Caedes
Upload Images
Welcome guest
Log In or Register
User Stats
- 1 total users online
- 37 users active today
- 259167 total members
- +show users online
Photography
Discussion Board -> Photography -> some questions about depth of field and exposure
some questions about depth of field and exposure
Comments
Post a Comment - Subscribe to this discussion
The real problem about the DoF is to work with the largest aperture and the bigger focal length as possible.
Cheap zoom lenses are often opening at 3,5 but when you are working at 100 mm or higher, the aperture is 5,6 or higher.
Impossible to get a tiny DoF with a 5,6 aperture...
That's why professionals are working with zoom lenses opening at 2,8 in all the range. But these lenses are very expensive.
You should find a 50 mm lens (not a zoom) opening at 1,8 and try with aperture priority set at 1,8 or 2,8. Link
... or try this ;-)
Cheap zoom lenses are often opening at 3,5 but when you are working at 100 mm or higher, the aperture is 5,6 or higher.
Impossible to get a tiny DoF with a 5,6 aperture...
That's why professionals are working with zoom lenses opening at 2,8 in all the range. But these lenses are very expensive.
You should find a 50 mm lens (not a zoom) opening at 1,8 and try with aperture priority set at 1,8 or 2,8. Link
... or try this ;-)
0∈
[?]
-Pierre-
geez, does it come with a free camera? for the money, it should..
but on a serious note, 50 1.8 lenses are relatively inexpensive. also, consider an f4 lens as a slightly less expensive alternative to the 2.8's.
but on a serious note, 50 1.8 lenses are relatively inexpensive. also, consider an f4 lens as a slightly less expensive alternative to the 2.8's.
0∈
[?]
Please, even if you don't visit my gallery, check out my "Faves".I've left them intact since day "1", and would like it if every image there got the attention they deserved.
We had a discussion of Depth of Field here somewhere. One way you can decrease your depth of field without changing your aperture / shutter speed combination is to get closer to your target. Depth of field changes (At least it seems that way to me.) as the distance between you, and the thing you focus on changes. Usually with me the problem is the opposite - I'm shooting something close, but I want a deeper DOF.
0∈
[?]
ж Regmar ж
you could try using one of these 'till you get the hang of things. starting at less than $30, it wont break the bank either.
0∈
[?]
A smart bomb is only as clever as the idiot that tells it what to do
Here are my thoughts....
#1/ I'll default to the others' discussion on the technical aspects of DOF and aperture. You've created the "right" DOF idea, with the subject in between the blurred areas, but you're not satisfied with the amount of blurring (which I agree with you). A work around getting a new lens would be working in Photoshop and blurring the background yourself.
#2/ Again, besides the technical answers to #1, I think you would benefit from a higher focal length. You shot at a very wide angle, but wanted to focus much of the attention on the lamp. Wide angle lenses are great for landscapes, where you want to see a large area. Try zooming in more on the lamp in order to isolate it from the surroundings. Of course, that might still leave you with the same result as #1...not enough blurring.
#3/ A polarizing filter will do the trick. Circular polarizers are the best, because you can rotate the filter depending upon the angle you are at to the sun. 90 degree angles to the sun will produce the deepest blue areas. Beach scenes like that one might prove to be slightly more difficult than, say a clear mountain day, because it tends to be quite hazy. The filters are pretty inexpensive and have a lot more uses than just darkening skies. If I am not using a more specialized filter, I pretty much leave my circular polarizer on at all times. It saturates colors more and protects your lens from dust, scratches, etc.
#4/ A graduated neutral density filter would do exactly what you are looking for. The filter has a graduated gray color on half the filter and clear glass on the rest. So, you can darken the sky however many stops you would like (depending on which filter you get) while leaving the ground unaffected. So, you can focus your exposure priority to the ground without overexposing the sky. As you have found out, its usually a game between "Do I overexpose the sky, or do I underexpose the ground?" Graduated neutral density filters (also coming in various colors, like orange for sunsets) are very useful in a lot of landscape photography, so I believe its worth picking one up if that's what you're looking to do. A work around could be taking various exposures and working with layers in Photoshop to achieve the same affect.
