Some may know this already, but the aperture isn't the only thing that affects the depth of field in your photographs. I have had students tell me that they feel they have been lied to in so many magazine articles. For those who don't know, this will help to tell the full story about what influences depth of field.
@@edinburghphotographyworkshop it’s amazing that people say they’ve been “lied to”. That shows that they don’t go out and practice and learn things for themselves. The late Fred Picker said that that you should test everything that you are told. As an example, I’ve found that in body stabilization and the ability to shoot hand held at low shutter speeds is nowhere near what the manufacturer claims.
You could have just called it “Factors affecting Depth of Field”. Using the term “lie” just weakens credibility. Or you could have said it’s (…a secret that only pro’s know….) then you’d get loads more clicks.
Read your manual and you'll find who doesn't tell the whole truth. E.g. Canon R5 Manual - A higher f/number (smaller aperture hole) will make more of the foreground and background fall within acceptable focus. On the other hand, a lower f/number (larger aperture hole) will make less of the foreground and background fall within acceptable focus. Example 2 - Nikon Z50 Manual - Aperture - use to blur backgrounds or bring both foreground and background into focus. If you teach beginners, as I do, they get frustrated that the camera doesn't "do" what the manual tells them it should do. Most of the camera manuals are written badly and don't tell beginner photographers what they need to know.
@@edinburghphotographyworkshop I still don't see the "lie". Your two references of the Canon and Nikon manual sound correct to me. They are accurate in explaining the impact of different f/numbers... They are NOT saying that this is the exclusive parameter for depth of field (which you very nicely demonstrate in your video). If your argument is that they explanation is somehow incomplete, or worse, INTENTIONALLY misleading, then ok, maybe "lie" is close. But I think you're way off in your characterization that photographers are being told a lie. Your click-bait title should be changed.
If you want low depth of field you should do 5 things, 1 wide aperture, 2 long focal length, 3 go close to subject, 4 have background far away, 5 use full frame, allows closer proximity to subject.
It must be me, but what this man has just run thru' are basic photographic tenets in Aperture, DoF & Focal length of lenses employed; it matters not whether you're using Analogue or Digital format, the principles remain the same. You can find all of this information in books - yes, books...remember those ? The cruel irony being: The further we advance in technological spheres, the more regressive humankind's comprehension becomes....but by all means, just use another bloody application. The finest computer resides between your ears.....oh, but wait...that requires thought..... 🤨
People still need to learn from somewhere - even the basics. We're not born with an innate understanding of the physics of optics - well, at least us mere mortals weren't! As for the PhotoPill application, that just adds a degree of preciseness and predictability to the process; personally, I'd rather use my eyes and the camera's DoF preview, but the app has its fans and its place. Yes, as an experienced photographer, I too already knew about everything contained in this video, but I still had to learn it at some point. The video would have been better served by a less 'clickbaity' title, but the content is still valid and useful to newcomers to photography. So yes, it _must_ be you.
I would agree with your closing sentiment, David; however, learning Light Optics when I started out, reading books, was not in & of itself a chore, but rather enjoyable - I may well be an exception to (today's) rule, but I came away with, & still retain that knowledge; computerised algorithms are no substitute for grey matter - it merely makes humans lazier; each to their own....
Hi. Your explanation of the relationship between aperture and other factors in determining depth of field is great - comprehensive and well explained. But I have to say that I don't like the clickbait title, as if there was a malign conspiracy to keep the truth from people for financial gain!
Pretty cool explanation. My son shoots concerts. After he gets his basic must have shots, he will pull out a 300mm f/2.8 in the pit and gets some of the best shots that nobody else is getting.
Many years ago, there was an article in the Amateur Photographer comparing the difference between using a 2X converter and cropping the image. Although the article was talking about quality, the difference in depth of field was very noticeable in the examples shown.
Thanks for the comment. Yes, the sensor does have an impact, as you say, but I excluded it from the video as it isn't something you can change in the field.
Read your manual and you'll find who doesn't tell the whole truth. E.g. Canon R5 Manual - A higher f/number (smaller aperture hole) will make more of the foreground and background fall within acceptable focus. On the other hand, a lower f/number (larger aperture hole) will make less of the foreground and background fall within acceptable focus. Example 2 - Nikon Z50 Manual - Aperture - use to blur backgrounds or bring both foreground and background into focus. If you teach beginners, as I do, they get frustrated that the camera doesn't "do" what the manual tells them it should do. Most of the camera manuals are written badly and don't tell beginner photographers what they need to know.
