How much depth of field is too much? {Intimacy of Flowers}

<p>Hi! I'm working on a project called, "Floral Intimacy", and I'm having a hard time getting all of my images to feel cohesive in a group. I think part of the problem is that some have more depth of field than others. If anyone out there has a free moment, I've posted several of my images in my photo.net gallery. <br /> I also have a more thorough essay on my website - http://katiebarnes.com/art/floral-intimacy<br /> Thoughts? Advice? Anyone out there work at a calendar company? ;)<br /> Thanks in advance,<br /> Katie</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi Kate.</p>

<p> Sorry, no calendar company. As to the images, and regarding depth of view, the closer you get, the more magnification the less depth of view at a given focal length and f stop. <br>

To begin with you typically want to preview your images, does your camera have a preview, depth of view button? It's hard to use this feature well because the image will darken so much, but it is a useful tool.<br>

You'll likely find when you are working macro subjects you need the aperture to stop down to at least f16, f22 or even smaller maybe necessary although there other optical issues that start to happen when you stop down beyonf f22.<br>

I think you've chosen some nice images, in a couple of them IMHO they are a touch too centered.</p>

<p>Hi Katie, is it maybe an issue of clear background vs. not clear? I think you've got similarly shallow dof on all of them. Some just have stalks and petals in the background that do change the overall feel a bit from one shot to the next. They're lovely images. I would stick with the very shallow dof and the clear backgrounds. It looks like many of these were taken at f2.8, which I think serves them well. Beyond the aesthetics, as Douglas points out lenses suffer greatly when stopped way down. ALso use the DOF button as Douglas points out, or just take a bunch of shots at differing apertures (I assume you're using a tripod and mirror lockup/self-timer/cable release).</p>

<p>I don't really see DOF differences as an issue in that set, and the images seem to have a cohesiveness to me - they are largely straight-on, very closely cropped images of the subject.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> " think part of the problem is that some have more depth of field than others."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yup, seems like it. You can control DOF by limiting magnification ranges and selective cropping. If not, control them using sensor sizes. ie: smaller sensor size for larger magnification. A tilt and shift lens or bellow will help in some cases. Another way (more work) is use focus stacking technique and software. It can be all of the above.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>There is a real need for shots like this ( shallow DOF, low contrast and saturated colors). I feel your shots hang together well and look as though they were shot by one person with a certain style of shooting. If you have a calendar client that is requesting flower macros and you are unsure what they will buy, look at their previous calendars with the same subject to get an idea of the style they look for.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>“There is a real need for shots like this ( shallow DOF, low contrast and saturated colors). I feel your shots hang together well and look as though they were shot by one person with a certain style of shooting.”</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I totally agree – lovely shots and very cohesive!<br /> I especially like the shallow DOF shots since it gives the images a very graphical feel.</p>

<p>I also love the shots. I'm in the market for a macro lens but I'm on a budget with a Nikon D90 and considering the Sigma 70-300 but I'm not sure if that will allow me to do this type of closeup work, which is one thing I'd like to do.</p>