Help, I'm going crazy

<p>Can some please give me the link again to the dof/circle of confusion chart that is best for learning?</p>

<p>For those who doubt my questioning of the golden rule of 1/3--2/3 I suggest you look at <em>dofmaster</em> where the amount of DoF in front and behind the focus point is given as a percentage ....it shows that my idea was partly right and partly wrong, it depends on the aperture being used. <br>

Hannah .. I think CoC is pretty academic and more use would be to set up some typical situations that you plan to encounter and use <em>dofmaster</em> to find out what DoF you are likely to have. Though you should find out if the results you get are correct bearing in mind that the bigger the enlargement the less DoF that you have and we are talking about human perception rather than absolutes.</p>

<p>The problem is not using that lens which is good for close work on humans to avoid the horrible distortion a shorter focal length gives you but how you use it bearing in mind the limitations of a longer focal length lens :-) but you should also be aware that for a given image size on the sensor the DoF remains the same regardless of focal length ... the difference is perspective becuase of the distance the camera is from the subject. <a href="http://www.dofmaster.com">www.dofmaster.com</a><br>

and look on the left hand side for the link to the calculator .. or <a href="http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html">www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html</a><br>

The first is easier for me to remember but I have the page up so can give you the direct link :-)</p>

<p>Thanks! So basically circle of confusion isn't just a concept to learn, rather calculations that must be learned? How do you get to where you KNOW what the numbers are when you are out in the field and NOT sitting at your computer punching in numbers?</p>

<p>Finally another option ... selective sharpening of the young girls face and hair gets us perhaps a sharper result than the unsharpened front woman. [ I used a 7 feather ] unless my old eyes are playing up on me.</p><div></div>

<p>I gather many have the tables as an "app' or something for their cellphone whatsit ... I work at f/8 and guess :-) and keep my fingers crossed :-)<br />Hoping that I will handle it in editing.<br>

You will find the options available to you on the front page of <a href="http://www.dofmaster.com">www.dofmaster.com</a></p>

<p>Hannah, this is suppose to be easy and studying a DOF chart isn't going to guarantee you'll get what you want or make it any easier. Check for DOF sharpness in the viewfinder and take a couple of practice shots and zoom in on them viewing the camera's LCD to check what the camera recorded. </p>

<p>Set your camera's sharpness setting at a level to where you can see sharpness viewing the zoomed preview on the camera's LCD.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For those who doubt my questioning of the <em><strong>golden rule </strong></em>of 1/3--2/3 etc . . . [and explaining shooting Distances and Apertures used]</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree with you.<br />But it is <strong><em>not</em></strong> a Golden Rule: That's why I referred to it as a "<strong><em>rule of thumb</em></strong>" (a guideline) and went onto say <em>"But this assumes you have a rough idea (or better than a rough idea) of the DoF you have available."</em><br>

I have found in most Portrait Shooting Scenarios - especially with more than one person, which the OP was questioning it is a safer bet to use one third two thirds.<br />Also we must understand this very important point: if we use one half / one half and we are very tight on the front portion of the DoF and we actually ONLY have a third, then we are stuffed: but if we only allow one third in front, and we really have half in front then we are always safe: and if we KNOW to select the Focus Point BEHIND the front bit we want in reasonable focus, and we know what aperture to use in most case the back one third or one half will look after itself.<br>

So as a "simple" ruel of thumb - the thirds works for me - and it is safer than thinking in halves, IMO.</p>

<p>***</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"<em><strong>How do you get to where you KNOW what the numbers are when you are out in the field</strong></em> and NOT sitting at your computer punching in numbers?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>You can use the Axiom of DoF, to guide you.</strong><br />The more you shoot, the more "automatic" it all becomes.</p>

<p>For example, I "know" you were about 8ft away from the front woman in that shot above.<br />I didn't have to think about it - I just “know that is the framing of a shot with a 50 loaded on a 450D or 20D, 50D etc - and it is the same framing as an 85 loaded on a 5DMkII."<br />It's not magic: it is just as result of taking many portraits; being aware of what I have been doing and applying the basic Rules of Photography as I go.<br />Just like I know the span of an octave on the piano without looking, or where the clutch pedal is located . . . etc.</p>

