I was shooting some wildlife the other day when the midday sun began to get to me. Finding some shade I sat down in some tall grass to cool down. While sitting I began to shoot some of the insects I saw around me, and I was reminded of something I knew to be true, but hadn't thought of. When you're outdoors insect wildlife is everywhere. If you just sit for ten minutes they begin to come out, and it becomes difficult to choose among the fascinating subjects. If you have sunlight, patience, and a decent macro lens you can get great images of grasshoppers, beetles, caterpillars, and a host of other interesting creatures. Pretty much everything is beautiful if you get close enough to it, but insects are a special case. Their chitinous body armor, colored wings and bodies, different shaped antennae, and compound eyes make for fabulous photography.
I find that you can use f3.5, and get sufficient depth of field, yet still allow the background to blur out. Have a look at kodo34's work as an example. The detail you can get on these beautiful, frightening little creatures is fascinating, and if you're like me you'll find yourself admiring your own work just because the subjects are so beautiful.
"Think what a better world it would be if we all, the whole world, had cookies and milk about three o'clock every afternoon and then lay down on our blankets for a nap." - Robert Fulghum
"Think what a better world it would be if we all, the whole world, had cookies and milk about three o'clock every afternoon and then lay down on our blankets for a nap." - Robert Fulghum
Macro photography has been one of the areas I'm hoping to indulge in. Regmar ~ I appreciate the info ... insects do make interesting subjects & Kristof's work is an inspiration. Les, thank you for the link as it will be a valuable resource.
Summer will be here soon ... best be getting that macro lens sooner than I thought.
Les that article is really informative, but I'm afraid it has upset my apple-cart. I have always assumed that depth of field was far greater on my side of the focal point that it was on the far side. According to your article it is in fact almost equal for most focal lengths. Based on my assumptions I have usually focused on a point just forward of the subject, but that article suggests that the DOF in front of the target is just as deep as it is behind the target. I shall have to change my ways.
Did you take note of the chart on that page, specifically; "Distribution of the Depth of Field" and and comments following that chart Reg?
Quite beyond my novice status and understanding, however, this is what followed the 'numbers' and seemed to be an important consideration and I quote;
"This exposes a limitation of the traditional DoF concept: it only accounts for the total DoF and not its distribution around the focal plane, even though both may contribute to the perception of sharpness. A wide angle lens provides a more gradually fading DoF behind the focal plane than in front, which is important for traditional landscape photographs."
"Think what a better world it would be if we all, the whole world, had cookies and milk about three o'clock every afternoon and then lay down on our blankets for a nap." - Robert Fulghum
Yeah that's where I got the figures. The chart which showed the difference between the depth of field in front of as opposed to behind the focal point seemed to suggest that excepting macro work they're about the same.
What it shows is that beyond about 20mm the DOF in front of the focal pt. is almost the same as it is behind. The commentary afterwards suggested it may not be true, but that in the photos it won't make a difference because of the way we perceive it. Did I get it wrong?
Hmm, don't think so Reg. The 'actual' perceptual differences seems to be the sticking point between that of the theory and those of the numbers in the charts.
Be interesting to 'see' the results of an experiment though. Care to offer up some time in that pursuit? Or, perhaps there is or are examples in Kristof's gallery as we speak?
Lightbulb moment. Going to PM Kristof for his thoughts. Now I am intently curious.
"Think what a better world it would be if we all, the whole world, had cookies and milk about three o'clock every afternoon and then lay down on our blankets for a nap." - Robert Fulghum
"Think what a better world it would be if we all, the whole world, had cookies and milk about three o'clock every afternoon and then lay down on our blankets for a nap." - Robert Fulghum
1) Magnification and f-number mainly affects the DOF in macro.
2) The acceptable focus area/region/space/distance/range/front-to-back-thing is 'pretty much' equal in macro. Not so much for real .. i mean .. landscape photography and what not when the rule of thumb rules come out to play.
3) I don't know what I'm talking about.
4) I used wikipedia ... and a few other dubious sources. About 3 total.
5) In my opinion, don't stress it. Instead: Look into the eyes. See the terror ... And now focus on the eyes then capture the emotion. The fear. the terror. The suffering. Physics will take care of the rest and all the blocks will fall into place. If not, Photoshop is only $650.
"... What it shows is that beyond about 20mm the DOF in front of the focal pt. is almost the same as it is behind. The commentary afterwards suggested it may not be true, but that in the photos it won't make a difference because of the way we perceive it. Did I get it wrong? ..."