@@edinburghphotographyworkshop You can repeat this as many times as you want, but the fact that there are additional factors that affect depth of field does not make it a lie that aperture controls depth of field. You're just giving additional detail, not disproving a lie. Your title is clickbait.
@@edinburghphotographyworkshop I have never heard such utter rubbish. Canon and Nikon are not lying at all. For any specific focal length of the lens the effect of aperture is exactly as Canon and Nikon describe it. The manual is for the camera body. What lens is attached, if any, is completely open. The same holds for the distance between camera and motive. Lenses of different focal lengths lead to different DOF situations. So what? The same holds for distance to the motive. In general turning the aperture control on any body, that in turn adjusts the aperture of the attached lens, has the effect described by the manufacturer. It is fully clear that if you attach a 16mm you will not get a narrow DOF. On the other hand, pointing any focal length at all to the Milky Way will lead to a DOF only measurable in parsecs or lightyears. What you have not mentioned is that apart from *aperture of the lens, *focal length of the lens, *distance to the subject, the size of the camera's sensor determines the DOF. It seems to me that YOU might be the beginner struggling to grasp a few optical basics.
hmmmm.... here's a project for you - set up a tennis ball (for example) and keeping the tennis ball the same size in the final frame, take a series of photos at various focal lengths - keep the subject - the tennis ball - the same size in the final frame size. You will find that nearly all lenses have a very similar depth of field (zone of acceptable sharpness). This is a great exercise in showing the "apparent" depth of field changes with focal length.
You are correct, but do you know what the other thing you change to achieve the ball remaining the same size? The distance from the subject. It's actually the evidence that we are sold a lie about aperture. You can achieve almost all depths of field without ever changing the aperture.
I hate to tell you this, but the biggest lie is this title! DoF is only affected by the size of the entrance pupil and subject distance. Focal length and sensor size do not, on their own, affect DoF. I know I'm ignoring things like circle of confusion and resolution, but this might help (until I can make a more in depth video!) ruclips.net/video/uD__-HRc1VA/видео.htmlsi=XkoFy9LX0lck3SFa
The equation for DOF (as stated in the video) has four variables and you are choosing to ignore two of them. Circle of confusion c is related to the sensor sie, focal length f, f-number N, and distance to subject u.
@@edinburghphotographyworkshop Hi Rich, I've chosen to ignore them because they don't make a practical difference in your examples, (same camera, same pixel density). I do get where you're coming from, and what you're describing was much more relevant to film and print photography, but it might be worth some side by side practical tests to see what's really happening with these digital sensors with fixed resolutions. When you step back and use a longer focal length you're increasing the size of the entrance pupil, (by maintaining the same f/14)... which is what changes the apparent depth of field, it's not the focal length as such. Using your second shot as an example: 24mm at f/14 gives an entrance pupil 1.71mm in size. At 30cm subject distance, the maximum angle that the light can hit your sensor is 0.3266 degrees from the centre of your subject. If you had demonstrated the last example shot at nearer to 80mm (instead of 70mm), at f/14, you would have had an entrance pupil closer to 5.71mm in size. At 100cm subject distance, the maximum angle that the light can hit your sensor would have also been around 0.3266 degrees (0.32716 to be exact) from the centre of your subject. This would have clearly demonstrated much the same DoF to the second example. I apologise for the boring maths, and realise this has little practical use in the field, but if you enter the figures into your favourite PhotoPils app you’ll see what I mean. It’s really difficult to explain this without diagrams, but the bigger the angle of light entering the entrance pupil, the shallower the depth of field. I tend to think of it as a cone of light starting at the focal point. The quicker the cone of light exceeds what we used to think of as the circle of confusion, the quicker it becomes out of focus. A good practical test would be to see the difference in DoF between two different focal lengths while keeping the foreground subject exactly the same size in frame. You might find that it’s only the size of the entrance pupil and the subject distance which affects DoF. (My pet hate is when I hear people talking about sensor size effecting DoF !!!) I apologise for appearing to troll your video with unwanted comments, and I only did because of the title… I'm actually very grateful to you because I'm now enthused to make my own demonstrations! Take care.
