File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Soup /p/eople?
So I went shooting today and i'm not entirely liking the results but I managed to get this somewhat decent shot. Lemme know what you think / what you think could be done to improve it.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsPhotographerhttp://reinfected.deviantart.comMaximum Lens Aperturef/5.6Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:03:29 00:47:47Exposure Time1/500 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramShutter PriorityISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/5.6Exposure Bias2 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length88.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1200Image Height800RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Here's it switched to b/w.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsPhotographerhttp://reinfected.deviantart.comMaximum Lens Aperturef/5.6Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:03:29 00:47:34Exposure Time1/500 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramShutter PriorityISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/5.6Exposure Bias2 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length88.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1200Image Height800RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
Is there something that's in focus?
>> Anonymous
>>150078
Just the person in the far left.
>> Anonymous
>>150079
PROTIP: She is not in focus.
>> Anonymous
>>150094
lawl the far fence behind her is though
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
Wow, that is some seriously hamfisted gaussian blur. The in-focus part of a picture should be a plane, not a cylindrical corridor.

This wouldn't be too bad if you'd actually taken it with a wide-aperture lens rather than trying to photoshop in the optics and failing badly. You're shooting with a Rebel XT. You can get a 50/1.8 for like $75 brand-spankin'-new.
>> Anonymous
>>150129
College Student = Lack of money. The only reason I have the camera I have now is because my mom decided to upgrade her camera.

She's also a huge bitch with lending me a decent lens.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>150189
What lenses do you have?
>> Anonymous
>>150193
I'm currently using the kit lens that came with my K2 because it's 90mm vs 55mm that the XT came with. I'd love love love to buy a wide angle lens but I really need to get my act together so I can buy a laptop.

Bah, life sucks.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>150200
Do you have the 18-55 kit? Because 18 on the crop sensor is plenty wide for most uses.

I'd recommend getting closer and zooming out. That'll let you use a wider aperture (and therefore a shallower DoF). Probably won't give you *too* much help, since you're stuck with the kit lens' crappy maximum aperture, but might help a little. From the framing here, the wider angle wouldn't have screwed up your composition (and probably would've helped it)
>> Anonymous
>>150189
The 50/1.8 is $80. Cut back $5 a week for sixteen weeks and it's yours. $10 a week for 8, $20 a week for 4. I don't mean to be pedantic, but it's instructive to see how relatively easy it is to save up for things like this. Spend $10 less a week and the 50/1.8 is yours in two months, cash.

Or, go donate blood plasma. You sit in a lobby and then get hooked up to a machine for a few hours, you walk out with money.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>150222
Or he could fuck eight fat chicks for $10 each.

Or one *really* fat chick for $80.
>> Anonymous
>>150222
You just sparked my interest with the blood plasma thing. How much money would I get?

Fuck if I knew I could get that much money doing that I would have done that ages ago.
>> Anonymous
>>150248
It depends on where you go. Everywhere pays differently, but it's usually worth it, even with altruism aside. Usually it's some larger amount for your first time at that center, too.
>> Anonymous
>>150224
This is the only solution.
>> Anonymous
>>150217

bad advice is bad

get as telephoto as you can and open the apeture as much as you can - that will give you DOF

The less telephoto ("wider") the lense, the less shallow the DOF will be

best wishes
monti
>> Anonymous
>>150313
Focal lenghth affects perspective, not depth of field.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>150313
Not actually true.

DoF is affected by two things: How close (relative to your focal length) you're focused, and the aperture.

I.e., if your subject is the same size in your viewfinder, and you keep the same aperture, you'll have the same DoF with a 1200mm f/5.6 as you will with a 12mm f/5.6.

The reason it *seems* like telephotos give you a shallower DoF is twofold:
1. The perspective shift means that the out-of-focus areas seem closer in a telephoto shot
2. Normally, when you zoom in, you do it because you can't get closer. So your focused closer relative to the lens's focal length (i.e., your main subject will appear larger), which *does* change your DoF. But if you take a few steps back so your shot is framed the same way as it was before, you'll have the same DoF.

So, an actual wider aperture will give you shallower DoF whereas zooming in will not.

