Ansel Adams and Depth of Field

[richterjw]

Jerry, if you have a lens with a depth-of-field scale on it, it should give you a good understanding of how much of the photo you are taking (total distance from front to back) will be in focus. This will also be affected by the size prints you are making: the smaller the print, the more that will appear to be in focus. It is easier to achieve great depth with wider lenses.

 

And please don't be so hasty to judge the guilesome intentions of other posters, although Matt does, indeed, have a propensity toward villainy. JR

[richterjw]

Oh, and your previous comment about Ansel Adams was WAY out of line. We may not be a culture that demands a great deal of reverence for the dead, but that was certainly without merit. JR

[jerry_schuler]

We don't need to shoot all our shots at F32 for the club -- F11 good. It’s kind of like trying to break the sound barrier. Maybe rule like no photo's below F8. We could have weekly meetings and post some of our best photos (depth and sharpness) on a thread and evaluate the best high depth of field photo.

Maybe we can ask the moderators to remove anybody's photo that obviously a F1.2

[jerry_schuler]

"Oh, and your previous comment about Ansel Adams was WAY out of line"

Ok, I won't argue that.

[christopher hartt dallas]

Ansel was a friend and former employer of mine. I think he'd be flattered by the controversy he inspires, but wouldn't like the label of "icon" or any other term that would imply his "correctness" in every situation. He was anything but dictatorial.

 

Study his life, watch the PBS video. Ansel Adams is a man - male or female - most of us might wish to emulate.

[gary_lagnese1]

This is idiotic.

[richterjw]

Somewhat related: (Let me preface this with saying I have not owned a digital camera, so I really don't know) Since f/11 is appears to be smallest effective aperture for an APS-C camera, is the "Sunny 16" rule out? Does it become the "Sunny 11 + 1 shutter stop" rule?

[richterjw]

Never mind. I just figured out that if you're using a digital camera, you're probably going to have an in-camera meter. I believe I now need to apologize to Geoff on another forum, who I rebuked for asserting that people of above average intelligence have below average common sense. JR

[danielleetaylor]

I'm not going to touch on anything in this thread except the "rule" that you can't stop down past f/11 on APS DSLRs. Diffraction takes its toll but not nearly enough to avoid using smaller apertures altogether when the situation calls for maximum DoF. While I try to shoot at optimum apertures, if called for I will use f/16 and f/22 and the images come out fine, especially with proper sharpening in post.

[bruce_margolis]

Jerry, most people who photograph wildlife don't want a lot of depth of field. First, it distracts from the subject of the image. Second, it requires a much longer shutter speed, not usually a luxury when shooting wildlife.

 

Since you seem to want 'everything' in focus and you aren't happy with f/11 or f/16 in a DX/FX format, consider switching to large format like AA. That would give you the opportunity to use f/64 which it sounds like you believe is the sweet spot.

 

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

 

You always have depth of field with a DSLR, of course. It's simply a matter of how much. And sharpness has nothing to do with DOF. Apples and oranges here.

 

One of the problems here is terminology. I suspect you are confused about some of the comments because you might not be familiar with some of the terms.

[jerry_schuler]

I'll check wikipedia on the term "BROKENISM"

[photobiscuits]

You might want to spend your time searching for "Depth of Field" and "Hyperfocal Distance" rather than wasting time researching words that don't exist.

[Ed_Ingold]

Jerry,

 

It's safe to say you won't get the same clarity from an APS-C sized digital sensor as with an 8x10 inch negative in a

print larger than 16x20 inches. The distinction is not so great in smaller print sizes. Your eye can't resolve much finer

than about 4 lp/mm without assistance, so a sharper print than that make no visible difference. There's no point in

forming an "F/64" club for small-format photography - it's not helpful and more important, not needed.