I made that video as promised... it's the easiest way I can describe what you're observing! Cheers, Paul ruclips.net/video/NSOyR16fSmo/видео.htmlsi=qExUFNVJbi32YxMI
A good demonstration of DOF. However, I don’t think that it’s a lie - just an incomplete description of factors affecting DOF! Using this kind of hook may affect your credibility.
This is why lots of people swear by larger focal lenses on there cameras for portrait work.. Example lots of people will tell you a 80mm or more lens on a full frame camera is there lens of choice when shooting portraits.. It is because of the same reasons you speak of.. It gets the distance of the person taking the photo in relationship to the target at that sweet spot that gives a nice creamy background blur. I recently proved a friend wrong by taking a rather nice modern lens of 65mm on medium format and doing a shot and then shooting the same or close settings photo with an adapted old vintage M42 prime at 200 mm and even if it required me to use a tripod to help keep the camera more still the 200mm lens actually gave a better more pleasing portrait look just like you did with that sign when you stepped back away from it but increased the focal size.. One would think everything balances out using this method but I find the effect of up close wide open is less appealing then further back not as open using a much larger focal distance lens ..
@@heikkisuontausta4898 To answer the question if depth of field is influenced by the sensor size, we can safely say yes, but it does so indirectly, because we are changing other parameters to end up with the same picture, focal length or the distance to the subject, which are the real reason why the depth of field is different between a full frame sensor and a crop sensor.
@@BramStolk Sensor size does not matter(*), and neither does focal length if you do the math (or play with dof calculator). For example 2m distance to subject and ~50cm dof can be achieved with ~9mm aperture. To match field of view this is FF 50/5.6 APS-C 35/4 and M43 25/2.8 (*) Sensor size does not matter when you compare DOF on any detail (like the letters on video). Or how much background is blurred behind the subject. You then essentially crop even more.
This is ot the whole picture. If you keep the frame constant, zooming in actually extends the depth of field for the same amount of blur. This is well known by portrait photographers, who know that they can get the entire face in focus if they use a telephoto as opposed to a fast standard that can only get one eye in focus, despite having the background blur the same. You can have the same amount of blur with a telephoto as with a standard, but more depth of field if you zoom in. The way you described it only works for tourist kind of shooting where you walk around with a superzoom and take snapshots of random stuff. If you specialise at one thing that's always more or less the same size, like people, pets, wildlife, cars, then you know that zooming in does not in fact make the depth of field shorter. That's because in order to have the same frame you need to take a few steps back and you end up at a greater distance to the subject. Now lets get nerdy. The way aperture is scribed on the lens is f/3.5, where f is the focal length. If you do the math, you get a size in milimiters. That is the physical size of the aperture. For example if the lens is Voigtlander 50mm f/1, then the aperture is 5 cm wide. This physical size corresponds to the depth of field and is independent of the focal length. 50mm apertures have the same depth of field regardless of the focal length. Now if your lens can keep a constant aperture of f/8 thoughout the zooming range, it implies that the physical size of aperture is growing towards the long end. At the short end of 28 mm, f/8 equals 3.5 mm physical aperture, while at 70 mm it's 8,75 mm. That's why the depth of field is shrinking when you zoom in.
The mix of snarky comments aside, your info is just fine with good examples. Given the YT algorithm these days anyone wanting to get noticed is almost forced to offer up a bit of click bait. You may notice some of the negative comments are coming from those who offer no advise of their own on YT or, may have other real interests like, penis size. Haters gotta hate.🙏
LOL - learnt all this on a Kodak Retina. Of course other things effect depth of field. Don't need photos. Just look at the depth of filed scales on old lenses, especially old zooms Google 'the impossible lens'. Ever seen North by Northwest? The plane scene in the filed. Have a look at that incredible depth of field! Nothing to do
What ever stated in the camera guide is correct - it is not lie. I can argue the you statement on the "acceptably sharp" for the last shoot is not sharp to my needs (as if you pixel peep you will see the actual truth). The camera manual cannot be a photography teaching book - it is technical manual. I guess you did not learn photography with your camera manual? You read many other books that describes this specifics that call "lie". It is not a lie - it is a fact that is not explained in a great details (that it is dependant on the focal length on the lens and the distance of focusing point). Also - that too small aperture creates less sharp images - due to diffraction. This is another lie for camera manufacturers when they design their lenses...
