DEPTH OF FIELD: What they didn't tell you in photography class!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 май 2022
- A smaller aperture makes a bigger depth of field...right? It's one of the first things we are taught in photography. Unfortunately for many people it's the ONLY thing they are taught about depth of field, and that leads to some fundamental misunderstandings about how it works. Because there's a lot more to depth of field than just the aperture. I really hope this video fills in the gaps for a lot of people. Be sure to SUBSCRIBE for more, and you are very welcome to support me with a coffee.
www.buymeacoffee.com/andrewgo...
My previous video about depth of field: • Photography School #6:... 
Наука
...and from "your friend in Canada"... excellent, in-depth explanation Andrew. I'm glad we touched on it during our Zoom call.. and even happier that you followed up with this outstanding video. Cheers fro Aurora, Ontario [Canada]
Really nice video, thank you. Thank you. And you are one of the few photographers that actually show photos while speaking instead of just showing themselves and talking non stop.
Really an eye opener! Thanks Andrew for the detailed explanation!
We are also taught that the focal length is very important to the depth of field. It was a surprise to me that it actually does not matter if you move and keep the subject the same size. Shooting with 50 mm at 2 meters and 200 mm at 8 meters you get almost the same depth of field with the same aperture. The amount of background blur is different though.
An excellent explanation, thanks Andrew.
Really eye-opening!
Thanks again for a great clear, informative video.
I do a lot of Whitewater kayaking photography. As a result I am often zoomed to the max (on my 35-100mm) and as a result the depth of field does become a factor for me to think about. The lighting conditions for races etc are rarely ideal, sometimes fog, rain, morning or evening light or the other extreme extremely hot, humid, full sun, middle of the day. So different from where I started in portrait photography where I could choose where my subjects stood and what lighting scenarios I preferred. In portraiture I use to use a lot of wide apertures and walk in and out with my feet to create different depths. I don't have this luxury on the banks of rivers or the Penrith Whitewater Stadium. Now with sports photography I find using wide apertures, and a max zoomed lens, I lose to many shots. As I result I usually sit around f/10 and sacrifice my iso and use noise reduction in DXO (which is pretty good). I find though one issue with f/10 is I can get purple fringing, or a strange flaring, in some of the extreme lighting scenarios, so it was good to be reminded that often f/8 is where most lenses perform at their best. This video was such a good reminder of how in some scenarios the aperture doesn't play big role in depth of field.
Excellent explanation! Thanks for taking the time to illustrate what I was experiencing lately and trying to understand how it works.
That is an awesome masterclass on depth of field and fills in all the missing links. Thank you for this hugely helpful video demonstration.
1:50 OK hooked me; start reeling me in....
Good points, thank you.
Food for thought. I suppose the improvements in image stabilisation in modern cameras mean that many photographers don't pay as much attention to shutter speed and its effect on camera shake as they used to so if they shoot in aperture priority primarily to control DOF, they aren't checking their shutter speed. As you say, you can't make a sharp image sharper. Thanks for sharing.
Thanks for this rather succinct explanation for Depth of Field. It is always a challenge to get people to think beyond convention, especially with the added component of crop factor, and particularly µ4/3…
Now, I can just say; here, watch this, and we can talk more instead of debate the virtues of this format verses that, and this lens aperture verses some other…
This is exactly why I am a subscriber to the channel, and obviously liked the video as well…
…
Sensor Size is a huge factor in depth of field. m4/3 at f2.8 is “equivalent” to full frame at f5.6. The f1.7 10-25mm Leica DG for m4/3 is sharp edge to edge at very wide apertures with good depth of field due to m4/3 sensor size. I may be purchasing for woodland photography; where wide angles are used close to subject and I prefer sharp depth of field.
Yes, small sensors give more depth of field but that essentially just changes the numbers you must use for your aperture. It is not a real benefit.
Best depth of field video on RUclips 🤝
Wow thanks Homebody, what a great compliment to start my working week! I have proudly shared it with my friends on Facebook.
@@naturesimagephotography this video opens up so much more about depth of field. great value, appreciate it. will definitely be watching this one over and over till it sticks.
I guess that's why a fixed f2.8 drone camera, high in the sky, has no problems with DOF
very helpful Andrew, thanks. I learned a lot in a fairly short video. Now I need to go try it.
Thats a very interesting approach to describing DOF in generell - or more precisely: the components that impact depth of field. Great video!
I was pretty certain one of the ingrediants had to be "hyperfocal distance" and the 1/3 to 2/3 spatial relation. In that sense the focal plane, and therefore the sharp distance in front and behind it, has a huge impact on DOF as well. With portraits, wildlife and macro the focal plane will basically deliberately be set to the subject - kinda nature of the game and usually the rule is: subject distance = focal plane distance, which especially applies when using telephoto lenses.
With landscape photography thats a different story: careful consideration of where to set the focal plane will have a huge impact on DOF. Its not always obvious where the AF (or photographer) placed the focal plane. Picking the closest object of interest is usually not the spot to "collect the deepest DOF". I personally find it challanging in times to break the habit of instinctively picking the closest object to focus on - let alone challanging to explain that mechanism to photography interested friends of mine.