 

Depth of field is a complex subject. Not complex mathematically so much as how you define the process whereby it

is specified. Dr. Atkins has a tutorial on DOF elsewhere on Photo.net. I suggest you read it and ask questions about

things you don't understand. If we are talking about landscapes, it is fair to compare images with the same field of

view taken on different formats. In this case, the shorter the focal length (i.e., the smaller the format), the greater the

depth of field at the same relative aperture. To an approximation, you must stop an 8x10 inch camera down to f/64

to achieve the same DOF as an APS-C camera at f/11. A view camera also has the advantage of lens movements,

whereby you can tilt the plane of focus to have the effect of much greater DOF in one plane.

 

Diffraction, defined by the diameter of the Airey Disc of a point source of light, is proportional to the relative aperture -

the f/stop in other words, regardless of the focal length. An 8x10 camera at f/11 has the same diffraction as an APS-

C camera at the same aperture. However, an APS-C image enlarged to 8x10 is already a 10x magnification.

Diffraction is only one fault of using small apertures. The aberations of lenses tend to increase as the aperture is

closed down beyond the so-called "sweet spot", which contributes to image degradation.

[jerry_schuler]

It appears the majority of posters in this forum resort to asserting the ignorance of somebody that disagrees with them or may not appreciate their advice and counsel.

 

Maybe what's really wanted is a F2 club. NO PHOTOS ABOVE F2. It's probably go over well because it's easier to do.

[joseph_wisniewski]

A technique I use frequently (and one that Ansel may have approved of, seeing how much he loved what we have come to call "post processing") is "focus stacking". I think this will give you what you want, in many circumstances...

 

As has been mentioned, you cannot stop a lens below a certain aperture without encountering an image softening phenomenon called "diffraction". And when opened to an aperture wider than the diffraction aperture, you may not have enough depth of field. The secret to the great depth of field is not the f64 aperture. Would you believe that, on a 35mm full frame digital, f8 is the DOF equivalent to f64 on Ansel Adams's 8x10 view camera? It is. Ansel used f64 instead of the f128 that many view camera lenses can stop down to, because stopping down further than f64 would actually have made his images softer, just like stopping a full frame DSLR down to f16 or f22 would. Stopping down too far limits how sharp the "sharpest" parts of the image can be.

 

The real secret to Ansel's work is, as Gerry pointed out, the Scheimpflug principle, the ability to tilt and shift the lens in relation to the camera. This is the heart and the soul of the Ansel Adams look of sharpness. By tilting the lens in relation to the camera, you literally focus the foreground and the background of your image separately. You essentially "tilt" the plane of focus.

 

So you had the correct answer from the very first person to offer you an answer. Unfortunately, he then added the comment that this is something "which can't be done on our clever modern cameras." That was a cruel thing to do, as he didn't know you don't have the experience to appreciate that this was just a joke. At that point, the whole thread went to heck.

 

So, yes, reading up on "the Scheimpflug principle" is what you really need to do to get the results you want. Ansel wrote on how to do it, at length. He was a true master of this technique. Others wrote about it as well.

 

Now, I'll try to counter Gerry's little joke by pointing out that Nikon and Canon both make excellent tilt/shift lenses for their respective cameras. Nikon makes a 24mm, a 45mm, and an 85mm. I've used the 24mm and the 85mm, both are fun. The Canon line is virtually identical, a 24mm, a 45mm, and an 80mm. No one will quibble about the 5mm difference on the last lens...

 

These lenses are very expensive, about $1600 each. "Being Ansel Adams" is not inexpensive. They are wonderful focal lengths on a full frame DSLR, the 45mm being the "perfect" normal, the 24mm about a "half normal" wide, and the 85mm a lovely short tele suitable for both landscape work and product work. They're a little less perfect on an APS sized DSLR, the 24mm "acting as" a 36mm moderate wide, the 45mm becoming a rather annoying 67mm length "in between" normal and tele, not really doing good at either, and the 85mm a rather nice 130mm equivalent that I quite enjoy.

 

I have also used a Nikon PB-4 bellows, a bellows that lets you tilt and shift the lens a bit, with a 63mm lens, an 85mm lens, a 105mm lens, and a 135mm lens. This is much less expensive, you can get a 20 year old PB-4 for about $200, an a 63mm el-Nikkor for about $100, the 85mm, 105mm, and 135mm el-Nikkors for about $50 each. This will mean working at telephoto lengths. Even 63mm is a "twice normal" telephoto on an APS DSLR.

