Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Check out Advice from the Pros section of our forum.
Main Photography Discussion
Let's play "Guess the Aperture!"
Page <<first <prev 10 of 10
Feb 3, 2014 17:06:54   #
lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode
 
rpavich wrote:
That would be the point...lol...the focal length is changed...but the DOF stays the same even though the focal length is changing...

But whatever you want...I really don't feel like arguing with you in every post I start...if you want to disagree...I couldn't care less...knock yourself out.


I am not disagreeing for the sake of it.
Don't act like I just trying to be argumentative. I am not.
I am disagreeing because you keep saying stuff in this thread that is wrong and confusing for people trying to learn.

It is a simple mathematical formula.
If you change one variable (focal length) then the answer (depth of field) changes.

What you are doing, is changing two variables (focal length and focus distance) to make the answer (depth of field) stay the same.

Reply
Feb 3, 2014 19:01:48   #
rpavich Loc: West Virginia
 
For those still following this thread...I had a few minutes after dinner to illustrate the idea that focal length (when taking the same shot; aka framed the same)doesn't affect focal length.

This illustration is for me, and those who are interested...it's not for anyone with a bone to pick or an argument to win...this is how I would shoot a subject, this is a real world example using a real world situation.


I didn't have a model, so I took a "portrait" of my trigger.

First I shot it with my shortest lens a 45mm at f/4.

Then I put on my 100mm lens at f/4 and I did what I would do in this situation...I moved back to get the same framing.

Notice that the out of focus areas are the same though one is a long lens and one is a relatively short lens.


Interesting eh?


(Download)

Reply
Feb 3, 2014 19:13:06   #
mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)
 
rpavich wrote:
For those still following this thread...I had a few minutes after dinner to illustrate the idea that focal length (when taking the same shot; aka framed the same)doesn't affect focal length.

This illustration is for me, and those who are interested...it's not for anyone with a bone to pick or an argument to win...this is how I would shoot a subject, this is a real world example using a real world situation.


I didn't have a model, so I took a "portrait" of my trigger.

First I shot it with my shortest lens a 45mm at f/4.

Then I put on my 100mm lens at f/4 and I did what I would do in this situation...I moved back to get the same framing.

Notice that the out of focus areas are the same though one is a long lens and one is a relatively short lens.


Interesting eh?
For those still following this thread...I had a fe... (show quote)


Yes it is interesting, and a lesson for the beginners. What you accomplished by backing up and using a longer lens is to change the perspective. Notice that the subject is the same size in both photos but the articles in the background are larger in the shot taken with the 100mm lens. The other effect of this change in perspective is that the background "appears" to be less in focus just because it is enlarged. If you and lighthouse would read some of the posts that others have made on this thread I think the argument would go away. What you have demonstrated in this post is exactly what the link I provided in my previous post demonstrates even more effectively.

Reply
Check out Printers and Color Printing Forum section of our forum.
Feb 3, 2014 19:13:28   #
Papa Joe Loc: Midwest U.S.
 
rpavich wrote:
I agree.

It makes me want to not post anything if it's going to be this big of a hassle.


rpavich, I've followed these comments quietly, trying not to add to the nonsense but here's my opinion:
YOU have posted a very worthwhile bit of information for those wanting to learn. In doing so, it has evidently been great fuel for a minority of one (or less), to start a controversy. We have all benefited from many of your comments and/or tips. Keep 'em coming and simply ignore those who choose to continue stirring the coals.
Just my (not so humble, I guess) opinion.

Reply
Feb 3, 2014 19:15:09   #
lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode
 
Your example does not show depth of field.

And you might like to change this sentence to say what you really meant to say.
I had a few minutes after dinner to illustrate the idea that focal length (when taking the same shot; aka framed the same)doesn't affect focal length.

Reply
Feb 3, 2014 19:17:02   #
rpavich Loc: West Virginia
 
lighthouse wrote:
Your example does not show depth of field.

