You aren't signed in     Sign In    Help

Technique / Discuss

Current Discussion

Creative Glass Composite
Latest: 12 hours ago
Could someone tell me how-to about this soft effect?
Latest: 15 hours ago
A different use for a tripod
Latest: 31 hours ago
auto-import software?
Latest: 2 days ago
how to take indoor photography with flash
Latest: 2 days ago
Freezing water drops with flash
Latest: 4 days ago
How to do this??? [depth of field]
Latest: 5 days ago
Zooming in multiple times during an exposure...
Latest: 8 days ago
Vintage Film Effect
Latest: 9 days ago
How is this colour / tone achieved?
Latest: 10 days ago
Tri-filter effect (aka Harris Shutter effect)
Latest: 2 weeks ago
shooting upside down ?
Latest: 2 weeks ago
More...

Depth-of-field and focus

view profile

chadmiller is a group administrator chadmiller  Pro User  says:

If your eyesight is not perfect, you may sometimes find yourself squinting at difficult-to-read things. The lens part of your eye isn't good enough to focus on some things, so long ago you accidentally discovered that closing your eyelids until they're almost shut make things clearer. How?

Throw out everything you know about modern cameras with their focusing voodoo, and let's consider the simplest and earliest camera form -- pinhole cameras. Pinhole cameras are just boxes with film on the inside of one side and a tiny hole in the opposite side. You point the box at something, uncover the hole, wait a while, and eventually cover back up the hole and take out the exposed film. In the photo you just took, everything was sharp, as long as the box and the subject were (relatively) still, no matter how near or far away.

As photography became more widespread and attention spans became shorter, it became obvious that the "wait a while" step was the inconvenient part of taking a photo. Folks tried tricks like exploding some flash-powder so that more light came through the tiny hole, which worked passably well, but nearby things tended to catch aflame.

The next step for getting the same amount of light on the film in a short period of time was to make the "pin-hole" large. This also worked, but it had a terrible side effect: Blur!

Think of yourself as a single, miniscule spot on the film, looking out through the "pin-hole" to the outside world. When the hole is small, you see only a tiny speck of Universe "out there," so you have no choice about what color/shade to become -- the tiny speck of light you see is what you'll represent on film, and it doesn't even matter how far away that yellow thing is, as it's all you can see anyway. But, if the hole is wide, then you can look through it to see a big ol' area out there. Now, you can see a bit of a yellow flower, some green leaves, and brown bark of a tree, and some white of a cloud far behind it. What color are you going to turn? You must average all that you can see together, yielding an ugly greenish umber color. Congratulations -- you're a blurry spot.

What was a photographer to do?! A few opticians came to the rescue and demonstrated how a few glass elements can be used in front a large hole to move some things into focus. Not all things, note, as glass elements can only properly redirect and "focus" light from some things that are a particular, specific distance away. To choose how far away this "focus plane" is, one could move the glass elements to and fro.

Now, thanks to those clever opticians, the photographer could use a really big hole (which we'll call an "aperture" from now on) to get a lot of light, and still have something in focus. But, if he didn't really need so much light and if he was feeling nostalgic for the days when his pin-hole camera had everything in focus, he could close down the hole a bit -- the smaller he makes the aperture, the more stuff was in focus in his photo.

When you squint your eyes to see better, your eyelids are just like the aperture of your camera lens. When "squinted", the normal focus-plane becomes very thick. Depending on the aperture size, the focus plane can be very thin or infinitely wide. In photography, we call the focus plane's depth "the depth of field".

On point-and-shoot cameras, the aperture is permenently "squinted" shut pretty tight, and almost everything is in focus. On more complex cameras, one can open up the aperture to get more light, but the side-effect is that the depth of feild becomes very short. (Note: When the depth is short, getting the focus right is very important!)



On most cameras that are not point-and-shoot cameras, there's a setting for "f-stop," which is a ratio of the lens' length to the size of the aperture. The larger the number of the f-stop, the smaller the hole. (If you're math-minded, think of the number as the denominator of a fraction, under "1".) The ratio system is an effort to make all f-stops of a particular value let through the same amount of light, regardless of the lens' other characteristics.

