Opinions on photos for a depth of field project!!

Hello! My assignment is to post two photos, one with a small DoF and one with a larger DoF.

 

The first one was shot with a wider aperture, second one is around f16

both shot with a 35mm f1.8 from Nikon

 

The photos are both attached! thank you!

 

 

{ }

 

Edited April 9, 2018 by William Michael

For whatever reason the first photo only shows as a link

 

MOD NOTE: It should be showing as an image now.

Edited April 9, 2018 by William Michael

For whatever reason the first photo only shows as a link

Welcome. You are new here and admittedly the information is (a) not that easy to find and (b) outdated: Forum Guidelines | Photo.net and Image Size FAQ. - in essence images with a maximum size of 1000 pixels should display inline, larger ones show as a ling. Apparently, as your post shows, that's not necessarily the case either. But in general, one should limit uploads to 1000 pixels on the long side and 100kB (or at most 300kB).

 

I don't understand what your assignment is and what you are attempting to get out of posting the two images - maybe you could elaborate?

Welcome. You are new here and admittedly the information is (a) not that easy to find and (b) outdated: Forum Guidelines | Photo.net and Image Size FAQ. - in essence images with a maximum size of 1000 pixels should display inline, larger ones show as a ling. Apparently, as your post shows, that's not necessarily the case either. But in general, one should limit uploads to 1000 pixels on the long side and 100kB (or at most 300kB).

 

I don't understand what your assignment is and what you are attempting to get out of posting the two images - maybe you could elaborate?

 

The assignment is to have two photos, one with a wide aperture to create a narrow depth of field, and the second is to have a small aperture to create a great depth of field. Just looking for opinions, I am just starting this online course

I imagine that the assignment was to shoot the same scene with two different apertures to see the effect of DOF. Your two images are unrelated - and you made the appropriate choice: large DOF for landscape and shallow DOF to isolate the subject from the background for portrait. Would the landscape image have looked much different had you used a larger aperture (and hence shallower DOF)?

The first is a nice photo, good lighting, well-lit subject, suitably narrow depth of field to allow the background to give context but not be too much a part of the photo. The composition feels a little awkward to me. It doesn't lend itself to a vertical format and feels quite pinched on the left and right. I'd feel much more comfortable with more breathing room.

 

The second one uses a wider depth of field appropriately, but I find the mid-section too dark, to the point where it's just unsightly to my eyes. I would prefer to have some insight into the dark levels there, not too much to spoil the mood but enough not to turn me away. You could try some shadow recovery, but I'd say you probably should have exposed differently for the scene.

The first is a nice photo, good lighting, well-lit subject, suitably narrow depth of field to allow the background to give context but not be too much a part of the photo. The composition feels a little awkward to me. It doesn't lend itself to a vertical format and feels quite pinched on the left and right. I'd feel much more comfortable with more breathing room.

 

The second one uses a wider depth of field appropriately, but I find the mid-section too dark, to the point where it's just unsightly to my eyes. I would prefer to have some insight into the dark levels there, not too much to spoil the mood but enough not to turn me away. You could try some shadow recovery, but I'd say you probably should have exposed differently for the scene.

 

I appreciate the feedback! I do agree with you that the second photo could have been exposed differently. I think I'll try reshooting or try another subject.

If you were my student I'd have given you a c- because although your nice photos demonstrated the different DOFs as related to aperture, you could have done much better in illustrating the concept by photographing the same subject with the two f/stops.

I'm going to disagree with you on that one, Stephen, though I understand where you're coming from. Of course, if the instructor had specified taking the same photo with 2 different dofs, I'd agree. But I think it suggests more creativity and is more interesting to show two different kinds of photos that each benefit from the different depths of field in their own ways rather than doing a more studied comparison, which would be what a textbook might do but not what I'd necessarily want from a more thoughtful and independent student. No right or wrong here, just different approaches, IMO.

illustrating the concept by photographing the same subject with the two f/stops.

What I said :D

Here are some examples that I think illustrate the concept well and would be worth getting opinions on: Depth of Field Explained

I'm going to disagree with you on that one, Stephen, though I understand where you're coming from. Of course, if the instructor had specified taking the same photo with 2 different dofs, I'd agree. But I think it suggests more creativity and is more interesting to show two different kinds of photos that each benefit from the different depths of field in their own ways rather than doing a more studied comparison, which would be what a textbook might do but not what I'd necessarily want from a more thoughtful and independent student. No right or wrong here, just different approaches, IMO.

Fred - since we don't know what the instructor specifically stated in the assignment, I merely offered one side of the equation, and you're perfectly correct in offering the other side.

I merely offered one side of the equation

Seems to me you did a tad more than that by suggesting a C-grade for Scott's not doing it in that "merely-one-side-of-the-equation" way! :)

I agree with some of the others.