Well, this is Optics and not a lie! You can call it the Fascination about Aperture and Focal Length, but LIE ist a rather bad clickbait, man. No one ever lied with the things you've been talking about... Most likeky, people were not aware of it. Sad, that a good content is sold so badly...
Read your manual and you'll find who doesn't tell the whole truth. E.g. Canon R5 Manual - A higher f/number (smaller aperture hole) will make more of the foreground and background fall within acceptable focus. On the other hand, a lower f/number (larger aperture hole) will make less of the foreground and background fall within acceptable focus. Example 2 - Nikon Z50 Manual - Aperture - use to blur backgrounds or bring both foreground and background into focus. If you teach beginners, as I do, they get frustrated that the camera doesn't "do" what the manual tells them it should do. Most of the camera manuals are written badly and don't tell beginner photographers what they need to know.
@@edinburghphotographyworkshop I don't see where the manual is wrong it's confusing yes, wrong no. I've been a photographer for almost 50 years and I've been teaching photography to absolute beginners for 11 years. I don't think I've ever read the actual camera manual and I can say for certain the vast majority of my students haven't either. I do appreciate your reply and your willingness to explain your point of view. But I guess we can agree that we don't agree.
What are we supposed to have been lied about. Every thing you said is the same as everything I've always read for the past 60 years. Where were you getting your information from?
Stop making stupid clickbait videos. It is not a lie, it is merely that people understand part of the information. RUclips is becoming so tedious with so many poorly contrived ways of presenting information and knowledge. This video would have been much better described as take your knowledge on aperture and depth of field to another level. Respect the audience, karl Taylor is the model to understand how you build a major platform in this way.
I apologise but, in the context of mirrorless cameras, I don't understand why so many people get so bent out of shape on this topic. Through the viewfinder of a mirrorless camera, it is WYSIWYG ( what you see is what you get)! So, to me, aperture is about turning the dial. I just turn the dial to get the right balance between in focus and bokeh to sit my composition. Why do I need an app for?
@@petermcginty3636 not everyone is shooting with mirrorless. It’s also good for people to understand the effects in advance so they can work quicker (in my opinion).
No, mirrorless cameras just like DSLRs measure wide open. Both may have a button to check the depth of field but Imo it is better just to take test shots.
@@okaro6595 if you want max bokeh, go 1.2, if you want a little bokeh, use 2.8, of you want no bokeh, use 4.0. if you want extras sharp, 5.6. I do not see how difficult it is.
@@edinburghphotographyworkshop As someone else has pointed out, there is no difference between mirrorless and DSLR's in this respect. If the camera has a DoF preview button, you can get 'WYSIWIG' DoF with either.
Which is affected by what three things? Oh yes, the distance from the subject, the amount of the zoom, and the size of the sensor. Have you ever tried to explain depth of field to someone relatively new to photography who doesn't have a heavy science bias?
@@edinburghphotographyworkshopwould you please use “the focal length of the lens” rather than “the amount of zoom” which is a meaningless statement. smh
When you have taught as many beginners as I have, you tell them how depth of field actually works, about one in five will say "I feel like I have been lied to, that's why I have not been able to get blurry backgrounds". That feeling is the lie
Some may know this already, but the aperture isn't the only thing that affects the depth of field in your photographs. I have had students tell me that they feel they have been lied to in so many magazine articles. For those who don't know, this will help to tell the full story about what influences depth of field.
@@edinburghphotographyworkshop it’s amazing that people say they’ve been “lied to”. That shows that they don’t go out and practice and learn things for themselves. The late Fred Picker said that that you should test everything that you are told. As an example, I’ve found that in body stabilization and the ability to shoot hand held at low shutter speeds is nowhere near what the manufacturer claims.
You could have just called it “Factors affecting Depth of Field”. Using the term “lie” just weakens credibility. Or you could have said it’s (…a secret that only pro’s know….) then you’d get loads more clicks.
None of this is a revelation. It’s always been known that focal length impacts depth of field
I didn't understand where's the lie?
The lie was to get you to watch the video. 😏
Read your manual and you'll find who doesn't tell the whole truth. E.g. Canon R5 Manual - A higher f/number (smaller aperture hole) will make more of the foreground and background fall within acceptable focus. On the other hand, a lower f/number (larger aperture hole) will make less of the foreground and background fall within acceptable focus. Example 2 - Nikon Z50 Manual - Aperture - use to blur backgrounds or bring both foreground and background into focus.