The aperture acts as yet another focuser, so to speak, outside of the normal glass focus-elements of your lens. In the sundry kinds of photos you take, the depth of the field in focus can make artistic statements.

On landscape shots, the "depth of field" is usually very wide, so a small aperture is advisable, requiring a faster film or a slower shutter speed to compensate for the lower light level.

depth of field comparison, detail

But, in general, when taking a portrait photo, one wants to push the background and extreme foreground out of focus so that the subject of your photo (and more specifically, usually the subject's eyes) is the only thing that catches the viewer's attention.

[tags: composition, exposure]
Posted at 8:04PM, 13 November 2004 PST ( permalink )

view photostream

quas says:

Very interesting -- I never knew that was why squinting makes it easier to see things. Thanks!
Posted 61 months ago. ( permalink )

view photostream

m.a.x  Pro User  says:

Thanks much, Chad! I learned a few new things myself.
Posted 61 months ago. ( permalink )

view photostream

pdcawley is a group administrator pdcawley  Pro User  says:

If you have a large format camera then you get a whole new bag of tricks for messing with the plane of sharp focus and your depth of field.

Applying the hinge rule

This photo was taken as part of a technical exercise on a large format workshop; the only thing I've done in photoshop is to correct the perspective. All the focus tricks were done in camera.
Posted 61 months ago. ( permalink )

view photostream

Unspeakably Awesome  Pro User  says:

And another example of it...

Mosaic
Posted 61 months ago. ( permalink )

view photostream

chadmiller is a group administrator chadmiller  Pro User  says:

After all the software talk on Flickr, I decided that a "real photography" topic was needed, and that this topic needed better treatment, so I completely rewrote it to talk about DOF and how it relates to focusing. Enjoy. (I hope.)
Posted 59 months ago. ( permalink )

view photostream

sam_  Pro User  says:

Thank you for the explanation of focus and depth of field Chad. I think that is one of the best explanations I've encountered.
Posted 59 months ago. ( permalink )

view photostream

Rockies  Pro User  says:

I've used this tool a bit to understand DOF a bit better. Using a wide open fast lens in low ambient light really brings home how much it helps to be aware of this. Nice write-up.
Posted 59 months ago. ( permalink )

view photostream

chadmiller is a group administrator chadmiller  Pro User  says:

For the curious, pdcrawley's odd-looking photo was possible because, with some cameras and lenses (especially true in large format cameras), one can keep the lens pointed in one direction and tilt the film plane -- which also tilts the focus plane.

This means that you could stand in front of a tall building, point the lens up so that you can see it all, and adjust the film so that it's parallel with the face of the building, and the whole building's face will be in focus. Neat, eh?
Posted 59 months ago. ( permalink )

view photostream

urbandiscount  Pro User  says:

i learned photography using technical cameras (year 1 AND year 2), primarily to learn about focus. and in that respect, digital cameras offer an unuexpexted bonus, because they offer tremendous DOF. Point is, that is not how we are conditioned to look at a photograph and it's not how human vision works either. We "think" an image, rather than seeing it "objectively": if everything is in focus that freaks us out (slightly) and that's why it's a photographic convention to limit the DOF to the subject (if it's a portrait). Modern digital cameras have a hard time doing that, so if I want to use selective DOF I just apply the effect in Photoshop.
On the other hand, it's far more of a challenge to frame in such a way that objects in the background don't dominate the picture, just because they are in focus too. ;)
Posted 59 months ago. ( permalink )

view photostream

chadmiller is a group administrator chadmiller  Pro User  says:

Why say "most digital cameras", urbandiscount, when it's really generalizable to most modern cameras. It's nothing specific to digital, I'd say.

Pack in a super-sensitive sensor ("versatile" film or a common CCD), and don't give a variable aperture, as most users don't know how to use them anyway. Voila, huge focus-field depth -- whether you want it or not.
Posted 59 months ago. ( permalink )

view photostream

urbandiscount  Pro User  says:

Chad Miller: i do believe that ccd chips require a uniform DOF throughout the focal range because of the way light is projected onto them through the lens. Personally I feel that digital cameras differ from film cameras that way.
Posted 59 months ago. ( permalink )

view photostream

chadmiller is a group administrator chadmiller  Pro User  says:

I will defer to you, urbandiscount, as I don't understand the difference in the light of which you speak.