<p>It was not magic or a photographic memory: that I rambled off that list of Apertures for shooting a B&G together as I described: it is just that I know the "rules" for a that list of SHOTS with an APS-C camera - and I know that the "thickness" of one person’s head is 12 inches.</p>

<p>Using the axiom of DoF, if you want to, you can make up some sheet cards like this:<br /><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/11721918-lg.jpg" alt="" width="347" height="500" /> <br />This cheat-sheet is for a 135 FORMAT DSLR (e.g. a 5DMkII), the cheat sheets are different for every camera format.<br />I have sheets in Portrait and Landscape presentation for every camera format I use – but having used them for so long, most are just “known” now: it’s like knowing the times-tables or nursery-rhymes.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>PS: for those who, like I, love numbers: there is a wonderful harmony in the distances at which we arrive at - if we always <strong><em>round the DoF, for safety</em></strong>.<br />You might note the harmony, in the DoF numbers on this cheat sheet.</p>

William,

 

On that first one - 5' 10' 30'

 

Shouldn't it be 5' 10' 20'

<p>James, re 135 DSLR Format</p>

<p><strong>Technical:</strong><br />SD = 17 ~ 18 ft<br />CoC = 0.025mm<br />FoV (vertical) = 8’1” ~ 8’8”<br />DoF @ F/11 ≈ 30ft (rounded for safety)</p>

<p>You might be computing at a different CoC?<br>

Or just seeing that, that set of three numbers, is not in "harmony"<br>

Note: The "number harmony" lapses as the SD gets bigger</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>Ok, Great info guys, you are all so helpful!! Please keep it coming! Also, (I'm sure it's something VERY simple, and I will slap myself on the forehead when you tell me, but what does OP stand for? )<br>

Also, off the subject, William, do you play the piano as well? That is actually something I'm good at :)</p>

<p>OP = Originating Post / Originating Poster.<br>

I "attend" the Piano: I took it up later in life (i.e. my Parents did not "send" me to Piano Lessons.)<br>

Sometimes I get it right and it sounds good. If I practiced more, I would get it right more often. My piano Teacher and I came to an agreement after I made Grade 5 - mutual separation. I am in debt to him though - he was tough as nails and believed I had zero else in my life, except time for Piano Practice.<br>

Hmm? Maybe I appear to others, as passionate about Photography Practice?<br>

Piano is one of the areas of my life where I don't do "audiences" very well - in fact not at all.<br>

I envy (in the nicest manner) your talent, skill and dedication.<br>

I am glad the comparison hit a note with you (pun intended). </p>

<p>WW </p>

<p> </p>

<p>WW,<br>

I was put in piano lessons at age 5, and had formal lessons until I was 17, My favorite teacher of all of my teachers was a 90 year old man, who kept the temp in his house 90 degrees year round, he really set me free on the piano, as we did everything in my two years with him, by ear.:) I don't do anything professionally, although I could teach, but in my current situation that wouldn't work with my 2 year old playing accompaniament on the other end :P<br>

NOW, if I can only get my photography as up to par as my piano playing! I actually have more of a passion for that than the piano! I started with a point and shoot Minolta, something or other, and actually took better pics then, now, that I'm gettnig nicer equipment, it seems that I'm moving backwards<br>

:( Hmmmm, This must change!</p>

WW,

 

It just looked odd, after you mentioned harmony, that all the distances would double for every two aperture stops except the full length that tripled when going from f/5.6 to f/11.

 

I also was sent for piano lessons from several years as a young boy. My teacher, Mrs. Davis, only taught me how to play just what was written on the sheet music. The music would get more difficult as the years went on. Still, I would only be given several bars a week to practice and learn and then the next week I would be given another several more bars of the song to do. It would be a month or two before I could play the entire song. I never could just sit down and immediately play a song as written.

 

Many years later a friend told me how to play the piano despite those years of lesson. Just go by the top bars or lead sheet. Play the melody notes or tune using octaves (thumb on G little finger on upper G) and play the chords as indicated. Shazzam! I can now sit down, open a music book and play a song right through. It sounds good and looks good. It is easy to hold the finger spread for octaves and with the other fingers touching but not striking the keys in between it looks like I am doing much more than I am.

