PDA

View Full Version : Selective Focus with fast lens



Pages : 1 [2]

Lee L
01-23-2010, 07:02 PM
What does this mean: for equal subject framing and equal DOF impression on the final print you keep c/m constant. The larger the film, the larger the circles of confusion may become before a section looks blurry, but at the same time the larger the magnification m becomes. After all is said and done, only the aperture diameter determines your DOF.
Doesn't hold. Here's a 50mm and 100mm comparison, both at 25mm aperture diameter (f:2 and f:4 respectively), both at 0.0101 magnification and same CoC on 35mm film. Same formulae and results as DoFMaster. DoF doesn't match between images.

See: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/06/depth-of-field-hellthe-sequel.html

Lee

df cardwell
01-23-2010, 07:54 PM
Wonder what happens when the magnification of the subject = magnification image in the PRINT ?

Lee L
01-23-2010, 08:22 PM
You can play around with different lenses, apertures, CoC, etc with Schneider's spreadsheet: http://www.schneideroptics.com/software/DOF_Calculator.xls

If you don't have MS Excel, this spreadsheet (and nearly all others) works fine in the free (in multiple senses) openoffice calc spreadsheet, available at www.openoffice.org

You could set up your spreadsheet numbers however you want to get the print magnification / reproduction ratios you want to try.

Lee

Leighgion
01-23-2010, 09:14 PM
If you think you're "abusing" thin depth of field, you're obviously being brainwashed by the f64 crowd. :)

Resist! You use as thin a depth of field as you want to. No more.

JBrunner
01-24-2010, 01:13 AM
If you think you're "abusing" thin depth of field, you're obviously being brainwashed by the f64 crowd. :)

Resist! You use as thin a depth of field as you want to. No more.

Sometimes I'm f64 and sometimes I'm f1.3. The only thing I abuse is myself. Hmm.. that didn't come out the way I meant it...:p

Rudeofus
01-24-2010, 06:47 AM
Doesn't hold. Here's a 50mm and 100mm comparison, both at 25mm aperture diameter (f:2 and f:4 respectively), both at 0.0101 magnification and same CoC on 35mm film. Same formulae and results as DoFMaster. DoF doesn't match between images.

That's a different comparison. We both maintain same framing with different focal lengths, but I vary film size and keep subject distance the same, whereas you keep film size constant and change subject distance. In your case the COC has to stay the same for same DOF, whereas in my case COC must scale with frame size. In your case aperture number determines DOF (i.e. a 50mm lens at F/2.8 will have same DOF as a 300mm lens at F/2.8). In my case you must keep aperture diameter the same to maintain DOF (50mm F/1.4 on 35mm film has same DOF as 110mm F/2.8 on 6x7 film).

To add further to your confusion: in your case (constant film size) the 50/2.8 will have the same DOF as a 300/2.8, but far distance points will blur much more with the 300/2.8. It all boils down to the old saying: a COC is a bunch of photographers discussing about DOF :D

Rudeofus
01-24-2010, 07:06 AM
If you think you're "abusing" thin depth of field, you're obviously being brainwashed by the f64 crowd. :)

Resist! You use as thin a depth of field as you want to. No more.
Since large aperture lenses have become some form of status symbols, quite a few folks use razor thin DOF to distinguish themselves from "teh crowd", whether it suits the picture or not. It's just so damn tempting to open up that large aperture lens to show them super zoom toting n00bz, and in the more gadget oriented forums you can read hordes of folks cheering the bokeh in dull and random shots of the family cat.

And to be dead honest: I still cringe when I need to stop down my 85L and later curse myself for screwing up a potentially good shot with overly thin DOF which leaves important subject matter blurred or obscures the context the subject is interacting with. Unfortuately it takes a while before the novelty of thin DOF wears off and image composition becomes the main consideration when choosing aperture. I think that's what people mean with "abusing thin DOF" ..

Q.G.
01-24-2010, 07:32 AM
This mystical and mythical entity called DoF again...

Movements (tilts and shifts) have been mentioned a couple of times.
They do not change DoF. Only reposition the plane of focus in space. And with it the position occupied by that mystical area called DoF. The magnitude of DoF itself remains unchanged.
So movements do not increase or decrease DoF. They just move its position.

Lee L
01-24-2010, 09:37 AM
In your case aperture number determines DOF (i.e. a 50mm lens at F/2.8 will have same DOF as a 300mm lens at F/2.8).


To add further to your confusion: in your case (constant film size) the 50/2.8 will have the same DOF as a 300/2.8, but far distance points will blur much more with the 300/2.8.
Well, it does add to the confusion when you say the DoF is the same, but different.

Below is an example of the first case you've given above. Claiming that a 300 f:2.8 has the same DoF as a 50 f:2.8 at the same magnification. It doesn't.

Your take often appears close enough to be valid at close distances, but doesn't hold at further distances. Read the Ctein article I linked to and run some examples.