If you teach beginners, as I do, they get frustrated that the camera doesn't "do" what the manual tells them it should do. Most of the camera manuals are written badly and don't tell beginner photographers what they need to know.
@@edinburghphotographyworkshop I still don't see the "lie". Your two references of the Canon and Nikon manual sound correct to me. They are accurate in explaining the impact of different f/numbers... They are NOT saying that this is the exclusive parameter for depth of field (which you very nicely demonstrate in your video).
If your argument is that they explanation is somehow incomplete, or worse, INTENTIONALLY misleading, then ok, maybe "lie" is close. But I think you're way off in your characterization that photographers are being told a lie. Your click-bait title should be changed.
When people want to be stupid there is nothing you can do
@@GerhardBothaWFF No you're lying! 😛
If you want low depth of field you should do 5 things, 1 wide aperture, 2 long focal length, 3 go close to subject, 4 have background far away, 5 use full frame, allows closer proximity to subject.
It must be me, but what this man has just run thru' are basic photographic tenets in Aperture, DoF & Focal length of lenses employed; it matters not whether you're using Analogue or Digital format, the principles remain the same. You can find all of this information in books - yes, books...remember those ? The cruel irony being: The further we advance in technological spheres, the more regressive humankind's comprehension becomes....but by all means, just use another bloody application. The finest computer resides between your ears.....oh, but wait...that requires thought..... 🤨
People still need to learn from somewhere - even the basics. We're not born with an innate understanding of the physics of optics - well, at least us mere mortals weren't! As for the PhotoPill application, that just adds a degree of preciseness and predictability to the process; personally, I'd rather use my eyes and the camera's DoF preview, but the app has its fans and its place.
Yes, as an experienced photographer, I too already knew about everything contained in this video, but I still had to learn it at some point. The video would have been better served by a less 'clickbaity' title, but the content is still valid and useful to newcomers to photography.
So yes, it _must_ be you.
I would agree with your closing sentiment, David; however, learning Light Optics when I started out, reading books, was not in & of itself a chore, but rather enjoyable - I may well be an exception to (today's) rule, but I came away with, & still retain that knowledge; computerised algorithms are no substitute for grey matter - it merely makes humans lazier; each to their own....
Hi. Your explanation of the relationship between aperture and other factors in determining depth of field is great - comprehensive and well explained. But I have to say that I don't like the clickbait title, as if there was a malign conspiracy to keep the truth from people for financial gain!
Pretty cool explanation. My son shoots concerts. After he gets his basic must have shots, he will pull out a 300mm f/2.8 in the pit and gets some of the best shots that nobody else is getting.
It's actually more simple than that. Forget about focal lenght and distance, it's all about ratio (how big the subject is in the frame).
This is the only way it should be tought... but every """"teacher""""" including this video is just a b*llshit.... APP :D LOL ... omg...
Many years ago, there was an article in the Amateur Photographer comparing the difference between using a 2X converter and cropping the image.
Although the article was talking about quality, the difference in depth of field was very noticeable in the examples shown.
Clickbait title... there is no lie being disproved here... Aperture DOES affect DoF... period.
How about watching the video and you would see I say that exact thing, BUT it's not the only thing which is what many sources imply
Good morning Rich. Well explained. The fourth factor influencing the depth of field is the sensor size. And PhotoPills deals with this as well...
Thanks for the comment. Yes, the sensor does have an impact, as you say, but I excluded it from the video as it isn't something you can change in the field.
Absolutely rubbishy click-bait title. Who lied to whom and when? Obviously, the author of this video is lying to us.
Read your manual and you'll find who doesn't tell the whole truth. E.g. Canon R5 Manual - A higher f/number (smaller aperture hole) will make more of the foreground and background fall within acceptable focus. On the other hand, a lower f/number (larger aperture hole) will make less of the foreground and background fall within acceptable focus. Example 2 - Nikon Z50 Manual - Aperture - use to blur backgrounds or bring both foreground and background into focus.
If you teach beginners, as I do, they get frustrated that the camera doesn't "do" what the manual tells them it should do. Most of the camera manuals are written badly and don't tell beginner photographers what they need to know.
@@edinburghphotographyworkshop You can repeat this as many times as you want, but the fact that there are additional factors that affect depth of field does not make it a lie that aperture controls depth of field. You're just giving additional detail, not disproving a lie. Your title is clickbait.
