Ansel Adams and Depth of Field

In another thread somebody mentioned Ansel Adams as an unusual case at photo.net of talking about a famous

photographer.

 

I briefly researched him on the web. What struck me immediately was that he was popularly famous for depth of field

and clarity of his images. I realize in the photographic community he is famous for altering his photos in post

processing. But I’m interested in depth of field and sharpness of images.

 

Depth of field and sharpness of images is probably the first issue I tried to address at this web site. But I was met

with BROKENISM (sp). I remember a long discussion with Matt where he showed me his picture of bird, not much

more than its beak was in focus, as an example of the fine art of photography. It is refreshing to find one the icons of

photography that shares an opinion as I do – it’s best to see what’s in the photo.

 

The impression I received was that depth of field and sharpness of image could not and should not be achieved with

a DLSR.

 

The only real advice I got on depth of field was use a 200mm or 300mm lens and stand about 6 or more feet a way

from a dandy-lion and take a photo.

 

Since then secretly from the world (what would they think if they found out), I’ve tried experimenting with achieving

depth of field and a sharply focused image with my DLSR.

 

Ansel Adams started a F64 club. I assume that was about depth of field.

 

How about starting a F32 or F22 club here at photo.net?

If you're using an APS-sized sensor on a DSLR your smallest safe working aperture is around f/11. Use a 'full frame'

DSLR or a 35mm and f/16 should be OK. Go any smaller and you'll run into diffraction limitation problems, so a f/22

or f/32 club will be a bit of a waste of time.

 

Ansel Adams could safely use f/64 on his 10"x8" - there was minimal enlargement so diffraction limitation didn't raise

its ugly head. Also, on large format cameras, front and rear standard movements can be used to shift the plane of

sharp focus (look up The Scheimpflug principle) which can't be done on our clever modern cameras.

 

Conversely, Ansel Adams couldn't shoot at wide apertures. Large format cameras don't have them, and although

they may focus at around f/5.6, they generally need to be stopped down to at least f/16 for acceptable sharpness.

Ok, I got an answer why it can't be done. How about an answer to why it shouldn't be done.

Huh?

 

It shouldn't be done because it can't be done. It is, as Garry says, a waste of time.

 

If you stop down past f11 on most of my lenses (f16 on a couple of them) the image softens because of diffraction, as

Garry says. So stopping down further gets a worse image... so... why would anyone do it if they know this? answer? We

don't.

 

That didn't happen with the lenses Ansel used because of the format.

Ok, So the minds of photo.net can not come up with equipment or technique to shoot past F11 or F16.

Jerry,

 

I think you're not listening.

 

If you shoot an image on a 1.5x or 1.6x crop camera at f22 or f32, it will be fuzzy and soft, whereas it might be just fine at

f11, or on some lenses at f16. (I have one macro lens I can shoot at f22 with just a little softness, usable for some things.)

 

Ansel shot at f64 because it yielded stunning image quality. Why would I want to knowingly choose an aperture on my

camera that rendered a soft, fuzzy image? Answer? I don't. Why is there no f22 or f32 club? Because people who shoot

photos know that those apertures, for crop-sensor cameras, are not generally useable.

 

So, stay between f5.6 to f11 pretty much as much as you can. on my 11-16 lens, at f8 or f11, I can get some pretty

ridiculous depth of field. I have no need to stop down further anyway.

Jerry, you need to read some basic photography theory and technique books.

Ok, it looks like the days of the Ansel Adams breathtaking scenes are over.

Maybe, my big objection was asking about depth of field and getting Matt showing me his birdy picture (did mention only the beak was in focus) as an example of the proper way to take a photo.

You are using the term depth of field incorrectly. Every photo has a certain amount of depth of field. Getting everything in focus from the closest object to infinity is maximizing depth of field. Ansel Adams usually tried to maximize depth of field by shooting at f/64. The photo you describe of only the bird beak in focus is an example of shallow depth of field which you get when shooting at wide apertures like f/1.4

 

Many lenses get sharper when stopped down to f8 or f11 but as stated above on a small format like 35mm the overall image will get softer at f22 to f32 due to diffraction. The aperture you choose is determined by the amount of light you have and artistic preference.

"The photo you describe of only the bird beak in focus is an example of shallow depth of field which you get when shooting at wide apertures like f/1.4 "

 

So, why would Matt or any of you guys start showning somebody how to shoot at F1.4 when they're trying to maximize depth of field? Are you just evil?

You can do anything you want. You can start an f64 club here for APS-C camera users who like images which are equally blurred and fuzzy at all distances. If that's the sort of image you like, you can also try pinhole photography

Jerry, I think you should take David's advice and get some basic books on photography that explain aperture and focal length and how they relate to depth of field. You need to see a photo at f1.4 in order to understand the full range of various levels of depth of field.

The learning section of this site is also a good place to start learning the basics, but you will probably want to read some

books as others suggested to compliment what you have learned from this site.

Jerry,

When you are shooting with view cameras at 8x10 inches image size, the lens because of the size of the minimum

aperture does not have so much of a diffraction problem. f/22 is a _relative_ measure and is bigger on a lens

covering 8x10 or larger than it is on a 15x22mm sensor lens.

 

Here are some cropped areas at 100% size of a shot taken at f/2.8, f/8, and f/32 on a Canon 20D with a PC-Nikkor

35mm lens. I'm sorry about the noise in the f/32 picture (a simple error in settings which required some post

processing to show the material). Even with the noise, I think you can see the additional "depth of field" from

the f/32, but the diffraction effects degrade the image slightly.<div></div>

"You need to see a photo at f1.4 in order to understand the full range of various levels of depth of field."