And now you know.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
>>150318
>>150315

ahh, the holy diptych.
>> Anonymous
>>150318

monti here:

I'm afraid that's a myth - saying that "focal length is irrelevant in DOF" because To use telephoto, you have to back up (which increases DOF). *To get close, you have to use wide-angle (which increases DOF). *They cancel each other out. Well actually *No they don't. *I mean, yes, technically they do, but just try it, look at your shots and you'll see, the telephoto shot clearly, clearly looks like the background is more out of focus. *Whether it's technically as "in-focus" or not is irrelevant, the telephoto lens delivers the optical illusion that the background is more out of focus, and that's what we want: the APPEARANCE that the background is out of focus.

DOF is influenced by three factors: closeness to subject, focal length of lens, and aperture setting.

Basically this is how it breaks down..:

SHALLOWER DOF -------------- DEEPER DOF
Close to subject -------------- Far away from subject
Telephoto Lens --------------- Wide-Angle Lens
Open Aperture ---------------- Smaller aperture


Also it helps to have a good distance between the subject and the background, examples being large streets, open fields, etc. The further they are from the background, the more the background will be out of focus.

Pretty much the most important thing will be keeping that iris open as much as possible - and if it blows out your picture, put on some ND filters (if you still want motion blur) or just bump up that shutter speed.

thanks guys
monti
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
>>150318
true

i used to believe what is said by anon in this thread though.. then i noticed i could get very nice DoF with the 14mm II (L) when the subject was up close.
>> Anonymous
>>150324
Who the fuck is Monti and why is he on our board?
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
>>150337

he's monti.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>150337
O HAY, DID SOMEONE SAY MY NAME?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
     File :-(, x)
>>150324
Well, I don't have the exact lens that the OP has, so I simulated the focal lengths and apertures he has available with my 35mm f/2.0 and my 80-200 f/4.5-5.6.

First up, the 35mm at f/3.5

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiFirmware VersionFirmware 1.1.1Owner NameunknownSerial Number0420104373Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:03:29 18:11:33Exposure Time1/80 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/3.5Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length35.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3888Image Height2592RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualScene Capture TypeStandardExposure ModeManualFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeCenter-WeightedSharpnessUnknownSaturationNormalContrastNormalShooting ModeManualImage SizeLargeFocus ModeOne-ShotDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOffCompression SettingFineMacro ModeNormalWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed224Camera Actuations-237633376Color Matrix129
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
     File :-(, x)
>>150349
Now, 80mm f/5.6

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiLens Size80.00 - 200.00 mmFirmware VersionFirmware 1.1.1Owner NameunknownSerial Number0420104373Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:03:29 18:12:39Exposure Time1/80 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/5.6Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length80.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3888Image Height2592RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualScene Capture TypeStandardExposure ModeManualFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeCenter-WeightedSharpnessUnknownSaturationNormalContrastNormalShooting ModeManualImage SizeLargeFocus ModeOne-ShotDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOffCompression SettingFineMacro ModeNormalWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed224Camera Actuations-237633360Color Matrix129
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>150349
>>150350
Now, see how the Shur-Flash looks blurrier in the wider-angle shot? That's because it has a wider aperture. Wider aperture, shallower DoF. The squirrel's the same size in both shots.

Love and Kisses,
ac
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>150349
Your squirrel test is irrelevant, I'm saying be wide open on both shots ... here let me show you...

~monti

first pic included at wide angle
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>150362
>I'm saying be wide open on both shots
He's using a Rebel K2 kit lens.

"Wide open" at the wide end of the lens is f/3.5 while "wide open" at the telephoto end is f/5.6
>> Anonymous
Godamnit it wont let me upload the second - picture keeps saying duplicate..

here it is: http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/7259/doftest2withteleur4.jpg

Both were shot at identical aperture (f/2.8 ) and in the wide shot, I moved as close as possible and focused as close as possible to minimize DOF. On the Tele shot I zoomed in as far as possible, then got as close as I could (while maintaining the same image size). I think most viewers will agree that the tele shot, while maintaining the same aperture and the same image size, looks like it has much shallower DOF.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>150362
F/4... not wide open, but the first aperture that matches up exactly on the lens. (The scale changes across the range.)

72mm, 432mm equivalent. (This is a superzoom point and shoot, going from wide to supertele, just to drive this point home.