 

Another lower cost alternative comes from the eastern Europena companies Arsat and Hartblei.

 

Arsat makes a 35mm tilt/shift (a moderate wide on full frame, a near normal on APS) that you can pick up for just $600. It's about the cheapest way to be Ansel...

 

http://kievcamera.net/

 

They also have an 85mm tilt/shift for telephoto landscapes. $350, but I'd really suggest starting with the 35mm...

 

The Hartblei Super-Rotator (I can't believe I spelled "Hartblei" right from memory) available in 35, 45, 65, 80, and 120mm.

 

http://www.hartblei.com/

 

The 35mm comes set up to mount on a full frame or APS DSLR. The 45mm through 120mm are set up for medium format bodies and require adapters to work on DSLRs, but it can be done. The Hartblei lenses with adapters can be used on the original Nikon DSLR, as well as the imitation DSLRs from pretty much every other manufacturer (Conan, Tampax, Sonny, Octopus, and Pennysonic).

 

Hope this helps.

[golden]

Large format is an entire different ball of wax than dslrs or even film slrs, I shoot LF often and love it, takes a bit of

practice using the different movements but that is where the big difference is. for example i can use my 53mm SA

on my 2x3 crown graphic (no movements) and to get the DOF i want i have to stop down to at least f22, the same

lens on my view camera (using a 6x7 film holder) using tilts and sometimes swings i can get the same DOF at f8

but i usually stop down to at least f11, thats the sweet spot on this particular lens. Btw, AA was a pioneer, a

scientist, (if you dont believe that one, read his book "the negative") photography wasnt just a hobby to him, it was

his life. I saw an interview of him on youtube, his knowledge amazed me.

[photo_dark]

I don't wish to emulate Ansel.... why do people keep bringing him up? yes, he was great.... then again, there are hundreds of other great photographers who inspire me more than ansel ever has.

 

Can we move on now?

[jerry_schuler]

Joseph, Thank you. You gave me a lot to look into. Most of other postings seemed to say that I better study up to realize a wide DOF can not be achieved.

 

I did have a misconception of the tilt and shift lenses. The examples I seen of a tilt and shift lens was somebody using it to put things out of focus on the focal plane not to put the scene in focus. So I just dismissed it.

 

It looks like you spend some time on that answer and I appreciate it.

 

Dave, This is the only time I've seen a real photographer being discussed here. I think it fun.

[photobiscuits]

An F2 club is no easier or more difficult than an f16 club. The secret trick to add depth of field (the area in focus) when making a photograph is to set the aperture to a larger number. It really is that simple. Big number, the whole birdie and the foreground/background is in focus as clear and sharp as the particular lens will allow. Want sharper? Post process or buy better equipment more suited to what you are trying to accomplish. Were you to read the wikipedia entry I recommended you'd know this now and you wouldn't be calling yourself ignorant.<br>

Read the article and relevant links. Practice and see.<br>

Good luck with your aperture-specific camera club ambitions.

[myrjola]

Perhaps a DOF calculator like this might be useful; it's an easy way to figure out what kind of aperture provides a suitable depth of field for one's needs:

 

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

 

It also provides hyperfocal distance figure, which may be useful if getting as much as possible in focus is wanted. For example, with a Canon 1.6 crop sensor, 10-22mm lens set a 10mm focal length and f/11, when the lens is focused to 47.5 cm, everything from 23.9 cm to infinity is essentially in focus (print size/viewing distance will have some effect on this, but it's a decent approximation). This should be quite enough for getting everything in focus for, say, a landscape shot. With longer lenses stopping down further into the land of diffraction might occasionally be needed, if getting everything within the depth of the field is wanted (especially for smaller prints the effect of diffraction might not even be noticeable).

[joseph_wisniewski]

Now, about focus stacking...