To me it only matters in certain situations. With most wide angle lenses the 'infinity point' is very close to the camera...often not much more than 5 or 10 metres away. So in a landscape if all the features in the frame are a decent distance away...you could focus on almost anything and everything will be in focus.
It's all good in theory and I know about the 1/3rd - 2/3rds guideline, but good luck remembering to do all that when you in the field an only have moments to get your shot. There are a lot of things we read about in theory that don't really have much practical impact.
The 1/3 / 2/3 rule is a crude estimate on normal distances. In reality the share of DoF in the front values from 50% to 0% (the latter always when the DoF reaches infinity).
Similarly hyperfocal distance is something that can help you but you should almost never focus to the hyperfocal distance. Focus on your primary subject and use the depth of field for secondary subjects.
Great explanations, very helpful. Thank you!
Many thanks for this very important aspect of photography.
Great info Thanks.
Idk what classes you took but every youtube photographer has taught about this. 😅
Thanks Interesting.
Nicely explained Andrew
Thanks Fleur, hope all is well in your world 😃
No wonder this video has 10% likes to views ratio, one of the best videos explaining DOF...
Hi Andrew,I love your videos, can you please tell me the lumix g9 is a good camera to buy,the image is good?thanks Peter
Hi Peter, it's an excellent camera in my opinion. It has the micro four-thirds sensor which means you probably won't make huge prints from it, and the low-light performance is not the same as full-frame sensor cameras. But those cameras are much more expensive (particularly the lenses) and usually much bigger and heavier. I am very happy with the image quality. You can look at the many videos I have made to judge for yourself. I have put two links below, to some of my best photos of last year. Of course it is not just about the camera, it can only be as good as the photographer that holds it.
Check these two videos:
ruclips.net/video/BLAFGha-sCE/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/TGY2_8nd6AM/видео.html
👍
Mr. Goodall, thank you very much for a very interesting and useful DOF analysis. I have a question regarding how Focus point affects your analysis, particularly with respect to landscape photography. How do you apply one of the focus point methods; hyperfocal distance method, focus 1/3 into the image, double the distance method in your DOF analysis. I realize that in portrait, macro and close-up photography such focus methods do not apply. I very much appreciate your information and presentation methods Mr. Goodall.
A United States viewer.
I am much less scientific/analytical than people seem to think. And I think a lot of people over-complicate these things. Most of my landscape photos have a foreground and a background (like the desert photo at 5:10). I simply focus on the foreground subject. If the foreground subject is VERY close to the camera I will often close the aperture a few stops. My logic is that if the foreground object is even a little soft, it will look like a mistake and people will notice. But if the foreground is sharp and the background is slightly less so it will usually pass inspection. More often than not, it doesn't matter anyway...because on most wide angle lenses the 'infinity point' is very close - maybe 10 metres from the camera. So if everything that matters in the shot is beyond that distance, then it will all be in focus anyway. So again I would simply focus on the primary foreground subject. Apologies if you were expecting a more scientific answer but this is what works for me.
Thanks Mr. Googall, I prefer simplicity also. Life is difficult enough without over complicating it.
A general advice is to focus on the most important part of the image which typically is on the foreground. Then use depth of field on the other parts. That way the important part will remain sharp even if you print it in larger size.
How does focus point add in to all that?
That depends on what you mean by your question. If you mean whether to use one focus point or multiple focus points...it makes no difference at all. No matter how many focus points are enabled, the camera can only focus on one distance at a time. If you mean 'where in the scene should I be focusing?' then that depends entirely on what kind of photo you want to take. For portraits, macro etc simply focus on the part of the subject that matters most. For landscapes with very wide angle lenses where depth of field is at maximum...you could focus almost anywhere and everything will be in focus. If you are really experimenting with depth of field, many say you should focus 'a third of the way into the scene' because you get more DOF behind the point of focus, and less in front. But to me that is very vague and I generally prefer to make sure I keep my focus trained on the primary subject.
With landscape shots that have a strong foreground and background subject (like my church with the mountains, or the tree with the buildings behind) I will usually focus on the foreground object. Because I am shooting wide-angle, I am confident that the background will also be in focus.
I think the question refers to the hyper-focal distance. A corollary being that the depth of field is not symmetrical In depth from the critical focus distance. Great video, BTW. I’m going to point many people who ask me these questions to your channel. Your explanations are concise and well organized. Mine tend to resemble a brain dump.
Not the focal length, 50mm on my S1R is quite different from 50mm on my G9. It's the field of view, and the field of view takes into account any cropping done in post.
That tree at 5:14, that's where I would focus. With hat, nothing else matters/ In another, you have a tee branch. I would stand more early under it and use it as a framing element across the top. Out of focus would be good, I don't want you looking at it.
I had a few sessions shooting landscapes at F1.7. I discovered it's necessary to have a define subject, a lot was out of focus. And I had to use electronic shutter for some shots.
👍