 

Ansel Adams was also a pianist. The world may have lost a fine concert pianist when he decided to fool around with photography. Some of his writings have musical metaphors - "The negative is the score, the print is the performance."

<p>Hannah, James,<br>

Thanks,</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hannah, people are confusing you. You don't need to know ANYTHING about the circle of confusion to shoot good photos! Generally, manufacturers limit their lenses to apertures that will not be too big or too small for you to get pretty clear pictures, so long as you keep the subject and camera pretty still (or at least moving together) and have the subject in focus properly. Short exposure times certainly does help for that.<br>

-<br>

It seems to me that you are probably pixel-peeping. Be careful not to fall into the trap of pixel-peeping, because while that does help photographers become better at what they do (with knowledge gained by doing research into why they should get this or that in order to make better image quality), it can become something more important to you than the really important stuff, such as lighting, composition, subject choice, location selection, etc.<br>

-<br>

If you think you HAVE been pixel-peeping, ask yourself, "Why? Does it really matter that much if a picture looks a little grainy?" If it matters to you that much, you should get yourself a Sigma SD1 or a Canon 5 D Mark 2 (also called the 5 D Mk II). Then get yourself a couple of really amazing lenses. It will be expensive, if you go this route, but it will help you improve your photos dramatically. It won't help you improve your lighting or composition, so you could still take bad photos (not that I think your photos aren't good or anything like that, but it is not the equipment that makes a good photo, though image quality certainly is partly a matter of equipment used).<br>

-<br>

You will always have trade-offs. It's how you handle then that matters. Read lots of articles. Do not worry so much about depth of field. You can blur backgrounds in Photoshop (which is something you should learn how to do). That is no always the answer to the problem of separating the subject from the background, but sometimes it will fix a problem you are having with a particular type of photo composition, such as the shot with the dog, which could have been cured by focusing on the belt of the man, and having the couple hold the dog closer to them, so the three would all be in the same plane of focus.<br>

-<br>

With all that said, I do try to shoot at a low ISO, but I also try to shoot at high apertures, such as f5.6 and f8 (because that is where most lenses perform better - for capturing higher definition photos). The two don't always go together, so I will often change the way I am using light, in order to allow me to shoot at faster shutter speeds. Sometimes it is just a matter of telling the person/people you are shooting to stay as still as possible. Sometimes it is a matter of holding your camera "more still" - there are many techniques for this.<br>

-<br>

I'm sure that by now you have read many articles, but just in case you have not, here are some llinks:<br>

-<br>

http://www.photo.net/learn/photography-technique<br>

http://youtu.be/_L8bqPKSpyw<br>

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dof2.shtml<br>

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/practice.shtml<br>

http://www.imaging-resource.com/BETTERPICS.HTM<br>

http://youtu.be/2OXpPDl58Nc</p>

<p>Scott,<br>

I'm afraid that I fit the definition of a pixel peeper to an extreme 't'! If I can't maximize it to 100% and like the results, I'm not happy! Apparently, I will need to check myself into therapy for this problem! :O<br>

I do not have the full frame body, but I do have a Canon 50mm 1.4 and a Canon 70-200mm 2.8 IS :)</p>

<p>William W .... I expect the 'rule of thumb' has gottern wide spread acceptance because in years gone by the normal operating aperture was smaller than it often is today. A quick glance at the dofmaster calculator, and I mean to return at some stage and confirm or negate this, is that the distance at which the 33/66% starts to move towards the 50/50% varies with the aperture and while it was around 37ft at f/4 with the 50mm lens, at f/8 is was back close to 20ft. <br>

Habits die hard and I too would tend to use 33/66 instead of 50/50 until I think again when in close, as it is only in recent years have I learnt about the change. I don't see that there is any practical difference between 33% and 50% except usually it is more important to have the closer subject sharp than the more distant one so focusing at 33% of the 'hoped for' DoF gives a measure of safety .... just don't focus on the closer subject as perhaps happened in the example.<br>