Out of curiosity, do you know what happens if the CCD doesn't receive what it requires?
Posted 59 months ago. ( permalink )

view photostream

quas says:

The only difference between a 35mm (film) camera and your average digicam is the sensor size. Smaller sensors mean greater DOF (explanation here), and digicams generally have small sensors. If you have a digital camera with a 35mm CCD, your DOF will be exactly the same (at the same aperture and focal length, of course) as a 35mm film camera.
Posted 59 months ago. ( permalink )

view photostream

pwinn says:

Nice indeed, Chad, thanks!

I've really been absorbing the concept of "the photographic triangle," and every bit of reinforcement I get helps. The way you've related aperture settings to squinting definitely helps.
Posted 59 months ago. ( permalink )

smurflord [deleted] says:

A very good explanation. Let me add that a lens with a high focal length has a lower DOF than a low focal length lens. That is why portraits are often done with zoom lenses.
And this is a way to, at least slightly, influence the DOF with digital cameras.
Example: This has been done using a cheap point-and-shoot digital camera, set to its maximum (optical) zoom level.
Posted 58 months ago. ( permalink )

view photostream

dElay says:

are you trying to tell that it's easier to blur background with zoom set to maximum ?
Posted 58 months ago. ( permalink )

view photostream

pdcawley is a group administrator pdcawley  Pro User  says:

Not necessarily. What counts for depth of field is the amount of magnification. Say you take a photo of a subject with a 200mm lens at f/4, then change to a 50mm lens, also at f/4, but move so that the subject is the same size in your viewfinder as in the first shot, then the depth of field would be the same.

However, in the second shot there would be more in the background. Movie makers take advantage of this by, say, dollying in at the same time as zooming out so that the foreground seems to stay where it is while the background rushes away.

Also, if you're using a consumer (variable aperture) zoom, then zooming right reduces the aperture and thus increases the depth of field (for similar sized subjects). Constant aperture zooms are much nicer (and a good deal more expensive) to use and they're usually optically better as well (variable aperture zooms are usually built down to a price, constant aperture zooms are built up to a spec).
Posted 58 months ago. ( permalink )

view photostream

BenODen is a group administrator BenODen  Pro User  says:

f/2.8 means focal length over 2.8 as a lens opening? Or is the / just a piece of random punctuation?
Posted 58 months ago. ( permalink )

view photostream

matt  Pro User  says:

Yep, it means focal length divided by X which yields the physical diameter of the lens opening. X is typically a power of root-2. Or is it multiple? Can't remember. I'm sure the wikipedia explains it at length, though.
Posted 58 months ago. ( permalink )

view photostream

BenODen is a group administrator BenODen  Pro User  says:

Ah ha! Now I understand why most p&s digital cameras don't get to f/22 on the wide angle side. But, it'd be nice to be able to get there on the telephoto. Wouldn't the opening on a 3x zoom for f/8 be 3 times larger at full zoom then full wide? And they should be able to give us that tiny opening at full zoom too and we'd get f/24? Maybe I'm missing something...
Posted 58 months ago. ( permalink )

view photostream

Brenda Anderson  Pro User  says:

Ah, what a great explanation for this newbie. :) That explains why when I set my camera to "macro" and then change the f stop, I get an f stop that is different from what I set. I've got a point&shoot Kodak DC4800, with a dial for the f stop that only has 2.8, 5.6, or 8. But I've taken photos set to macro that give me different f stops when I use the optical zoom (3x).

Here's an experiment I just did. 2 photos with camera on 'macro' mode but with aperture priority set.
The first one my camera was set to f2.8 but the photo was taken at f4.3 (notice shallow DOF)

Passing By

And the second I had the camera set to 'macro' mode with f/8. The photo was taken at f/13, with much more DOF.