@@edinburghphotographyworkshop I have never heard such utter rubbish. Canon and Nikon are not lying at all. For any specific focal length of the lens the effect of aperture is exactly as Canon and Nikon describe it. The manual is for the camera body. What lens is attached, if any, is completely open. The same holds for the distance between camera and motive.
Lenses of different focal lengths lead to different DOF situations. So what? The same holds for distance to the motive.
In general turning the aperture control on any body, that in turn adjusts the aperture of the attached lens, has the effect described by the manufacturer.
It is fully clear that if you attach a 16mm you will not get a narrow DOF. On the other hand, pointing any focal length at all to the Milky Way will lead to a DOF only measurable in parsecs or lightyears.
What you have not mentioned is that apart from
*aperture of the lens,
*focal length of the lens,
*distance to the subject,
the size of the camera's sensor determines the DOF.
It seems to me that YOU might be the beginner struggling to grasp a few optical basics.
You could use a Leica SL3 whose top screen gives a dof scale
Another good reminder - thanks.
hmmmm.... here's a project for you - set up a tennis ball (for example) and keeping the tennis ball the same size in the final frame, take a series of photos at various focal lengths - keep the subject - the tennis ball - the same size in the final frame size. You will find that nearly all lenses have a very similar depth of field (zone of acceptable sharpness). This is a great exercise in showing the "apparent" depth of field changes with focal length.
You are correct, but do you know what the other thing you change to achieve the ball remaining the same size? The distance from the subject. It's actually the evidence that we are sold a lie about aperture. You can achieve almost all depths of field without ever changing the aperture.
I hate to tell you this, but the biggest lie is this title!
DoF is only affected by the size of the entrance pupil and subject distance. Focal length and sensor size do not, on their own, affect DoF.
I know I'm ignoring things like circle of confusion and resolution, but this might help (until I can make a more in depth video!)
ruclips.net/video/uD__-HRc1VA/видео.htmlsi=XkoFy9LX0lck3SFa
The equation for DOF (as stated in the video) has four variables and you are choosing to ignore two of them. Circle of confusion c is related to the sensor sie, focal length f, f-number N, and distance to subject u.
@@edinburghphotographyworkshop Hi Rich,
I've chosen to ignore them because they don't make a practical difference in your examples, (same camera, same pixel density). I do get where you're coming from, and what you're describing was much more relevant to film and print photography, but it might be worth some side by side practical tests to see what's really happening with these digital sensors with fixed resolutions. When you step back and use a longer focal length you're increasing the size of the entrance pupil, (by maintaining the same f/14)... which is what changes the apparent depth of field, it's not the focal length as such.
Using your second shot as an example:
24mm at f/14 gives an entrance pupil 1.71mm in size. At 30cm subject distance, the maximum angle that the light can hit your sensor is 0.3266 degrees from the centre of your subject.
If you had demonstrated the last example shot at nearer to 80mm (instead of 70mm), at f/14, you would have had an entrance pupil closer to 5.71mm in size. At 100cm subject distance, the maximum angle that the light can hit your sensor would have also been around 0.3266 degrees (0.32716 to be exact) from the centre of your subject.
This would have clearly demonstrated much the same DoF to the second example.
I apologise for the boring maths, and realise this has little practical use in the field, but if you enter the figures into your favourite PhotoPils app you’ll see what I mean.
It’s really difficult to explain this without diagrams, but the bigger the angle of light entering the entrance pupil, the shallower the depth of field. I tend to think of it as a cone of light starting at the focal point. The quicker the cone of light exceeds what we used to think of as the circle of confusion, the quicker it becomes out of focus.
A good practical test would be to see the difference in DoF between two different focal lengths while keeping the foreground subject exactly the same size in frame. You might find that it’s only the size of the entrance pupil and the subject distance which affects DoF. (My pet hate is when I hear people talking about sensor size effecting DoF !!!)
I apologise for appearing to troll your video with unwanted comments, and I only did because of the title… I'm actually very grateful to you because I'm now enthused to make my own demonstrations! Take care.
I made that video as promised... it's the easiest way I can describe what you're observing! Cheers, Paul
ruclips.net/video/NSOyR16fSmo/видео.htmlsi=qExUFNVJbi32YxMI
He is just enhancing what was originally said about aperture to account for the effects of a zoom lens which is now so popular…
I’ve never been lied to about aperture.