These assignments have nothing to do with "creativity", and everything to do with Understanding The Basics of photography.

You Will/Did have a "Motion Assignment" also.

Spin the wheel of a bicycle.... Shoot one at 1/30 and another at 1/500.

Shuffle some cards... 30/500

The instructor simply wants to make sure that you learn the fundamentals of shooting in manual mode.....what happens when you change the f/stop and shutter speed.

You can demonstrate your masterpieces later. :)

Good Luck

These assignments have nothing to do with "creativity",

Hah. And LOL. Now I know why I never took such a course. How sad to think one can’t learn the basics of photography while encouraging creativity at the same time. Hopefully, it’s a better course than you’re giving it credit for. I studied piano from the time I was six. Even at that age, my teacher was thoughtful enough to tell me to imagine myself playing a symphony when practicing my scales. She was thinking big. You’re thinking small.

If you were my student I'd have given you a c- because although your nice photos demonstrated the different DOFs as related to aperture, you could have done much better in illustrating the concept by photographing the same subject with the two f/stops.

 

I agree 100% with SCL.

 

The major flaw in your test was to use scenes where the covered distances are so much different, and presumably different focus distances. So it's not clear exactly what you are testing, or comparing.

 

I don't know exactly what your instructor is getting at, but if the goal is for you to get a working understanding of how lens aperture affects depth of field, you'll probably get there quicker by "locking in" a single scene, then using a handful of different apertures.

 

If the goal is simply to make some pretty pictures where the depth of field is different, well, this is a different situation.

I tend to agree that the same, or a very similar, scene would have illustrated the effect better, since depth-of-field shrinks at close distances, and increases with distant shots. So contrasting a landscape with a close-up tends to confuse the issue.

 

Notwithstanding. I'm more shocked by the appalling chromatic aberration (colour fringing) shown by your 35mm f/1.8 Nikkor in the landscape shot. I think you've got a lemon there, that needs returning or replacing.

 

My sample of DX 35mm f/1.8 shows nowhere near that amount of colour fringing.

both pictures do the job very nicely.

The assignment was to take two separate shots. Not 2 identical shots with different apertures. As far as the chromatic aberration, being a beginner it's not something I even picked up on or really understand. I'll do some research. And the course is definitely encouraging creativity but in our first unit it's more or less a refresher/ lesson on basic functions on a dslr

The assignment is/was common to ones given in structured High School and College courses, with which I am familiar. I am ignorant of the exact requirements of the course that you are presently doing, yet I will speak from the experience and the requirements of the courses with which I am familiar from an instructor's / teacher's point of view.

 

I note that you stated "The assignment was to take two separate shots. Not 2 identical shots with different apertures" I am not arguing with those being your instructions, but if that was verbatim how your instructions were written, then those instructions are ambiguous, IMO. That stated, IF your instructions clearly stated that you must NOT make two images of a similar or same SCENE, then please ignore my comments which refer to you considering doing exactly that.

 

***

 

Here are three key points that, as a Teacher, I would look for when marking this exercise and that now might consider:

 

1> The Student’s response/answer firstly and overwhelmingly must address the question or major function which has been asked

 

2> Whilst a teacher might set an assignment with a major function, for example this one is to make two photos; one showing a Large DoF; and the other a small DoF, most teachers will be aware of, if not influenced by other factors that the Student brings to the assignment: and those factors include both the Artistic (for example creativity by way of composition and lighting) and also Technical (for example correct/appropriate Exposure, Post Production and Labeling)

 

3> Whilst this assignment might not necessarily have specified that the two images be of the same or similar scene, I think that most Teachers would be impressed by those Students who could make an A/B example using the same or similar scene to illustrate HOW and WHY we might use a (dramatically) different DoF to create different emphasis, nuance, and meaning between the two mages. A salient point to remember is that whilst the exercise is to MAKE two images, the exercise is also about the comparisons of and the contrasts between those two images

 

*

 

Now, taking those three key points and using them as a broad standard to critique the two images that you submitted:

 

1. The image of the person and the animal clearly addresses the major function of the exercise. The use of a continuum of fence line, through the DEPTH of the image exacerbates the feeling of the narrow DoF. The Viewer’s eye tends to refocus on the key Subjects. It is well exposed, sharp and has an interest factor. Arguably the person's face could be dodged a tad (lightened) in post production and that would create a more definitive capture of the viewer’s eye. Arguably it might have been better to make the shot in LANDSCAPE orientation, allowing more of the mage platter to show OoF Background at Camera Left. The image was not been accurately labelled, it would be just as easy to make a definitive statement “the image was made at F/2.2”, rather than “The first one was shot with a wider aperture”. Arguably if the exercise is to show narrow Depth of field, then from a technical standpoint the teacher could ask (I would): “Please explain why you chose to use F/2.2 and not F/1.8?” Note that there are a few reasonable responses to that question.