I think you make a good point that it is experience that produces the results and since DoF diminishes with enlargement anything one gets from the calculator is approximate since the potential for the Circle of Confusion obtained in the camera to be varied in the display.<br>

The OP's orginal comment that at 100% it was mush [ or something]. My answer that that is the need to know what an editor can do to help ... partly based on the oft cry of those newly changed from P&S to DSLR that their results are not as good becuase the P&S makes the corrections without being asked and the DSLR doesn't. Plus the comments from portraitists the suggestion to sharpen just the eyes .... often the camera cannot do it all and editing is needed becuase the judgements the photographer makes in the field are not always correct..</p>

<p>JC Uknz,<br />Indeed . . . many "Rules of Thumb" tend, with time and repetitive voice, to become "Law" or "Fact".<br>

Re: your point previously in this thread about rotating the camera and the DoF:<br />It is good to know the limitations of Focus and Recompose, and IMO it was good you brought this point up here.<br />Co-incidentally this matter was raised in another conversation: and that conversation was brought to my attention - <a href="http://www.photoforum.com.au/showthread.php?55139-focus-and-recompose-digital-photo-school-article&p=468731#post468731">in this conversation</a>, where it was subsequently discussed further.<br />As the RELEVANCE of Parallax Error of Focus and Recompose was touched on in this thread, I thought some might like to read the above. My guess is you would anyway, as I thought of you and this thread particularly.</p>

<p>Regards,<br />WW</p>

<p>Hey Hannah, you have a couple of good lenses there. Do yourself a favor and get yourself a 60 D. You will find yourself never waiting for photos to write to memory cards, because that camera has a much bigger buffer. Then, when you can afford it, get yourself a 5 D Mk II. You can use the two cameras in conjunction with your two good lenses, and you will have a great kit. I suggest a 16-35mm f2.8 L too. You might love wide angle! That lens is wonderful.<br>

-<br>

If I were buying a new Canon 60 D, I would get it in a kit with the 18-135mm f3.5-f5.6 - that lens is amazing! It's a perfect range for all-around shooting with the 60 D too.</p>

<p>William W ... thankyou for the link ... the critical point was highlighted 'Real but not relevant' :-)<br>

The other point I picked up regarding the point of sharp focus being a curve ... I would hope with the good lenses we use today the focus is a tangent not a radius.<br>

If you are going to use large apertures, f/1.8 and larger you do not use focus and recompose but assuming you have time set the spot focus to the appropriate point Something which I have just acquired with my Pany G3 and its touch screen, my old D60 only has three points in a horizontal line. previously shooting with my bridge camera with its short lens even at full zoom and normally at f/5.6 focus-and-recompose never gives rise to problems. Different gear, different techniques :-)<br>

I think the OP should never judge a picture, to dump it, on the basis of it being un-edited but alway after appropriate editing has taken place. I don't think she should lower her standards but use them at the final point rather than part way through the process.</p>

 

<p>Been back to <em>dofmaster</em> and for a 55mm lens the 34/66 point ranges from 120feet at f/1.4 back in to 11 feet at f/16. I was less successful in finding the 50/50 point which seems very close at large apertures but the programme seemed to object to my changing the figures on it and I gave up.</p>

<p>Play with sand Hannah. If you can find an area with sand (ripples in the sand are really helpful too), you can lay down and shoot across the sand at various focal distances and various apertures. Then you can look at the photos in your camera later. I sugest setting up a bunch of cans or bottles in a row, about 1 foot apart, and shoot from about 2 feet from the closest one. Focus on that one first, and then change your aperture from f4 to f5.6, then f8, then f11. Then you can focus on the next bottle or can, and repeat the process. You'll have to adjust your shutter speed down, as you adjust your f-stop numbers up. Use an ISO like 200, or 400, and start with a shutter speed of 1/500 or 1/1000, so you can come down, cutting it in half, to let in light for longer periods of time, as you make your apertures smaller (cutting down light that is coming through the lens). When you are done, you should have four photos, focused at each distance. If you keep the bottles/cans a little to the right or left (in a row, stepping away from you), you will see what happens to the depth of field by the sand and the bottles/cans.</p>