Lee

Rudeofus
01-24-2010, 02:46 PM
The response to Lee's post is a little heavy on the math side and possibly completely off topic for the original question. What I would like to do here is provide an explanation for analog photographers how circles of confusion behave for different media, focal lengths and distance ranges, how they affect DOF and far distance blur. If folks deem this as too off topic for this thread, please move it to some more suitable forum or make an article out of it. If you don't want to read through this whole mess, scroll al the way down for the most relevant conclusions.

I would like to start my explanation with the equation published in the highly relevant wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion): c = m*A*|S2-S1|/S2.

c .... diameter of the circle of confusion in the film plane
m ... magnification: size of the image of the subject in focus divided by its real size
A ... diameter of the aperture (not the aperture number !! )
S2 ... distance of a point which is out of focus and creates a circle of confusion with diameter c
S1 ... distance the lens is focussed on. Points at this distance are projected into the film plane as sharp points.

Let's analyze this equation: for a given focal length and aperture, and a given distance S1 we can calculate m, and from there create a function c(S2), which shows how the COC diameter changes with distance. Around S1 the COC diameter rises linearly with S2, but as S2 moves further and further away towards infinity, c(S2) starts to saturate, i.e. it converges towards a maximum. Infinite points are not infinitely blurry!

How does DOF come into this? We can establish a depth of focus by (arbitrarily) setting a limit for c, the diameter of the COC. Note, that the subject doesn't abruptly switch from tack sharp to blurry, but that the blur increases gradually as a point moves further and further out of focus. This means that DOF describes only one characteristic number of the whole COC behavior. Setups with the same DOF can have totally different behavior at different distances from the focus point!

One more important implication from the original equation: (S2-S1)/S2 saturates if S2 goes towards infinity. If m is very small (i.e. large focus distance S1, short focal length), c may never reach its limit set for the COC, even if S2 goes towards infinity! This is the range photographers call the hyperfocal range. Again, this hyperfocal range is nothing which abruptly appears. As m gets smaller and smaller, the c_max gets smaller and smaller.

Let's back this up with a few examples (all distances in meters unless noted otherwise):
1. 50mm F/2.8 lens focussed at a distance of S1 = 2
m = f/S1 = 25e-3
A = f/2.8 = 17.9e-3
c = 446e-6 * |S2-S1|/S2

2. 300mm F/2.8 focussed at a distance of S1 = 12
m = f/S1 = 25e-3
A = f/2.8 = 107e-3
c = 2679e-6 * |S2-S1|/S2

If we compare these two results, we see: while the proportional factor is larger for the 300mm lens, so is S1. For small c limits, these two effects cancel each other and we get the same DOF. Still: if S2 goes towards infinity, the term |S2-S1|/S2 converges towards 1. This means, that the 300mm lens blurs inifinite points much more than the 50mm lens does!

So what happens, if we increase S1 tenfold, like Lee has done in his example?

The magnification goes down by a factor of 10, so we get a c50 = 44.6e-6*|S2-S1|/S2 and a c300 = 267.9e-6*|S2-S1|/S2. Since Lee imposed a c_max of 30e-6, the term |S2-S1|/S2 must get rather close to 1 for c50 to reach this value. But since |S2-S1|/S2 saturates at one, we need much larger S2 to reach c50 = 30e-6 ! We are deep in the hyperfocal range! The proportioality constant for c300, however, is still much larger than the 30Ám limit, so |S2-S1|/S2 can stay well below 1 where it behaves like a linear function. In Lee's example the 50mm lens is in the hyperfocal range, but the 300mm lens is not.


Until now we have only changed the focal length and focus distance, but how does film format size matter? Again, the equation from wikipedia answers this question completely:

If the film format increases by factor n, the magnification m must increase by the same amount n to maintain the subject frame. So if we adjust the focal length of the lens to the film format (e.g. use 110mm lens for RZ67 instead of 50mm for EOS 3), we keep S1 the same. If we also keep the aperture diameter A the same, we get increased COC diameter, again, by factor n.

It is now up to the photographer whether he/she accepts a larger c for the larger film frame. If we want to produce the same print, c may become larger for the larger film size, since we need to enlarge less. If the whole point of the larger film frame is increased image detail, we would not accept larger c just because of the larger film frame. If the film frame gets way larger, e.g. 4x5" instead of 35mm, the LF lenses may not be as sharp as the 35mm lenses, so we may accept a somewhat larger COC limit, but not by the whole frame size quotient. It's these considerations which make comparisons between frame size so subjective!

If we accept an increase in c_max by the factor n, nothing changes for DOF. The 110mm F/2.8 lens for my RZ67 does roughly the same as a 50mm F/1,4 lens would do on my EOS3, since they produce roughly the same view angle at the same distance and they also have the same aperture diameter. Note, that technically 110/50 is slightly larger than 2.8/1.4, so the RZ67 should have slightly less DOF at comparable framing. Since, as mentioned before, out of focus blur does not happen abruptly but comes in gradually, it is very difficult to see small DOF changes in a real image. Therefore I would consider the before mentioned RZ and EOS setup sufficiently close to be equivalent.