Both resized bicubic sharper, but other than that, taken straight from the raw file with NR and sharpening turned off.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePanasonicCamera ModelDMC-FZ8Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Elements 5.0 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:03:29 18:10:32Exposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeSpotFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length72.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width600Image Height398
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>150372
6mm, 36mm equivalent.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePanasonicCamera ModelDMC-FZ8Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Elements 5.0 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:03:29 18:14:57Exposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeSpotFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length6.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width600Image Height398
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>150362
>>150364
You need to keep the advice I gave in the context of the equipment and scene that I gave it.

I will grant you that the DoF on a telephoto shot might look shallower if the wide includes a bunch of distracting crap that's in focus whereas the telephoto's field of view only gets the blurry stuff in frame.

(I.e., the blurriness of the wall is the same in both shots, just that the telephoto shot cuts out the closer bits of the wall that are closer to the focus plane)

But he's got a Rebel K2's kit lens, which means he's only got angles from normal to medium tele. Additionally, the particular scene he's got doesn't have a big white wall in the background to blur, it's got a nice lake scene.

The framing difference between the normal end of his zoom and the tele end of his zoom won't be enough to cut out huge swaths of the background, but the additional aperture he gains from using the wide end will make it a little bit more blurry.
>> Anonymous
>>150381

"The DoF on a telephoto shot might look shallower if the wide includes a bunch of distracting crap that's in focus whereas the telephoto's field of view only gets the blurry stuff in frame."

What are you talking about dude - it would be the same with the lake shot - compare my two shots again - in the wider one, at the same apeture, the stuff behind it isn't blurry, then in my telephoto shot, the lawn ornament is the same size, yet the background is *BLURRED*, because that's simply how telephoto works, it compresses the DOF -

Try this - shoot a ruler on a wider lense - make sure all of it is in frame. Then shoot the same ruler, with the whole thing in frame, on a telephoto lense. You will see that the ruler is much more in focus where as the telephoto lense will drop off in blur much more quickly.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>150389
>in the wider one, at the same aperture, the stuff behind it isn't blurry
First off, again, it wouldn't be the same aperture. It would be wide with a wider aperture.
Secondly, the stuff in the background *is* blurry. It's just blurry and smaller. Look at just the strip of wall that's in both pictures and you'll see that it is, in fact, out of focus.

You didn't include EXIF. What camera and focal lengths were these shots taken with?

Finally, try this experiment instead: Get *two* rulers, stand them so one's vertical and one's horizontal pointing away from you.

Fill the frame with the vertical ruler in both shots and shoot with just enough aperture to get the whole horizontal ruler in focus in the wide shot. Then, do the same thing telephoto. The whole horizontal ruler will still be in focus.
>> Anonymous
>>150396

It was shot with a Panasonic DVX100A 24p 1/48th shutter speed

And as for the whole argument about it being the "same amount of blur in both shots" and the fact that merely the angle of viewing changes and bla bla bal

-- that's a technogeek explanation that (while technically accurate) completely disagrees with the observable evidence. The APPEARANCE of shallower depth of field is absolutely influenced by the focal length of the lens. Change your camera position so that you have equivalent framing, and you'll see the appearance of much shallower DOF in the telephoto shot.

-monti
>> Anonymous
>>150413

see

>>150372
>>150374.

A longer focal length isolates and abstracts the subject more, but that's an effect of perspective. That's the observable effect you're talking about. Depth of field is an entirely different phenomena. Both of them can be used to selectively control the look of a photograph, but they are different phenomena.

And if you want a name on here, get yourself a tripcode.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>150486
And here's a 100% crop of the 6mm frame. See? The same amount of blur of the cars in the parking deck as the frame at 72mm.

(Those are cars and that's a parking deck in the background.)

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePanasonicCamera ModelDMC-FZ8Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Elements 5.0 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:03:29 18:37:35Exposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeSpotFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length6.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width845Image Height116
>> Anonymous
You're still missing my point - when wider that shallow depth of field isn't as noticable - you aren't going to crop to 600% to show it off every time are you?

If you're doing something really hard (motion work) no way in hell!

So when you use telephoto it's the APPEARANCE of shallower depth of field as I was saying earlier. It doesn't matter if it technically is the same or not, that's just geek-speak to be honest, it's what the audience sees and percieves - that's all

re read my post here:
>>150413
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>150562
And my point was that the difference in perspective between 28mm and 90mm on a crop sensor isn't enough to cancel out the actual DoF advantage he'd get from going from f/5.6 to f/3.5.