Shutterstock Photographer Forum :: View topic

jeffbanke · Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 12:00 am

As the guys mentioned, the palne of focus means that both the toothbrush and your sons eyes are about the same distance from the camera, or at least inside the 6 inch DOF that you have.

There are of course times when it is OK to have the eyes OOF, but it must be a deliberate act and very obvious that it was intentional, here is an example of one of my images that has sold several time that exemplifies this departure from the nose to eye DOF I mentioned previously

sarahnoda · Joined: 13 Jan 2010 Posts: 49

Wow!
First, Thank you, thank you, thank you.
And a special thanks to Rinder for spending so much time writing a response to me, I greatly appreciate it. My spare time is so limited, I have 2 small boys at home, So I really value all the time you have given to me/this.
That being said, today will be a study day for me. I'm going to go soak up as much DOF info as I can and perhaps practice by lining some cups up on different planes and experimenting with the DOF achieved at different settings and camera distance.

I do understand that at any given F stop that moving closer to the subject will decrease my DOF and moving away will increase it. I think I need to experiment with this to better gauge just how much it changes. I do realize with these immages I have a very narrow DOF, so maybe expanding that is just what I need in order to get the focus right.

Perhaps for theses shots I would benefit from stepping further away from my subject and usuing a longer focal length.

Ok, I'm off to get some studying done

jeffbanke · Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 9:50 am

rinder99 · Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 10:05 am

As Jeff said. Light is key to this entire equation . also a longer focal length will compress the DOF giving you less.

jeffbanke · Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 10:14 am

Yes, as Laurin pointed out the longer the focal length of the lens the less the DOF at any given distance.

Here is your homework :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm

sarahnoda · Joined: 13 Jan 2010 Posts: 49

Ok, I may post questions throughout the day. Just reading the first part of the wikipedia page. I think I'm already starting to change the way I understand DOF. Tell me if I'm not understanding this correctly please...
So the amount of DOF is actually determined from the camera to subject distance and focal length, while the amount within the DOF that is in focus is determined by the aperature. thats a bit different from how I was understanding it before.

Is that correct??

copidosoma · Joined: 17 Nov 2009 Posts: 3784 Location: Canada

rinder99 · Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:40 am

That is correct.Always since I finally learned it and as a kid. It was taught to me and I thought Oh Man, I'll never understand this , Then one day it just Hit me how simple it really is. It's one of those things that we all overthink way to much. The very best advice I have for anyone is shoot so much you go crazy and your finger bleeds. By far the best self teaching method there is. You Blow it and you learn, Simple as that.
And for the last 50 Years I have a standard mindset for every image I take regardless of subject. Always before anything else I first determine what I want in focus, Then comes Exposure, Then comes Composition and, I've been doing it for so long these three steps takes seconds and it will for you also. A camera is nothing More than an extension of your eye and a tool to capture it. You can Manipulate so much so quickly it's amazing, Then come the tricks, and mostly the visual tricks to force the viewer to look where YOU want them to. Those tricks come from The Masters of painting and used today and in the past without you knowing it by the great Film directors. I've said many times..."You wanna be a better Photographer"? Study the masters of painting, it's all right there and how they can force you to look right where they want you to.Quite amazing really if you believe that all Image making in every medium is just an Illusion.

As far as learning Exposure..... When I was 15 or so my dad made me a deal that if I learned the Zone system he would build me a darkroom. I did and he did and Im forever Grateful he did that because It teaches you and forces you to use your eyes and thats the best Meter on the Planet.

Because of my Background in film and darkroom, I have and still do overexpose by 1/2 to 1 stop and under process.Small Moves mean so much in Image making.It's the subtleties that make you stand out instead of just doing something that Just about anyone can do.

And remember new friend It's not our Job as Image Makers or creative People to determine the value of our work, It is our job to simply do the work and keep the channel open and keep it ours.

jeffbanke · Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 2:44 pm

I don't want to belabor the focal length part of this, but a wide angle lens and a telephoto lens (at the same Aperture) will have the EXACTLY same DOF - IF the subject is EXACTLY the same size in the image.

This of course means that the wide angle lens must be significantly closer to the subject in order for the subject to fill the frame in the same way it has with the telephoto.

If on the other hand the distances are the same for the two lenses, then the wide angle lens will have a significantly greater DOF.

Hope that makes the interaction and relationship clearer for you.

sarahnoda · Joined: 13 Jan 2010 Posts: 49

Oh, there is so much to soak up...
What would you consider an ideal and a minimum amount of DOF for a portrait of one person (for stock)? for ear to nose I'm guessing 4" is what I need to aim for. The nice thing is I can now look back at all my recent photos and approximate the distance I was to the subject, then calculate the DOF with the calculator and the see exactly how much of my subject is in focus in the image... Thank you all again, I'm geting there slowly. It's good to learn and I have a lot more to learn that I realized. :)

jeffbanke · Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:58 pm

4-6 inches would be the ball park to aim for

sarahnoda · Joined: 13 Jan 2010 Posts: 49

I'm still studying & experimenting... so I don't have much to show at the moment, but I thought I would share this one today. It's my son sleeping in the carriage. I noticed that there are not many photos of babies/babies sleeping in carseats/strollers. So, I'm not sure if thats because there is not that much demand or if not many people take that kind of shot... The focus is getting a little better perhaps. I posted a close up of both eyes (as they were in the same plane, so both are in focus).

semmickphoto · Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 3:16 pm

For me that is sharp.

But you have blown out whites on the little jumper. You can fix that in photoshop, burn tool.

rinder99 · Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 3:33 pm

Very good job on sharpness.

sarahnoda · Joined: 13 Jan 2010 Posts: 49

Here is a new copy of this. I pulled up the recovery slider in LR to fix the blown out shirt....
And I just feel like shouting a big "HOOORAY" for the sharpness. You are so right, it's all about having enough light!! Oh... and manual focus! I feel like AF is just not reliable now - do you all feel the same? I've been noticing that my most focused shots are MF. It's a pain though because for some reason I have a very difficult time focusing through the lens while I'm wearing contacts, and my eyes are so bad the the diopter will not correct enough with my contacts out. I've resorted to wearing glasses while photographing, it's a little akward, but seems to do the trick (personal issues - LOL). So do you think this one is submission worthy or is the composition not satisfactory?