 

That was Matt's attempt to show me the correct way to take a photo showing his artistry. Not an attempt to educate on depth of field.

 

The majority consensus here seems to be that I’m and ignorant a-hole. So, let’s all keep taking the birdy pictures. There’s nothing that can be done about it.

 

DEATH TO ANSEL ADAMS

As photographers, we can all benefit from reading and understanding Ansel Adam's advice.

 

There's no reason why you shouldn't try. And given the right body, lens and technique; you might come close to succeeding.

 

I've sold a lot of Yosemite prints shot with my Ds2 and 35mm L lens shot at small aperture. "Depth of Field" and "clarity" is what buyers usually mention about the images. "Just do it!" and forget about the nay-sayers.

 

Ansel Adams lives!

"Use a 200mm or 300mm lens and stand about 6 or more feet a way from a dandy-lion and take a photo."

 

That's about the pinnacle of advice from photo.net.

Thanks Christopher, I knew their had to somebody else out there that's will to make efforts on good photos like Ansel Adams created.

Jerry, I think you are on the right track, you have a concept that you want to transfer to your images. Ansel Adams is widely recognized as a master of what we now call post-processing but he was truly a master of his craft. Read some of his books, The Lens and The Camera especially, to understand much of his thinking. He learned the capabilities and limitations of his equipment through experimentation, you can do the same. Did you know that some of his images were taken with his tripod mounted on a platform on the top of his car? Sometimes the foreground isn't as close as you imagine. Test your lenses to see where they go soft. Read about things like hyperfocal distance and it's limitations, experiment and enjoy.

"Ansel Adams lives!"

 

Cool... I eagerly await his new book:

 

"The Histogram"

 

:)

I better put a disclamer in. Matt's picture of the bird is nice and it is extra-ordinary. But it was displayed to me in the wrong context.

I think that most people, including myself, are confused about what you are trying to do. Do you want more or less depth

of field (more or less things in focus), while trying to maximize sharpness?

 

Everyone here is trying to help. There is no reason to start bashing photo.net.

I'm ignoring everything after Jerry's original question because it seems to have broken down somewhat (not for fault of

the people trying to answer the question). It seems like you may have received some odd advice in another post or

forum I haven't read. So I'm addressing these issues.

 

Depth of Field is not the same as sharpness, though it relies upon it. Sharpness is not necessarily resolution.

Sharpness is a combination of technical and perceptual keys that results in what we see to be "sharp." It doesn't matter

if the image is film or digital, high-iso, low-iso, etc etc. In practical terms, "sharp" is about perception.

 

Some lenses produce more contrast than others, but at the same time have less resolution. So which is sharper? If

one gets past the technical and looks at an image. It is likely that the image with more contrast but somewhat less

resolution will appear sharper. If you look at a master photo by Adams or any really good professional photographer, on

a computer at a screen size image, you can perceive the "sharpness" of the image even though the screen resolution

may be less that a 1 megapixel camera image. That is because sharpness is not just resolution or depth of field.

 

Ansel Adams was a great photographer/print and perhaps more importantly he was a great teacher. He shared the

knowledge from his experience in a form that could be replicated by photographers everywhere. Now, in general he shot

a format that most photographers aren't shooting anymore. He was using large format cameras. Using large format

cameras he could use f/32 or f/64. But his negative size was huge compared to 35mm film or a smaller digital sensor.

 

On a 35mm format camera, film or digital, you start to run into problems past f/11 or so where diffraction starts to mask

the resolution. There is a theoretical limit of resolution that diffraction will prevent you from achieving more than at small

aperture. In other words, even if you film or lens could theoretically record or transmit more data, diffraction limits the

actual resolution that is achievable at small aperture. But, and this is a big but, small aperture will give you greater

depth of field. So, while you lose resolution, the images you produce may look "sharp" from foreground to background.

Sharp in this case means "in focus." The greater the depth of field, the more of your image appears to be in focus.

 

Now from an artistic standpoint this may or may not be the desired "look." You may not want everything in focus in

order to bring out an object against the background. Either kind of image, with great or small depth of field, may be

"sharp." It depends on what the subject of the photograph is. If you are shooting a portrait, the face may be tack-sharp,

but the rest of the image is out of the depth of field. This is still a sharp photo, just minimal depth of field. Conversely,

if you look at Galen Rowell's mountain photography, shot at f/16 his resolution may be limited by diffraction (or motion at

long shutter speeds) but his images appear sharp because of the light on the subject.

 

So, I guess what I'm getting at is that depth of field relies on sharpness, not the other way around. The very concept of

depth of field relies upon the idea of circles of confusion (or acceptable sharpness). So, an F/64 club here wouldn't be

about DOF, but perhaps it would appeal to the large format photographers who could actually use F/64 for a meaningful

purpose.

Benjamin, I'm trying to get more things in focus.

 

I'm trying to get past the advice of your wrong putting things in focus and to be a good photograher you should have less things in focus.

 

Matt's birdy photo is a prime example. I've seen countless photos were the subject only have 1/16 of inch in focus were what I think would be common sense would indicate one should have inches or feet or yards in focus. These are not techicnal problems but more like the photographer has a f/1.2 lens and want to show what he can do with it.

64 blurred A.A`s `pics to a certain degree also. He also worked at great distances for many of his pics and did not need 64 always.