If I want to take full advantage of the additional resolution the RZ67 affords me, I must not increase the c_max limit for the larger frame. In this case I need to stop down the RZ lens even more, towards F/5.6 in order to stay within my self imposed COC limits!

I hope this explanation has helped clarify the whole DOF/COC topic for all those who made it through my post.

Here are the essential results:
1. At the same short distance, and with the same aperture number (e.g. F/5.6) you get same DOF regardless of focal length.
2. The back ground blur depends mostly on m*A, which means the closer your main subject is and the larger your aperture diameter, the more blurred the far away back ground gets. This means, that it's much easier to get dreamy back ground blur with a long focal length lens! Similarly, even with a large aperture number, a wide angle lens will not blur the back ground too much.
3. In order to guestimate the back ground blur one can think of the aperture disk placed at the main subject. The aperture disk will appear as large in the film plane as infinite points will be blurred.
4. At some distance, the back ground blur will be too small to look blurry. Shorter focal length lenses do this at shorter distances than tele lenses. This distance is called the hyperfocal distance.

JBrunner
01-24-2010, 03:01 PM
This mystical and mythical entity called DoF again...

Movements (tilts and shifts) have been mentioned a couple of times.
They do not change DoF...

Nobody said they did.

darinwc
01-24-2010, 03:55 PM
To address the OP..
While our eyes have a limited depth of field, most people are not aware of it because we focus on whatever we are looking at it.

Part of creating eye-catching photos is presenting something not often seen.
Using a narrow depth of field is an artistic tool that allows one to do just that.

In addition, using narrow dof / large apertures allow the photogrpher freedom from some common problems. Namely distracting backgrounds and blur caused by camera shake.

However narrow dof introduces one shortfall to photos. You can only see one thing. There is no option to scan the frame and see what is going on behind or in front of the subject. Once you have seen the main subject, you may as well turn the page and go on to the next image.

So if you like narrow dof, then by all means use it. But get really good at it, or only use it when you need it.
Don't use it as a fixall.

Thebes
02-15-2010, 05:45 PM
I think most people aren't consciously aware of their eye's shallow DOF, but only in so much as they don't have the structural framework to consider it. We have the vocabulary and reference points to discuss it. This does not mean, however, that they don't see it. My wife certainly sees it in photos, sometimes says things like "I want a camera that makes my pictures look better" and then shows me images with shallow DOF emphasising the subject and blurring an otherwise disturbing background; and she realizes her own vision is like that. Though she has no language for it, she easily sees the difference between an 8x10 print from a 4x5 and one from a d-slr. These are not things many photographers believe the naive viewer of their works can see- I hold that most viewers do, they just have no ability to provide a reference point and language for what they see.

Also, I disagree with the notion that shallow DOF is a tool the average viewer doesn't see often. Most people watch a couple of movies a week, and they see quite a bit of imagery with shallow DOF, it is a common cinematic tool. Cinema is photography at 24 pictures a second with soundtrack... I don't think that enough photographers consider how cinema shapes their viewers' perception of imagery. Perhaps the generally high production value of cinematic imagery causes a false perception of value even with inappropriate use of shallow DOF.

keithwms
02-15-2010, 06:16 PM
Nobody said they did [change DOF].

Well, I sorta did; mea culpa....


Then there is the issue of tilts, which make it very easy to produce extremely shallow DOF on some MF and most LF cameras.

...and to clarify, I should have written that tilts can evoke shallower DOF by allowing the photographer to focus selectively.

Along those lines, we are all familiar with the 'miniaturizing' effect of extremely selective focus via tilts. Oddly, this seems to affect every one in roughly the same way- and not only those of us who've done a lot of macro photography and are used to fighting for DOF when we do. But even those who've never even touched a macro lens also seem to associate selective focus with miniaturization. Apparently we are trained by cinema and other media to perceive it that way (as Thebes just noted).

erikg
02-16-2010, 09:06 AM
Keith, I've often wondered about that. I grew up with model trains and I saw a lot of photos of actual tiny towns, but I wonder how everyone seems to make that connection. There is even a "diorama" filter on the Olympus EP-2, but I shouldn't say anymore about that here. Maybe it is from the cinema. Interesting question of perception I think.

keithwms
02-16-2010, 10:54 AM
Erik, when I started my 1:1 stuff, locking the bellows on an LF camera to ensure true 1:1, I was immediately ocnfonted with the fact that only the objects in the plane of focus will be 1:1. Hence we perceive, for good reason, that objects outside the plane of focus (= out of focus elements) are necessarily rendered at some other scale. As for how this works with the eyeball, it is something trickly about the brain that we perceive infinite DOF when we look at things, but... of course, the eye is ultimately just a kind of lens which does have finite DOF.

There are many interesting perceptual oddities, not just in sight but analogously in sound as well.