Looking at the numbers, at first it seems to be like beyond a certain point of focal length the numbers increase significantly, but if you look closer,... they actually don't, they increase linearly, (~8
Only considering front (but this also holds true for rear), from 400 to 200, the difference is .5%, from 200 to 100, the difference is 1%, from 100 to 50, the difference is 2%, then the numbers immediately go to 20, but if they would have gone to 25, the difference in front from 50mm to 25mm would be somewhere between 4% and 5% (I suspect), and from 25 to 12.5 the difference would then be around 9% (I suspect),
About the commentary afterwards; I think it can be clarified mainly by the first chart of that section,
They state that at a certain distance to the subject DOF will change while varying the focal length, which is critical regarding macro photography/Bugs, as reversely at a certain focal length DOF will get smaller while lowering the distance (like in getting closer (~8),
In the first chart of that section you can see that DOF remains the same for the given distances and focal length, but of course, if you change either focal length or focus distance, DOF will not remain the same,
The commentary before that first chart might also clarify what I stated above,
HTH to some level at least, I'm sure others will come up with brighter ideas,
Link The size of the fruit is less than 1 cm. However, it's not perfectly focused on all its area. That means the DoF is really too tiny. My choice with an aperture = 2.8 was not appropriate in that case.
I totally agree with Tim's clarifications above.
What Reg said about bugs appearing after you sit still for a while is perfectly true but not just for bugs. I’ve had Kangaroos, Snakes, Echidnas, Foxes, Feral Cats and birds almost walk on or land on me while I’m waiting for the right moment to take a shot. I’ve also had dragonflies actually land on me more than once. Believe me being eye to eye at one metre with a large wild kangaroo while lying on your tummy to take a photo is an interesting experience, just say BOO and they go away quickly :-)
The second part of the discussion is really interesting because it’s something that became a lot harder when we adopted zoom lenses. The manual focus prime lenses always had a depth of field scale etched on them. You could read the focal limits right off the scale for any distance and aperture.
Anyway here are he rules of thumb that I use:
1, The longer the focal length of the lens – The shorter the depth of field will be.
2, The closer you get to your subject - The shorter the depth of field will be.
3, When an object is in perfect focus – The focus range will be in one third in front of that object and two thirds behind it.
Actually you don’t have to bother with any of that stuff if your camera has a stop down button. Just use the stop down button while focusing manually. It’s the most accurate way to get your object in focus because you can see and manipulate the limits of focus.
There is a little freeware program called DOFMaster which allows you to print a focus calculator that is tailored to suit you own camera. The calculator can be made small enough to fit on a lens cap. There is also a link there that lists the circle of confusion for most digital cameras so you can get the scales right for your camera.
Now this ... is what I call a discussion thread. :o)
Thanks for the information and thoughts everyone and for taking the time to respond. Sincerely appreciated and I shall bookmark this thread for future reference and dissemination.
"Think what a better world it would be if we all, the whole world, had cookies and milk about three o'clock every afternoon and then lay down on our blankets for a nap." - Robert Fulghum
2, The closer you get to your subject - The shorter the depth of field will be.
3, When an object is in perfect focus – The focus range will be in one third in front of that object and two thirds behind it.
I use 3 quite a lot for shooting moving bugs and stop down is not an option .
Perception plays a big role here .
Non of this is true of course with tilt and shift lenses ;-)
Just took a tour of your galleries Russ on dslreports.com and on the site here ... a couple that stood out to my eyes, no slights against your other macro photos:
"Think what a better world it would be if we all, the whole world, had cookies and milk about three o'clock every afternoon and then lay down on our blankets for a nap." - Robert Fulghum
"Think what a better world it would be if we all, the whole world, had cookies and milk about three o'clock every afternoon and then lay down on our blankets for a nap." - Robert Fulghum
Nothing earth shattering for you guys, however ... it does explain the relationship of lenses with the sensor to novices in one quick ... er, snap. :oD
"Think what a better world it would be if we all, the whole world, had cookies and milk about three o'clock every afternoon and then lay down on our blankets for a nap." - Robert Fulghum
Question -- How can I get a decent lens if I just have a Canon Powershot? I've seen nothing in the stores around here, not even National Camera, for it. And I live in a large metropolitian area. Is there software that can simulate the effect without breaking the bank?
What software effect are you talking about? Magnification? I hate to state the obvious, but with magnification comes loss of detail. I haven't found software that can add information that wasn't there to begin with (well, aside from cloning). In software, magnification is akin to cropping an image. When you crop you must lose detail. Cropping a good clear 10mpx image down to 4mpx will generally still give you a good 8x10 image, but as you enlarge a 4mpx image beyond that the grain will become visible.
I find that you can use f3.5, and get sufficient depth of field, yet still allow the background to blur out. Have a look at kodo34's work as an example. The detail you can get on these beautiful, frightening little creatures is fascinating, and if you're like me you'll find yourself admiring your own work just because the subjects are so beautiful.