: better pull the app out and see. Ouch, this is going to be tough with a long lens but I need it to achieve the desired compression. Macro shot... forget it. I still haven't mastered that.

Thoughts?

I agree that there are technical challenges to using a narrow aperture to get a wide depth of field, but there are 'aesthetic' or artistic challenges to using a narrow dof effectively.

You need to decide what parts of the image you want to be in focus to produce the desired impact, then adjust aperture, distance or focal length to get the result you want.

Both eyes in focus, but background out of focus for example is quite challenging.

On the image I posted earlier I was aiming for a different take on glamour photography, focussing on the technical aspects of the equipment, and using the model as the out of focus background to give context. I also wanted the quite 'brutal' form of the light panel to contrast with the soft form of the oof model.

So I don't think narrow dof images are just 'open wide and fire away' any more than I think a well composed, wide dof landscape is just a picture of a scene. Both take effort to do properly.

Here's another attempt for this weeks challenge, not sure if either works, but it was fun trying.

View attachment 192257

You keep missing focus dangit!

Seriously, though, I think the model looks quite graceful OOF, but I wish the foreground element were something complementary like a curving vase or single flower, etc.

 

[gk fotografie]

View attachment 192277 View attachment 192278 Having fun with this weekly practice..

Number 1 for me, please...what a very nice photo, cute bird, beautiful colors!

 

[smithdan]

[/QUOTE]
Not sure if it's the proper term or not, but I always liked shooting photos with " selective focus ". Have you tried triptychs with this method?[/QUOTE]
No, but that would be a good subject, say three identical frames with only the area in focus differing. On the other hand, once one looked at the finished arrangement....

I play with vintage lenses a lot. The dof scale that is missing on newer ones has been handy for this challenge.

 

[Photo Lady]

View attachment 192277 View attachment 192278 Having fun with this weekly practice..

Number 1 for me, please...what a very nice photo, cute bird, beautiful colors!

thank you.. the pair made a nest on my exterior of log home.. i love them.. i have watched them build and now looking forward to wee ones...

 

[otherprof]

Iris Shots. I was surprised by how the stem totally disappeared in the second one.

View attachment 192244

View attachment 192245

View attachment 192246

Wow - it’s like a floating head.

Here's another floating head, but that was done in 2013 and achieved by mirroring. No flowers were harmed in making these images.

.