Passing By (Take Two)

Am I interpreting this correctly? I'm still learning about all this 'technical stuff'. :)
Posted 58 months ago. ( permalink )

view photostream

BenODen is a group administrator BenODen  Pro User  says:

Hmm, I have to admit I'm confused... What I think matt is saying is that an f-stop is an f-stop, but when you zoom on a typical lens, the actual lens opening changes to preserve a given f stop. So this shouldn't have anything to do with the difference between those advertised/actual values.

When I look at exif data for those two photos, flickr seems to be confused too. They both seem to be taken at f 4.3 if I do the math... What source are you using to determine actual f-stop?

And no more 35mm equivalent focal lengths? Any good threads on these changes?
Posted 58 months ago. ( permalink )

view photostream

BenODen is a group administrator BenODen  Pro User  says:

Oh, Kiwi, I have an experiment for you to try. Take that picture twice, once with the same aperature but at the two ends of the zoom, changing distance to get the same framing of the items in the photo.

They should indicate two different f-stops if your theory is correct, and different things should be in focus...
Posted 58 months ago. ( permalink )

view photostream

Brenda Anderson  Pro User  says:

When I look at exif data for those two photos, flickr seems to be confused too. They both seem to be taken at f 4.3 if I do the math... What source are you using to determine actual f-stop?

When I look at the EXIF data using Irfanview, the first one says this:

FNumber 4.30
ApertureValue F 4.76
MaxApertureValue F 4.44

And for the second:

FNumber 13
ApertureValue F 13.45
MaxApertureValue F 4.44

So how should I interpret that? For this first photo, I set the camera to F2.8 and for the second to F8.

If I get a chance I'll try your experiment with the zoom.
Posted 58 months ago. ( permalink )

view photostream

Brenda Anderson  Pro User  says:

Okay, I took the same 'shot' with camera set to aperture priority of 5.6.

The picture taken at 1.0x zoom reports an F-stop of 5.6 and shutter 1/20 sec; the picture taken at 3.0x zoom reports an F-stop of 9.5 and shutter 1/10 sec.

I'm not sure what to make of that.
Posted 58 months ago. ( permalink )

view photostream

BenODen is a group administrator BenODen  Pro User  says:

Hmm, confusing, I'd tend to agree with you on the interpretation of those numbers.. Is there a way to get the camera to display what f-number it thinks the picture was taken at? My camera has a display mode while reviewing the photos. It's possible that your software is not reading things right, I suppose.
Posted 58 months ago. ( permalink )

view photostream

BenODen is a group administrator BenODen  Pro User  says:

Oh, wait, experiment results that I missed.

How do the shots LOOK? Matt seems to say that both should have the same depth of field. If they are different looking, your camera isn't actually paying any attention to your wishes for aperture. I have a hard time believing that 9.5 or 11 is the largest opening available for the zoom end. How odd... Keep your eye open for other users of your camera and ask if they've noticed this! *grin*
Posted 58 months ago. ( permalink )

view photostream

Brenda Anderson  Pro User  says:

Yes, actually, they did both look the same. I was struggling to see where the DOF was different, and when I couldn't see more than a slight difference, I figured I'd done something wrong. But if, as you say, the DOF should be the same even with the different apertures, then I'd say, yes, they are. ;)
Posted 58 months ago. ( permalink )

view photostream

BenODen is a group administrator BenODen  Pro User  says:

Hmmm. Well, actually I would have said they should look different! I'm still puzzled. So, uh. Maybe your camera's taken to lieing to you.

1) If you tell the camera that it should shoot at f/5.6, it should really believe you.

2) If you shoot at two different actual f-stops, you really should see a difference. According to pdcawley's link, it's the magnification that matters...

3) If the exposures look identical with a slower shutter speed, I guess the camera did reduce the opening...

So, hmm.. I dunno... I'd look at the latest two and give a second opinion on whether they were absolutely the same or not if you wanted to include them in your next batch of uploads. If you wanted to you could take a high f-number shot in the same position as your 1x zoom and we could also decide if the difference between 5.6 and 8 (9.5?) is visible in that shot... The light's all different now I suppose!

