Can You Name Five Things That Could Have Effected the Depth of Field In The Attached Image?
Gene51
Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
par4fore wrote:
Aperture
Focal length
Distance from camera focus point
Distance from subject to background
Photoshop
You nailed it - sensor size has nothing to do with depth of field - it is wrapped up in aperture, focal length and distances from camera to subject, subject to background, and implied, distance from camera to background. Using a crop sensor camera for a given composition only makes one move back OR use a wider lens, giving the illusion of greater depth of field when compared to the same in a full frame camera.
However, at the same camera to subject distance, aperture and focal length, the crop camera will have LESS depth of field, contrary to the widely held myth that it's the other way around.
What is missing is the way the image is viewed - a small 4"x6" print will be viewed at closer distances and flaws involving focus and detail capture will be more apparent than the same image printed at 40"x60" that is viewed at 10 ft distance. So, because of eyesight limitations, fine detail, focus and noise issues are harder to detect at greater distances, creating the illusion of greater depth of field.
Thanks for this erudite discussion. One factor not mentioned generally in creating DOF, is the use of color which is also a factor of atmosphere. Warms for the foreground and blue tones for background. Not related to a setting in camera, but none the less, important adjunct.
TriX
Loc: Raleigh, NC
Gene51 wrote:
You nailed it - sensor size has nothing to do with depth of field - it is wrapped up in aperture, focal length and distances from camera to subject, subject to background, and implied, distance from camera to background. Using a crop sensor camera for a given composition only makes one move back OR use a wider lens, giving the illusion of greater depth of field when compared to the same in a full frame camera.
However, at the same camera to subject distance, aperture and focal length, the crop camera will have LESS depth of field, contrary to the widely held myth that it's the other way around.
What is missing is the way the image is viewed - a small 4"x6" print will be viewed at closer distances and flaws involving focus and detail capture will be more apparent than the same image printed at 40"x60" that is viewed at 10 ft distance. So, because of eyesight limitations, fine detail, focus and noise issues are harder to detect at greater distances, creating the illusion of greater depth of field.
You nailed it - sensor size has nothing to do with... (
show quote)
I think Gene’s point is that the circle of confusion, which is a factor in the DOF equation, is related to more than JUST the camera format. Wiki sums it up very succinctly:
“In photography, the circle of confusion (CoC) is used to determine the depth of field, the part of an image that is acceptably sharp. A standard value of CoC is often associated with each image format, but the most appropriate value depends on visual acuity, viewing conditions, and the amount of enlargement”
The most important thing to effect the depth of field is the photographer. The other things are controlled by the photographer and that could be the f stop, which will dictate the speed and the ISO and any other change dictates the changes in controls. The other thing that has a depth off field citation, to some degree is the lens focal length. Wider lenses tend to have larger in focus the longer lens and then that con be some what controlled as above.
People do the pictures the camera guesses for you.
Gene51
Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
TriX wrote:
I think Gene’s point is that the circle of confusion, which is a factor in the DOF equation, is related to more than JUST the camera format. Wiki sums it up very succinctly:
“In photography, the circle of confusion (CoC) is used to determine the depth of field, the part of an image that is acceptably sharp. A standard value of CoC is often associated with each image format, but the most appropriate value depends on visual acuity, viewing conditions, and the amount of enlargement”
Couldn't have said it better myself -
It wouldn't have worked for this image, but you can control DOF significantly by using focus stacking and adjusting the aperture and/or number of exposures stacked.
Shooter41 wrote:
Dear POSTFOCUS...
Dear POSTFOCUS...You appear to be a very well-read, intelligent photographer. Your well considered comments on combining multiple images to create a wider depth of field was one of the elements I listed in my five ways to effect depth of field. I award you with the "Golden Pixel Award," handshake from afar. Shooter41
TriX wrote:
I think Gene’s point is that the circle of confusion, which is a factor in the DOF equation, is related to more than JUST the camera format. Wiki sums it up very succinctly:
“In photography, the circle of confusion (CoC) is used to determine the depth of field, the part of an image that is acceptably sharp. A standard value of CoC is often associated with each image format, but the most appropriate value depends on visual acuity, viewing conditions, and the amount of enlargement”
They missed the most important contribution to the circle of confusion: the component behind the viewfinder. (As noted by Picture Taker)
IDguy wrote:
They missed the most important contribution to the circle of confusion: the component behind the viewfinder. (As noted by Picture Taker)
Dear IDguy...Your points made are well taken. I think we are up to about eight different things that can have an effect upon the Depth Of Field of a given image now. Thank you for your contribution.
Gene51 wrote:
You nailed it - sensor size has nothing to do with depth of field - it is wrapped up in aperture, focal length and distances from camera to subject, subject to background, and implied, distance from camera to background. Using a crop sensor camera for a given composition only makes one move back OR use a wider lens, giving the illusion of greater depth of field when compared to the same in a full frame camera.
However, at the same camera to subject distance, aperture and focal length, the crop camera will have LESS depth of field, contrary to the widely held myth that it's the other way around.
What is missing is the way the image is viewed - a small 4"x6" print will be viewed at closer distances and flaws involving focus and detail capture will be more apparent than the same image printed at 40"x60" that is viewed at 10 ft distance. So, because of eyesight limitations, fine detail, focus and noise issues are harder to detect at greater distances, creating the illusion of greater depth of field.
You nailed it - sensor size has nothing to do with... (
show quote)
Dear Gene51...
As usual, you hit the ball out of the park. At this point in our friendly discussion, with your help along with other smart persons on UHH, I have made note of twelve things that can effect the illusion of the Depth Of Field in my specific image of the Starling.
(1) Aperature of the lens involved. (2) Focal length of the lens involved. (3) Distance from the camera sensor to the point of focus. (4) Distance from the camera to the background. (5) Whether using a full frame camera or a crop sensor camera. (6) The actual way you view the image. (7) Whether the image is colored or black and white. (8) The amount of enlargement the photographer did. (9) The ISO the image was recorded with. (10) Whether the photographer did focus stacking and changed the point of focus of the original image. (11) The specific photographer behind the view finder.
This discussion has been a lot of fun; taught me a lot, but possibly expanded my "Circle of Confusion!" (TEE HEE)
TriX
Loc: Raleigh, NC
IDguy wrote:
They missed the most important contribution to the circle of confusion: the component behind the viewfinder. (As noted by Picture Taker)
You mean like the visual acuity which was mentioned?
Shooter41 wrote:
While attempting to learn every way possible to control the Depth Of Field of an image, I took the attached picture of a Starling trying to get access to the beef suet in this bottom only feeder. I think I might have used five things to make the background in this image blurry to make the Starling stand out from the background. Earlier, I read somewhere that there are only three things that can have any effect on the Depth of Field of an image. Can anyone on UHH name five things that they think effects the Depth of Field of an image?
While attempting to learn every way possible to co... (
show quote)
My damn cataracts. :( No worries. Surgery on Tuesday! Yay. Camera has had to sit dormant for the most part. I can barely type, post process, see through the viewfinder. Thank goodness for AF!!!
Great question. Thanks for taking the time.
Real Nikon Lover wrote:
My damn cataracts. :( No worries. Surgery on Tuesday! Yay. Camera has had to sit dormant for the most part. I can barely type, post process, see through the viewfinder. Thank goodness for AF!!!
Great question. Thanks for taking the time.
Dear Real Nikon Lover...Good luck on your surgery Tuesday. I had both eyes done about five years ago and it was an amazing improvement in my vision. Hope you can get back to shooting your Nikon soon! Shooter41
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.