Let's play "Guess the Aperture!": Bored, waiting for Violet to go outside after breakfast....decided to take a shot of my CyberSync trigger. I took this with my 100mm lens at the...

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Bored, waiting for Violet to go outside after breakfast....decided to take a shot of my CyberSync trigger.

I took this with my 100mm lens at the minimum focus distance (about 1.5 feet)

Notice the nicely blurred background and the depth of field that barely spans the trigger (which is only about 1.3" wide)

Can you guess what aperture I shot this at to get that effect?

How many of you thought of f/1.4 or f/2.8 right off the bat?

Well...even if you said f/4 or f/5.6 you'd be wrong.

I shot this at f/8.

But, but...doesn't this fly in the face of conventional wisdom?...( that "you have to have a fast lens to get a shallow depth of field!...." ) the mantra that's uttered in reverence on every photo forum on the net...

The truth is...DOF is greatly affected by distance also....

So the next time you are hankering for that f/1.2L lens....think about the role that distance plays in your quest for shallow DOF portraits...and see if your f/3.5-5.6 55-200 kit lens will do the trick....

(Download)

rocco_7155 Loc: Connecticut/Louisiana

Another great "food" photo from you. FOOD for thought! :thumbup:

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

rocco_7155 wrote:

Another great "food" photo from you. FOOD for thought! :thumbup:

Lol..thanks. Gotta keep you guessing.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

rpavich wrote:

.............

But, but...doesn't this fly in the face of conventional wisdom?...( that "you have to have a fast lens to get a shallow depth of field!...." ) the mantra that's uttered in reverence on every photo forum on the net...
..........

No, it only flies in the face of the conventional wisdom of those that like to generalise, and ignore facts and particular instances.

Oh, and also those who like to build straw dogs so that they can rip them down again.

You find and awful lot of that on the net.
As far as photography sites go, this one is probably the worst for arguing strawdogs that I have ever seen.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

lighthouse wrote:

No, it only flies in the face of the conventional wisdom of those that like to generalise, and ignore facts and particular instances.

Oh, and also those who like to build straw dogs so that they can rip them down again.

You find and awful lot of that on the net.
As far as photography sites go, this one is probably the worst for arguing strawdogs that I have ever seen.

Oh boy....why did you feel the need to take what I thought was a helpful post (considering the hundreds of "I need a faster lens!" posts and the answers given literally dozens of times a week) and turn it into a crusade?

Of course not all photographers believe that only aperture affects DOF...if I mistakenly gave that impression...a thousand pardons....

I'll try and be more specific next time. :(

PS: Your dumb comment about building strawmen applies to making a logical argument...not trying to help people in a photo forum by imparting information.

Get a life.

rocco_7155 Loc: Connecticut/Louisiana

I thought it was very helpful. For very new folks or folks who never shot film in the old days, rethinking ALL of the "rules" keeps you growing, questioning, learning. Digital is perfect for the "What if i did this....?" Because it doesnt waste film or cost a penny. Good on you for posting this!

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

rocco_7155 wrote:

I thought it was very helpful. For very new folks or folks who never shot film in the old days, rethinking ALL of the "rules" keeps you growing, questioning, learning. Digital is perfect for the "What if i did this....?" Because it doesnt waste film or cost a penny. Good on you for posting this!

Thanks, I appreciate it. :)

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

rpavich wrote:

Oh boy....why did you feel the need to take what I... (show quote)

So your comment about shooting this at 100mm and F/8 - how come the EXIF data says 45mm and F/1.0?

Psergel Loc: New Mexico

rpavich wrote:

Oh boy....why did you feel the need to take what I... (show quote)

There seems to an abundance of venom on this (or any other) forum. If everyone knew everything this would be a very compact (and boring) forum.
Your post has inspired me to get up out of my chair, grab my camera and experiment a bit. Not that I didn't already know what you point out but.....I never really tried to make use of it. I am about to give it a try.
Thank You

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Psergel wrote:

There seems to an abundance of venom on this (or any other) forum. If everyone knew everything this would be a very compact (and boring) forum.
Your post has inspired me to get up out of my chair, grab my camera and experiment a bit. Not that I didn't already know what you point out but.....I never really tried to make use of it. I am about to give it a try.
Thank You

There was no venom in my post whatsoever. Why do you think there was?
Rpavich asked a question.
I provided an answer.
(And even though my comments weren't actually referring to him, he took offence and chose to try to insult me)

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

lighthouse wrote:

So your comment about shooting this at 100mm and F/8 - how come the EXIF data says 45mm and F/1.0?

Because I use a full manual lens that doesn't transmit data to the camera and I was too lazy to fix the metadata.

Give it a rest...go find some other windmill to jab at.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

lighthouse wrote:

There was no venom in my post whatsoever. Why do you think there was?
Rpavich asked a question.
I provided an answer.
(And even though my comments weren't actually referring to him, he took offence and chose to try to insult me)

I didn't think I had to point this out but I guess I do..

I was asking a rhetorical question for the purpose of imparting some information for those who might not know the answer...it's a common technique and I thought it would make the post more interesting to read.

rizer Loc: Long Island, NY

rocco_7155 wrote:

I thought it was very helpful. For very new folks or folks who never shot film in the old days, rethinking ALL of the "rules" keeps you growing, questioning, learning. Digital is perfect for the "What if i did this....?" Because it doesnt waste film or cost a penny. Good on you for posting this!

I thought this was very helpful also. It is this kind of post and observation that keep us all thinking on how to capture what we want with all the variables that photography has. Thank you.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

rszer57 wrote:

I thought this was very helpful also. It is this kind of post and observation that keep us all thinking on how to capture what we want with all the variables that photography has. Thank you.

Thank you very much for saying so...I appreciate it.

Psergel Loc: New Mexico

lighthouse wrote:

There was no venom in my post whatsoever. Why do you think there was?
Rpavich asked a question.
I provided an answer.
(And even though my comments weren't actually referring to him, he took offence and chose to try to insult me)

Because you sound scornful.