(Otherwise good explanation about DOF)
A good demonstration of DOF. However, I don’t think that it’s a lie - just an incomplete description of factors affecting DOF!
Using this kind of hook may affect your credibility.
This is why lots of people swear by larger focal lenses on there cameras for portrait work.. Example lots of people will tell you a 80mm or more lens on a full frame camera is there lens of choice when shooting portraits.. It is because of the same reasons you speak of.. It gets the distance of the person taking the photo in relationship to the target at that sweet spot that gives a nice creamy background blur. I recently proved a friend wrong by taking a rather nice modern lens of 65mm on medium format and doing a shot and then shooting the same or close settings photo with an adapted old vintage M42 prime at 200 mm and even if it required me to use a tripod to help keep the camera more still the 200mm lens actually gave a better more pleasing portrait look just like you did with that sign when you stepped back away from it but increased the focal size.. One would think everything balances out using this method but I find the effect of up close wide open is less appealing then further back not as open using a much larger focal distance lens ..
You forgot the last factor!
* aperture
* focal length
* focus distance
* sensor size
There are only two things that matter. Focus distance and aperture size in millimeters.
@@heikkisuontausta4898 To answer the question if depth of field is influenced by the sensor size, we can safely say yes, but it does so indirectly, because we are changing other parameters to end up with the same picture, focal length or the distance to the subject, which are the real reason why the depth of field is different between a full frame sensor and a crop sensor.
@@BramStolk Sensor size does not matter(*), and neither does focal length if you do the math (or play with dof calculator). For example 2m distance to subject and ~50cm dof can be achieved with ~9mm aperture. To match field of view this is FF 50/5.6 APS-C 35/4 and M43 25/2.8
(*) Sensor size does not matter when you compare DOF on any detail (like the letters on video). Or how much background is blurred behind the subject. You then essentially crop even more.
This is ot the whole picture. If you keep the frame constant, zooming in actually extends the depth of field for the same amount of blur. This is well known by portrait photographers, who know that they can get the entire face in focus if they use a telephoto as opposed to a fast standard that can only get one eye in focus, despite having the background blur the same. You can have the same amount of blur with a telephoto as with a standard, but more depth of field if you zoom in.
The way you described it only works for tourist kind of shooting where you walk around with a superzoom and take snapshots of random stuff. If you specialise at one thing that's always more or less the same size, like people, pets, wildlife, cars, then you know that zooming in does not in fact make the depth of field shorter. That's because in order to have the same frame you need to take a few steps back and you end up at a greater distance to the subject.
Now lets get nerdy. The way aperture is scribed on the lens is f/3.5, where f is the focal length. If you do the math, you get a size in milimiters. That is the physical size of the aperture. For example if the lens is Voigtlander 50mm f/1, then the aperture is 5 cm wide. This physical size corresponds to the depth of field and is independent of the focal length. 50mm apertures have the same depth of field regardless of the focal length. Now if your lens can keep a constant aperture of f/8 thoughout the zooming range, it implies that the physical size of aperture is growing towards the long end. At the short end of 28 mm, f/8 equals 3.5 mm physical aperture, while at 70 mm it's 8,75 mm. That's why the depth of field is shrinking when you zoom in.
The mix of snarky comments aside, your info is just fine with good examples. Given the YT algorithm these days anyone wanting to get noticed is almost forced to offer up a bit of click bait. You may notice some of the negative comments are coming from those who offer no advise of their own on YT or, may have other real interests like, penis size. Haters gotta hate.🙏
What's the "lie?" It's just that DoF is influenced by more than one factor.
nice & thorough explanation, thanks!
LOL - learnt all this on a Kodak Retina. Of course other things effect depth of field.
Don't need photos. Just look at the depth of filed scales on old lenses, especially old zooms
Google 'the impossible lens'. Ever seen North by Northwest? The plane scene in the filed. Have a look at that incredible depth of field! Nothing to do
I suppose calling it a "lie" makes for a good click-bait title for a video...
I watched this thinking that there was a “Great Photography Aperture Lie”……..
Ah well
What ever stated in the camera guide is correct - it is not lie. I can argue the you statement on the "acceptably sharp" for the last shoot is not sharp to my needs (as if you pixel peep you will see the actual truth). The camera manual cannot be a photography teaching book - it is technical manual. I guess you did not learn photography with your camera manual? You read many other books that describes this specifics that call "lie". It is not a lie - it is a fact that is not explained in a great details (that it is dependant on the focal length on the lens and the distance of focusing point). Also - that too small aperture creates less sharp images - due to diffraction. This is another lie for camera manufacturers when they design their lenses...