And you might like to change this sentence to say what you really meant to say.
I had a few minutes after dinner to illustrate the idea that focal length (when taking the same shot; aka framed the same)doesn't affect focal length.


No...its fine just the way it is, thank you.

Reply
Feb 3, 2014 19:17:29   #
rpavich Loc: West Virginia
 
mcveed wrote:
Yes it is interesting, and a lesson for the beginners. What you accomplished by backing up and using a longer lens is to change the perspective. Notice that the subject is the same size in both photos but the articles in the background are larger in the shot taken with the 100mm lens. The other effect of this change in perspective is that the background "appears" to be less in focus just because it is enlarged. If you and lighthouse would read some of the posts that others have made on this thread I think the argument would go away. What you have demonstrated in this post is exactly what the link I provided in my previous post demonstrates even more effectively.
Yes it is interesting, and a lesson for the beginn... (show quote)

That's exactly right

Reply
 
 
Feb 3, 2014 19:18:28   #
rpavich Loc: West Virginia
 
Papa Joe wrote:
rpavich, I've followed these comments quietly, trying not to add to the nonsense but here's my opinion:
YOU have posted a very worthwhile bit of information for those wanting to learn. In doing so, it has evidently been great fuel for a minority of one (or less), to start a controversy. We have all benefited from many of your comments and/or tips. Keep 'em coming and simply ignore those who choose to continue stirring the coals.
Just my (not so humble, I guess) opinion.


Thanks joe...I appreciate it very much.

Reply
Feb 3, 2014 19:21:26   #
lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode
 
Papa Joe wrote:
rpavich, I've followed these comments quietly, trying not to add to the nonsense but here's my opinion:
YOU have posted a very worthwhile bit of information for those wanting to learn. In doing so, it has evidently been great fuel for a minority of one (or less), to start a controversy. We have all benefited from many of your comments and/or tips. Keep 'em coming and simply ignore those who choose to continue stirring the coals.
Just my (not so humble, I guess) opinion.


If anyone at all thinks I am just being argumentative, please feel free to point me to any information that I have stated which is untrue.
I am doing this so that novices do not get confused with incorrect information.

Reply
Feb 3, 2014 20:05:08   #
mossgate Loc: Phoenix, AZ
 
mcveed wrote:
" Which brings me back to my question......Does the area that goes out of focus in the background get "fuzzier" the farther back the background goes? Seems like it should.

The simple answer to your question is YES. To clarify the issue there is only one plane in any photograph that is "in focus". That is the sharpest plane that the lens is capable of resolving. One hopes that this plane of "perfect focus" is on our subject. On either side of that plane of "perfect focus" is an area of "acceptable focus". That is an area which the human eye will perceive of as being "sharp". That area is referred to as the "Depth of Field" (DOF). For any given lens the depth of that area is determined by two factors: the size of the aperture and the distance to the subject (plane of perfect focus). The DOF extends from the subject toward the camera and into the distance beyond the subject. For example an 85mm lens on a full frame camera at f8 and a distance to the subject of 10 feet will have a DOF of 1.99 feet. It will extend from 9.1 feet in front of the camera to 11.1 feet from the camera. Anything closer to the camera than 9.1 feet or further than 11.1 feet will be rendered somewhat out of focus and the focus, or sharpness, will gradually worsen the further the object is from the subject. You can play with this concept using the Depth of Field Calculator here: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
" Which brings me back to my question......Do... (show quote)


Thank you so much. I bookmarked the calculator and will set up my own props to document this for myself. Getting DOF right is like an artist painting, controlling what is to stand out. It can be such a dreamy effect as in Denise Ippolito's bird photos. Someone mentioned her on this forum somewhere. I get it right about half the time right now but would like to know better what I'm doing. Thanks again.

Reply
Feb 4, 2014 06:11:38   #
stopmedown1 Loc: England UK
 
mossgate
If you're getting it right half the time, you're doing exceedingly well!

Reply
Page <<first <prev 10 of 10
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Wedding Photography section of our forum.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.