#5/ Same answer as #4, plus you could always stack a circular polarizer. But, I think the problem is that you shot pretty much directly into the sun, which is always a very difficult task. That kind of harsh lighting tends to render colors very dull. If you shot with the sun to your side, you could benefit from side-lighting, which usually gives you some nice effects. A hood could help with the lens flares and reduce glare, but the dull colors will still be there.
Well, that's it from me...I hope that helps!!
#1/ I'll default to the others' discussion on the technical aspects of DOF and aperture. You've created the "right" DOF idea, with the subject in between the blurred areas, but you're not satisfied with the amount of blurring (which I agree with you). A work around getting a new lens would be working in Photoshop and blurring the background yourself.
#2/ Again, besides the technical answers to #1, I think you would benefit from a higher focal length. You shot at a very wide angle, but wanted to focus much of the attention on the lamp. Wide angle lenses are great for landscapes, where you want to see a large area. Try zooming in more on the lamp in order to isolate it from the surroundings. Of course, that might still leave you with the same result as #1...not enough blurring.
#3/ A polarizing filter will do the trick. Circular polarizers are the best, because you can rotate the filter depending upon the angle you are at to the sun. 90 degree angles to the sun will produce the deepest blue areas. Beach scenes like that one might prove to be slightly more difficult than, say a clear mountain day, because it tends to be quite hazy. The filters are pretty inexpensive and have a lot more uses than just darkening skies. If I am not using a more specialized filter, I pretty much leave my circular polarizer on at all times. It saturates colors more and protects your lens from dust, scratches, etc.
#4/ A graduated neutral density filter would do exactly what you are looking for. The filter has a graduated gray color on half the filter and clear glass on the rest. So, you can darken the sky however many stops you would like (depending on which filter you get) while leaving the ground unaffected. So, you can focus your exposure priority to the ground without overexposing the sky. As you have found out, its usually a game between "Do I overexpose the sky, or do I underexpose the ground?" Graduated neutral density filters (also coming in various colors, like orange for sunsets) are very useful in a lot of landscape photography, so I believe its worth picking one up if that's what you're looking to do. A work around could be taking various exposures and working with layers in Photoshop to achieve the same affect.
#5/ Same answer as #4, plus you could always stack a circular polarizer. But, I think the problem is that you shot pretty much directly into the sun, which is always a very difficult task. That kind of harsh lighting tends to render colors very dull. If you shot with the sun to your side, you could benefit from side-lighting, which usually gives you some nice effects. A hood could help with the lens flares and reduce glare, but the dull colors will still be there.
Well, that's it from me...I hope that helps!!
0∈
[?]
Check out my website
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y71/fai_11/DSC_1055.jpg
Shutter speed 1/500 Aperture f5.6Focal Length 100m
1) I already set the largest aperture in pic#1, but I still can't blur the background (in this case, the bird and ocean are the background). What is the problem? and how do I fix that?
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y71/fai_11/DSC_1104.jpg
Shutter speed 1/1250Aperture f3.5Focal Length 18mm
2) Almost the same problem as #1. I want to bring out the focus on the lamp while trying blurry the background.
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y71/fai_11/DSC_1051.jpg
Shutter speed 1/640Aperture f5.3Focal length 66mm
3) How do i make the sky more blue in pic#3? Do i have to use a filteror I can do it by adjusting the setting? I already set the opimizeimage to "more vivid" mode.
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y71/fai_11/DSC_0952.jpg
Shutter speed 1/3200Aperture F8focal length 32mm
4) The bottom part (the sand) look underexposed. How do i fix that?
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y71/fai_11/DSC_0928.jpg
shutter speed 1/500Aperture f11focal length 35mm
5) The grass looks underexposed or the color doesn't look right? what are the problems? how do I fix them?Thanks for anyone answering my question : )