Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > Biweekly Shoot Out

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 10, 2004, 1:31 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
ohenry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,676
Default DOF: It's a gimmie








Neither is a keeper, but it does show the shallow DOF and differences when you alter your focus point.
ohenry is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Apr 10, 2004, 1:33 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
photosbyvito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,710
Default

very good example
niceshot too

(my space doesn't like to workall the time.....grr....)
photosbyvito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2004, 1:58 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,652
Default

The second one is the better one to my eye. How shallow was your depth of field? The reason I'm asking is because of the very sharp demarcation between in- and out-of-focus. I've had this happen when doing extreme close-ups, macros to be precise.
bcoultry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2004, 2:20 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
ohenry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,676
Default

I shot at fairly close range at 75mm with f/2.8 slightly elevated above the scene. I did several different shots and focal lengths and even different elevation, but chose those two for the exact reason you pointed out. I opted to display the vast differences that can occur as opposed to obtaining a viable print for a more dramatic learning tool for everyone.
ohenry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2004, 2:46 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,652
Default

Quote:
I opted to display the vast differences that can occur as opposed to obtaining a viable print for a more dramatic learning tool for everyone.
I like the way you think. We're not trying to win anything here other than knowledge. That's the same reason I posted my "plant" photo even though the focus wasn't right. A shallow depth of field can be darned tricky, and when you're viewing the scene through a tiny hole in your camera, what you think is correct can be somewhat off. I've done some shots like yours where, not until I saw them enlarged on the computer did I realize that my 2.2 aperture should have been at least 2.8 or more.

Anyway, playing with aperture settings and depth of field is a bit of a study to say the least.
bcoultry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2004, 2:49 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
ohenry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,676
Default

Normally, when I shoot macros or closeup work I will often shoot several shots with varying apertures for just that reason. One of the nice things about going digital is that I can take MANY pictures of the same thing without concern about processing and film costs. I don't mind throwing away 12 shots for 1 good one!
ohenry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2004, 2:53 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
photosbyvito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,710
Default

that little tidbit there was the main reason i got a digital....even though it was 400 dollars more than the Rebel TI i might have gotten...i don't have to worry about film costs
photosbyvito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2004, 8:06 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
monkey143's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,131
Default

Very nicely done!
monkey143 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 13, 2004, 5:53 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
digcamfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,422
Default

Very nicely done!

Great example of DOF.
digcamfan is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:07 AM.