 

2. (by comparison and contrast to the first image) - The second image does not as adequately and as definitely show a large DoF and there are several reasons for this. The Image appears to be underexposed especially in the mid-ground. The lighting does not suit the exercise, which is to have a nice crisp sharp image from front to back, or as near as possible to ‘sharp from front to back'. Unlike the first image where a line (the fence line) clearly enhances the narrowness of DoF, the second image does not use any feature of the scene, other than a 'conventional' Foreground, Middleground, Background Composition to enhance or endorse a large DoF. This is 'OK' but certainly doing so is neither as creative nor as inventive as the first image. The second image appears a tad soft, maybe this is because of shutter speed used and the camera was hand held – pursuant to the Shutter Speed chosen, (I’d ask) “Why did you choose to use ISO100 for that shot and thus force a Shutter Speed of 1/13th second?”

 

WW

From the rank amateur standpoint, I don't think the 2nd shot is a very good example of wider DOF because the trees are so dark it's hard to tell if they are in focus. And as someone else noted above, at distances, DOF becomes less obvious, so shooting that same scene at F4 and F16 might not reveal much difference.

From the rank amateur standpoint, I don't think the 2nd shot is a very good example of wider DOF because the trees are so dark it's hard to tell if they are in focus. And as someone else noted above, at distances, DOF becomes less obvious, so shooting that same scene at F4 and F16 might not reveal much difference.

 

It's true - it might be nice to have clear detail in the foreground and distance, all of which are clearly in focus. I think the second image was trying that, but it's a little hard to see because of the lighting - on the other hand, I do like the sky, and there may be more detail in the full size version of the image.

 

For what it's worth, here's an image I had lying around (of Lynn Valley near Vancouver) which possibly shows the deep depth of field I think we're talking about, where there's slightly better lighting in the foreground and background - it's easier if you get low. That said, I think this was actually at f/2.8 (because it was dusk and a multi-second exposure) which is actually as wide an aperture as that lens goes - it only has a lot of depth of field because it was taken with a very wide angle lens. My sky is boring, though!

 

Lovely first image, and a great use of limited DoF, demonstrating exactly what you wanted to do (i.e isolate the subject). Your second image also fits the brief, but perhaps to a lesser degree. You have indeed, plenty of depth of field, from the foreground sand, to the trees and beyond in the background. I would hazard a guess that the foreground sand is perhaps 5-10m from the camera, and the trees perhaps 100m. 100m to all intents and purposes might as well be ‘infinity’ in focus terms. For an image let’s say, needed to be in focus from 10m to infinity, using a 50mm lens, an aperture of around f5.6 or f8 would probably suffice, depending on where you focus into the image, how big you wanted the final print (or screen image) and how picky you were about what actually represents critical focus, (remember here that only one plane is really actually IN focus, the remainder is just SUFFICIENTLY or APPARENTLY in focus for the purposes of viewing the image. You could have chosen a smaller aperture, got down a bit lower to the ground, included the sand much closer to the camera, and still got sufficient DoF for the extreme ends of the image to be sufficiently in focus. Of course, your image may have actually been shot at a smaller aperture (maybe f11-f22) but there may be no visible difference in the image from one shot at f8, because both would give sufficient depth of field.

 

Having said that, there is a whole other argument about what represents critical focus, and whether focus scales on lenses are true indications of sufficiently critical focus for demanding images, but let’s not go there! It is also possible that your lens does not have a focus scale (what are the manufacturers thinking?)

 

If you don’t know about hyperfocal distance focussing yet, it is worth Googleing.

what are the manufacturers thinking?

 

They're probably thinking that "depth of field" depends on how closely you're looking at the image, whether you intend to crop, etc. And the focus throw tends to be very short on AF lenses so that they can focus quickly, which makes mechanical marking difficult. But yes, it's still useful to have an indicator!

Hello! My assignment is to post two photos, one with a small DoF and one with a larger DoF.

 

The first one was shot with a wider aperture, second one is around f16

both shot with a 35mm f1.8 from Nikon

 

The photos are both attached! thank you!

 

 

{ [ATTACH=full]1240380[/ATTACH] }

 

[ATTACH=full]1240381[/ATTACH]

 

Scott, wouldn't you get more from the assignment if you took 2 photos of the same subject matter, one involving greater depth of field and the other a narrow DOF?

That said, I think this was actually at f/2.8 (because it was dusk and a multi-second exposure) which is actually as wide an aperture as that lens goes - it only has a lot of depth of field because it was taken with a very wide angle lens. My sky is boring, though!

 

Yep, that's a tough lens for showing shallow DOF-at small enough apertures dust on the front element can even start showing up!

 

This is one of the few photos I've taken with the same lens where I had something out of focus. The camera was actually physically resting on the wall, so the OOF foreground is just a few inches from the front element.