Well done Einstein, life will not be the same.
That helpful information, not sure why some people can't get over the title .its not political 😊
Thanks, haters gonna hate I guess 😊
Well, this is Optics and not a lie! You can call it the Fascination about Aperture and Focal Length, but LIE ist a rather bad clickbait, man. No one ever lied with the things you've been talking about... Most likeky, people were not aware of it. Sad, that a good content is sold so badly...
DOF is much increased with shorter focal length.
That's exactly how it works!! Can you explain the lie?
Read your manual and you'll find who doesn't tell the whole truth. E.g. Canon R5 Manual - A higher f/number (smaller aperture hole) will make more of the foreground and background fall within acceptable focus. On the other hand, a lower f/number (larger aperture hole) will make less of the foreground and background fall within acceptable focus. Example 2 - Nikon Z50 Manual - Aperture - use to blur backgrounds or bring both foreground and background into focus.
If you teach beginners, as I do, they get frustrated that the camera doesn't "do" what the manual tells them it should do. Most of the camera manuals are written badly and don't tell beginner photographers what they need to know.
@@edinburghphotographyworkshop I don't see where the manual is wrong it's confusing yes, wrong no. I've been a photographer for almost 50 years and I've been teaching photography to absolute beginners for 11 years. I don't think I've ever read the actual camera manual and I can say for certain the vast majority of my students haven't either. I do appreciate your reply and your willingness to explain your point of view. But I guess we can agree that we don't agree.
What are we supposed to have been lied about. Every thing you said is the same as everything I've always read for the past 60 years. Where were you getting your information from?
I haven't been told any lies.
Just more click bait.
No like.
No subscribe.
Just saved a waste of time, read the first few comments
But you still have enough time to write a meaningless comment? Thanks for your input
Stop making stupid clickbait videos. It is not a lie, it is merely that people understand part of the information. RUclips is becoming so tedious with so many poorly contrived ways of presenting information and knowledge. This video would have been much better described as take your knowledge on aperture and depth of field to another level. Respect the audience, karl Taylor is the model to understand how you build a major platform in this way.
I apologise but, in the context of mirrorless cameras, I don't understand why so many people get so bent out of shape on this topic.
Through the viewfinder of a mirrorless camera, it is WYSIWYG ( what you see is what you get)! So, to me, aperture is about turning the dial. I just turn the dial to get the right balance between in focus and bokeh to sit my composition. Why do I need an app for?
@@petermcginty3636 not everyone is shooting with mirrorless. It’s also good for people to understand the effects in advance so they can work quicker (in my opinion).
@@edinburghphotographyworkshop thank you
No, mirrorless cameras just like DSLRs measure wide open. Both may have a button to check the depth of field but Imo it is better just to take test shots.
@@okaro6595 if you want max bokeh, go 1.2, if you want a little bokeh, use 2.8, of you want no bokeh, use 4.0. if you want extras sharp, 5.6. I do not see how difficult it is.
@@edinburghphotographyworkshop As someone else has pointed out, there is no difference between mirrorless and DSLR's in this respect. If the camera has a DoF preview button, you can get 'WYSIWIG' DoF with either.
Surely the only two factors affecting depth of field are Aperture and Reproduction Ratio?
Which is affected by what three things? Oh yes, the distance from the subject, the amount of the zoom, and the size of the sensor. Have you ever tried to explain depth of field to someone relatively new to photography who doesn't have a heavy science bias?
And here is the formulae that evidences this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field
@@edinburghphotographyworkshopwould you please use “the focal length of the lens” rather than “the amount of zoom” which is a meaningless statement. smh
@@colinstock325@colinstock325, would you please use shaking my head rather than "smh", which is a meaningless statement. Shaking my head
Anyone fancy a pint?
OK.... But where is the lie??
When you have taught as many beginners as I have, you tell them how depth of field actually works, about one in five will say "I feel like I have been lied to, that's why I have not been able to get blurry backgrounds". That feeling is the lie
The liar is not the aperture - the liar is just behind the camera... 😊
First video of yours that I've watched. Also, the last.
You are a lovely person
@@edinburghphotographyworkshop No time for clickbait artists.