dept of feild

[frank_okonedo]

<p>Hi room, please may i ask what is dept of feild and how do you achieve it. respond please</p>

[ian_tindale]

<p>The department of <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0270625/">Feild</a> is not open during weekends.</p>

[songtsen]

<p>Here's a <a href="http://bobatkins.com/photography/technical/depth_of_field.html">useful link</a>.</p>

[charles_stobbs3]

This website - http://www.dofmaster.com/doftable.html - allows you to calculate the depth of field for various lenses.

[albertdarmali]

<p>If you want simpler one, you can try this link too:</p>

<p>http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html</p>

<p>If you want my short explanation, depth of field is basically the amount (depth) of your picture that is in focus. It can be very thin or everything can be in focus.<br>

I am not sure what you meant by "how do you achieve it" because you will always have depth of field when you take a picture, the question is how much is the depth of field.<br>

If you meant how to achieve very thin DOF, for example, in portrait with only 1 eye in focus and the rest of the face is blurred, you basically do this with a lens with fast aperture (eg. 50mm 1.8) and getting closer to the subject.<br>

But generally speaking with kit lenses, it will be more difficult to achieve thin DOF because kit lenses are not f/1.8, not even f/4</p>

 

[albertdarmali]

<p>I actually want to explain "bokeh" to you, but I don't want to make you obsessed with Leica lenses. :)</p>

[thomas_hardy1]

<p>Are you interested in shallow dof (only a small part of the photo is in focus) OR<br>

maximum dof (where basically the whole photo is in focus) ?</p>

[michael_dimarzio]

<p>This is an example, note how the dog seems to sit in a circle of focus, when in reality it's a varing degree of out of focus in the front, becoming focused then quickly defocused background. (OOF for really smart guys, or just people like me that sound smart with acronyms). This is the best example of DOF you will ever find on PN, no need to bow but I do take checks.</p>

<p>The Masters will start to talk about Circles of Confusion, but at that point I'd rather find myself looking for bargain Clint Eastwood movies at the WalMart DVD bargain bin. I would feel fulfilled if I can find Clint and Brynner together than ready to tackle Confusion, but just the thought has me overwhelmed and running for the liquor bottle.</p>

<p>It is defined more or less created with your aperture ring, the more open (faster) the less DoF you'll have. Your eyeball works closely to your question. The key is where you place the focus.</p>

<p>The last time I ever really tried to explain anything was standing wave ratio versus return loss, in a previous life, so I understand the limitations of what I'm trying to say. DoF is a very powerful creative tool, very basic and worth understanding. You posed a very good question.</p><div></div>

[andreasb]

<p>"Out of focus, in focus, out of focus..."<br />"Circles of Confusion..."<br />"Clint and Brynner together..."</p>

<p>Perhaps these lofty questions should best be left to a good psychiatrist? They are starting to sound more like a life style problem than lens issues.</p>

<p>Sorry Michael, nothing personal but you left me too big an opening and I could not resist. I hope you are smiling at my little pot shot also! No harm intended.</p>

<p>Have a great day!</p>