Are you using a mini tripod or beanbag at these low speeds? The flash will help stop the motion, but at 1/10 second with flash (the exif claims it fired) it gives the background a good chance to move around and uh, that can look like out of focus too.
Posted 58 months ago. ( permalink )

view photostream

Brenda Anderson  Pro User  says:

Just out of curiousity, I took a set of photos with the camera sitting on a table and a toy at the other end. I used Aperture Priority for all shots, and shot 3 pictures at each of the 3 f-stops that my camera dial allows, and at 1x, 2x, & 3x optical zoom. I know that is a totally different setup, but I was interested to see what F stops would be produced based on a combination of zoom & f setting.

This is what happened:

zoom| f2.8 | f5.6 | f8.0 | focal length
==================================
1x | 2.8 | 5.6 | 8.0 | 5.9mm
2x | 3.6 | 6.7 | 9.5 | 12.3mm
3x | 4.5 | 9.5 | 13.0| 17.7mm

So that gives me a baseline for the f-stops that my camera uses depending on the zoom level chosen.

And as expected, at each given zoom level, the photos became progressively larger DOF and darker.
Posted 58 months ago. ( permalink )

view photostream

BenODen is a group administrator BenODen  Pro User  says:

Hmm, darker is weird. What am I saying!? Your camera is weird! *grin*

I did the same sort of experiment last night, and by viewscreen review at least, the DOF only changed when I changed f-number if I kept the scene the same. This was for both macro and non-macro shots. So, hmm... The lighting of the shots was also consistent.
Posted 58 months ago. ( permalink )

view photostream

DWinton  Pro User  says:

This is a great explanation. My physics teacher explained focus like this: the human eye sees in focus because the lens bends the light to focus exactly on the retina. When the lens is not shaped correctly the light focuses in front of or in back of the retina so your image is blurry and you're either farsighted or nearsighted.

However, the light that enter the eye from directly in front, unlike the light that enters from other angles, is not bent but passes directly to the retina. So it's always in focus.

Therefore if you ever lose your glasses, you can make a weird-looking but workable substitute by substituing heavy paper or cardboard 'lenses' with a very small hole drilled in the center of each one. --i.e. you make your eyes into pinhole cameras.

You can also do the same thing by curling your hand into a fist in such a way that there is a tiny opening to look through between the curl of your fingers. (Some people prefer using just one finger.) If you do it right, the result is the same: something close to 20/20 vision.

Of course you'd look pretty unusual walking down the street with your fingers curled in front of your eyes. huh.
Posted 58 months ago. ( permalink )

view photostream

squarewithin  Pro User  says:

This is really a discussion on light fields, 4D representation of an image. Effectively you have a bunch of images (2D arrays of pixels) at a bunch of grid positions (effectively 2D array of images). Without getting into too ugly of math, effectively the lens performs a bunch of signal processing stuff (based on the current focal point and aperature) on those array of images and the result is one image that has depth of field. This is the finite case, all of these in actually are functions defined at all points, opposed to jsut some sample locations.

Because the aperature has some width, each pixel on the final image "sees" some number of respctive pixels in the images. Those combined relate the depth of field blur. The smaller the aperature, the less of those images are "seen" and as a result there is less blur because more information comes from one image.

The pinhole camera is a special case of that. Because (in theory) the aperature is infinitely small, light can only come through the aperature in 1 specific direction to reach a given pixel. So, only one of the images has any effect on the final image, and everything is in focus.

I'm sure I did an awful job of explaining. I'll cook up some pictures to try and make it clearer.
Posted 58 months ago. ( permalink )

view photostream

biketrouble  Pro User  says:

Hey... the answer to the mystery of curiouskiwis aperture values may be to do with the fact that he is using macro mode on his camera. I just happened to be reading about macro shooting elsewhere, and one thing that comes up is that the effective aperture with macro focussing is lower than the "real" aperture (i.e, you might set f/2.8, but the effective aperture might be f/5.) This difference happens because the act of focussing close up moves the lens further from the plane of the film/sensor than is really optimal and so some light is lost. You'll have to forgive me if I turn out to be wrong on this - this stuff still makes my head hurt. The explanation I found is here.
Posted 58 months ago. ( permalink )

view photostream

chadmiller is a group administrator chadmiller  Pro User  says:

matt, for what it's worth, the aperture size numbers are logarithmic.
Posted 58 months ago. ( permalink )

view photostream

matt  Pro User  says:

