Ok, I understand the DOF concept, however I've been shooting like crazy for this challenge and it's not working. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but I just can't get it right. I have accomplished a shallow DOF before when I haven't even been trying. Help please!
Having similar problems,June.
My understanding of this challenge is that the image should not just use the shallow depth of field to isolate a subject from it`s surroundings but that the interest should be created in the out of focus area perhaps ?
get as close as you can to your suvject and zoom in as much as you can.
I took a shot using these principles yesterday..but ruled it out as not meeting the challenge ie..subject (in focus) taking up the majority of the picture.
Would welcome comments on whether that is correct or not.
I have other shots which are similar (not of the same subject obviously) but with more negative space which I would consider if my thinking is offline.
I read recently while researching the topic that the F stop is important in getting shallow dof. I think it is a larger F stop, equalling a smaller apeture.
Yes, aperture is one part of the equation that affects DOF. But it is the other way around: smaller "f-stop numbers" reduce DOF, and smaller "f-stop numbers" equate to larger aperture sizes. This is because f-stops are fractions, which is why they are written f/5.6, for example. The "f" in f-stop signifies the focal length, so the aperture opening at f/2.8 will be much bigger than f/5.6, regardless of what the value of 'f' is.
No, a smaller F number = a wider aperture and that is exactely what you wan to get shallow dof. So shoot with F2, F2.8 or the next stop above. On the non dSLR's any setting greater than those, except for macro, will not create a shallow dof because all these camera's are basically fitted with extreme wideangle lenses (7-50mm). Wideangle lenses have huge dof.
(the reason for those wideanlge lenses is the 4x to 5x crop multiplier of the small ccds where the dSLR's are 2x -E1-, 1.5x -Nikon DX-, 1.6x -Canon-, 1.3x -Canon 1D- and 1x -Canon 1Ds-)
thanks Az. I alway get those mixed up. Glad I have a reference thread now that I can come back to bc I am bound to forget b4 I shoot for the challenge. Still looking for something interesting.
And don't forget that bokeh refers to the "quality and smoothness" of the out-of-focus areas. Some lenses render excellent bokeh and others not-so-good. For a good example, check out the difference in bokeh in this comparison of the Canon 50mm f/1.8 and the 50mm f/1.4.
I so hope that Canon does not annouce a new 10D at PMA, because if they do I am going to wait till that one hits the shelves instead of ordering the 10D right after PMA. :)
(Choice for the 10D was lens selection first, couldn't find a price/performance match with Nikon/Fuji.)
for the majority - i dont think they have much control over bokeh - seeing as they dont have a choice of lenses...
but the comparison is nice - and i checked my bokeh ;}
EDIT:
Originally posted by EddyG:
And don't forget that bokeh refers to the "quality and smoothness" of the out-of-focus areas. Some lenses render excellent bokeh and others not-so-good.
The 602's bokeh sucks. When I have a photo with shallow dof I workaround this problem by:
* Apply an appropriate gaussian blur to the whole image.
* History brush (soft edged) the in focus parts back in.
* Apply USM to the whole image
* Step back to before USM
* History brush the in focus USM parts back in
Could help some people for this challenge, but it is only suitable for not to complex subjects or it will be very time consuming.
Just curious if anybody is voting the ‘Shallow Depth of Field’ photos any differently if they are macro shots vs. a standard ‘shallow depth of field’? (Photo’s that are not obviously a macro shot)? I am generally voting a non-macro photo a point or two higher. I’ve considered that many non SLR cameras are somewhat limited in this area and have given some high votes to macro shots that are superior. There are quite a few shots that are sharply focused in the foreground fading to a blurred background which does not for me define a ‘Shallow depth of field’.
There are quite a few shots that are sharply focused in the foreground fading to a blurred background which does not for me define a ‘Shallow depth of field’.
Okay...now why did you have to pick on "my" shot? LOL
Wow, I'm thinking that I must be looking at the "Macro IV" challenge instead of Shallow Depth of Field. Some have done a very nice job though.
As you mentioned, some of us have cameras which can only achieve a naturally-shallow DOF shot when shooting in macro/near macro conditions. Why not just evaluate each photo on whether or not it met the conditions stated in the challenge description?
... only achieve a naturally-shallow DOF shot when shooting in macro/near macro conditions. Why not just evaluate each photo on whether or not it met the conditions stated in the challenge description?
Paul, I did vote on each of the 174 images using that very premise - to this end: I gave 1 nine, which I believe was a macro shot done very well and met the theme to a "T". I gave 19 eights. Of those I believe that six where done with +- 50mm DSLR's, one with a 85mm + DSLR, nine with macro settings on non DSLR's. Four of which I couldn't tell if macro or not. I have absolutely no problem with the constraint placed on people without DSLR’s. I have a Nikon Coolpix 995 & 5700 and they excel at macro photos (one of the primary reasons for my purchase of them). My interpretation of the theme is always a key point in how I vote. If I can’t see a photo meeting the theme it starts out at a 5.5 moves one way or another on the ‘other criteria’ that is important to me. If it meets the theme it generally moves up from 5.5. I believe that is generous and fair as a good picture that meets the theme will always score higher than one that doesn’t meet the theme (and there have been excellent photo’s that do not meet the theme.) My issue with voting this particular challenge is this. I am not so naive that so as not to perceive a shallow depth of field, no matter what kind of camera lens took the picture. There are a LOT of pictures that had the subject in focus and the background soft or out of focus… to which I commented “If the photo had something with a soft focus in the foreground to indicate a 'Shallow Depth of Field' I would have given it another point.” If any of you have a moment to comment on the "Gilt... & Gilded..." pictures recently posted to my portfolio I would certainly appreciate it very much.
Folks - how many of you got "DoF does not work here" comments?
The majority of the few comments my submission is managing to generate (and my thanks to those who have commented)are telling me that they find it difficult to see the area that is in focus. It`s there folks...but because of the abstract nature of the image I admit it`s not easily picked out.
In my earlier postings in this thread, I mentioned the fact that I thought "a creative use" of shallow DOF was what was being asked for as opposed using it to pick a subject out of the background.
Judging from the entries...I may have got it wrong...but I`m certainly learning more from this challenge than any of my previous entries.
There are a LOT of pictures that had the subject in focus and the background soft or out of focus… to which I commented “If the photo had something with a soft focus in the foreground to indicate a 'Shallow Depth of Field' I would have given it another point.”
You put this comment on mine too, and you are quite wrong in thinking that the front element must be OOF for it to be a shallow depth of field shot.
There are a LOT of pictures that had the subject in focus and the background soft or out of focus… to which I commented “If the photo had something with a soft focus in the foreground to indicate a 'Shallow Depth of Field' I would have given it another point.”
You put this comment on mine too, and you are quite wrong in thinking that the front element must be OOF for it to be a shallow depth of field shot.
That's the same thing I thought when I saw that comment on mine as well.
Edit: I do appreciate the comment, just dont agree with it. :-)