 

Since the tilt/shift lenses are expensive, and since personally I own several really epic wides (latest being the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8) I use the same "focus stacking" technique that I use on macros for landscapes...

 

Focus stacking involves taking multiple images focused at different distances, and combining them so that the sharp parts of each are selected, to give an image that is insanely sharp from front to back. Think of "slicing" the scene into layers, with each layer being a certain focus distance. I used to do this in PhotoShop, with each of the images on a different later, masking the sharpest parts of each. For macro, the

 

Then I got into automated focus stacking programs such as CombineZ and Helicon Focus. CombineZ is powerful and free, Helicon Focus is more "automatic". To get the layers, for macro, you move the whole camera towards the subject in sub mm increments using a gear driven "focus rail". For landscape, it's a lot easier...

 

The 20mm f2.8 and the 28mm PC Nikkor both have old fashioned focus markings and DOF markings. The focus markings are (almost all) spaced closer than the f8 DOF marks, so if I focus the 28mm to infinity, the lens shows me that the next focus point is 15 feet, then 7, 5, 4, 3, 2.5. Then, if I want to go further, I have to "eyeball" a point between 2.5 and 2 feet, then two points between 2 and 1.5 feet, and two between 1.5 and 1.2 feet (if I'm really pushing this). The 20mm uses a similar sequence, infinity, spot between infinity and 5 feet, 5 feet, 3, 2, spot between 2 and 1.5, 1.5, 1.25, etc.

 

The 14-24 is a bit harder. The focus scale is unreadable for this kind of work (like any modern AF zoom...) but it does have a lovely ribbed focus collar. By adding a little dot (on a piece of tape) I know shooting 6 "ribs" from infinity to 2.5 feet, then 8 from 2.5 to 1.25...

 

The advantage to this over Scheimpflug movements is that it doesn't just work for "foreground near, background far" cases, it works for any possible situation, a tall near object that rises all the way to teh top of the image (like plants so often do).

 

The disadvantage is that scene motion (blowing trees, etc) can make the stacking operation go really weird, or break down entirely. Shoot fast to reduce this...

[mrstubbs]

Dig a little deeper Jerry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion

 

Then find or make your own chart, so you may choose lens and aperture for the dof and the size of the print you require.

 

There is much more to "apparently sharp images" than dof. eg; focus,focal,aperture,contrast,size,subject,light,lens,paper, etc....etc.

 

A bag of rules/laws/options will give you more possible outcomes than a single rule/law/option.

 

Dof is there to be used as you wish it to be used. Shallow or deep...it's up to you.

 

One way to see an extreme effect of a deep/wide dof....get a pair of binoculars...focus them well...eg; left eye open, center dial until clear...both eyes open..adjust right hand dial til scene is clear. Then....focus on a tree trunk with a bush a few feet behind it. What you will see..is the tree almost floating on top of the image...as though it was cut and pasted onto the image of the bush...the bush will look to be on the same focus plane at the trunk. Small aperture...increased dof. Moving a camera back farther ...will increase the effect.

 

There is nothing "wrong" in making images look this way with your camera and a lens. It is just "another" way of seeing....of photographing.

 

Just remember...clarity/sharpness/detail ...comes from more than one component of photographic capture.<div></div>

[jerry_schuler]

Being able to photo a scene like this with most of the figures in focus would be nice.<div></div>

[jerry_schuler]

Joseph,

Thank you again. I've copied your postings to my notebook. I will first try stacking and see what else I can do.

[albert_richardson1]

The way you get more of your chessmen sharp is to use a longer lens and get further away from them. Telephoto lenses have a narrow field of view you want that will limit the photo to what you see now. (Simply moving back with the lens you used just now may result in you having to crop too much away to get the right result.) They also flatten the scene increasing DOF. Your own f-stop trials with your digital camera will give you faster turnaround than posting questions for others once you get this far.

 

There's a lot of trial-and-error in practical photography. Next time start with the picture itself and ask how you get all the chessmen to be in focus. I think you will get a better response without so much BS.