Yeah, they would be if they're related to powers of two, but I just can't remember the precise way they're determined mathematically. Physically it's simple: one stop up, twice as much light.

e.g. 1.4 is root-2 (2 to the 0.5), but 2.8 isn't a 'natural' power of 2 at all, but it is 2*root-2. See what I mean?
Posted 58 months ago. ( permalink )

view photostream

_teufel says:

Matt, 2.8 is ~root-8: i.e. the geometric mean of 2 and 4.

Think that ideally you start the series with f:1 (aperture diameter equal to focal length) and, for each subsequent aperture to give you half the amount of light, its area must be half that of the previous one - that is, its diameter must be 1/(root-2) the previous one. So root-2 is the factor of the geometric sequence: 1, 1.4, 2, 2.8, 4, etc.

BTW, what's the largest aperture available in a commercial photographic lens? In the movies I remember that Stanley Kubrick used a f:0.7 lens for the candlelit scene of Barry Lyndon. The DOF was so shallow that the actors could barely move.
Posted 58 months ago. ( permalink )

view photostream

matt  Pro User  says:

Oh, thank you! that's been bugging me in the back of my mind for days.

Not enough to look it up, mind you, but still.

thanks!
Posted 58 months ago. ( permalink )

view photostream

pdcawley is a group administrator pdcawley  Pro User  says:

I think the Leica Noctilux at 50/1 is the widest aperture lens currently in production, but I'm happy to be proven wrong.
Posted 57 months ago. ( permalink )

view photostream

Drift Words says:

Many compact digitals (like my little sony) have a variable aperture but without manual control. Hence DOF effects are harder to manipulate. One trick is to turn the light down. Sometimes this means waiting for it to get dark - but not too much - don't want shaky long exposure and noise either.
Posted 57 months ago. ( permalink )

view photostream

brfuk says:

One way of manipulating shallow DOF on an automatic digicam is to use Macro mode. Obviously this only works on close up things, but I used it a few times succesfully on my old Canon IXUS V.
Posted 57 months ago. ( permalink )

view photostream

particle-wave  Pro User  says:

This is why I like using fully-manual cameras - I know exactly what the thing is doing. It may help to get a better grasp on this stuff by just borrowing an old manual film camera or a decent digital SLR and playing with it for a couple of days. Run it through a nice little set of aperture/shutter-speed combos and compare the results. The little point and shoot digitals tend to be made with the assumption that you don't know or care about any of this stuff - that you just want a picture of whatever you're looking at and ideally all in focus.
Posted 57 months ago. ( permalink )

view photostream

geriatric says:

Let us compare two lens,a 50mm and a 200mm. At the setting of F4 both will have different size apertures. The 50mm will have an effective aperture diameter of 50/4 = 12.5mm.The 200 will be 200/4 = 50mm. the area of the `ole in the 50mm will be 3.14*(6.25^2)= 122mm. the 200mm will be 3.14*(25^2) = 1962mm.Due to the inverse square law effect there will be 16 times the light loss thru the 200mm barrel.But as the area of the 200mm is 16 times larger than the 50mm (1962/122)So the exposure values are the same.
Posted 55 months ago. ( permalink )

view photostream

JohnGoode  Pro User  says:

Hyperfocal distance very much relates to this topic. See more here:http://www.dofmaster.com/hyperfocal.html
Posted 38 months ago. ( permalink )

view photostream

a_astra says:

Useful explanation of focus and depth of field. I am deeply sure that is one of the best explanations I have ever read. Nikonian Commented.
Originally posted 8 months ago. ( permalink )
a_astra edited this topic 8 months ago.

Would you like to comment?

Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).

RSS 2.0 feedSubscribe to a feed of stuff on this page...</!!> Feed – Subscribe to Technique discussion threads
Add to My Yahoo!