Beginner with a Yashica FX-3 Super 2000 How can I really understand and control Depth of Field on film?

[koraks]

]View attachment 417728

Can you tell us a bit more about how this image was made, by whom, and what it intends to illustrate?

 

[Pedroga]

Can you tell us a bit more about how this image was made, by whom, and what it intends to illustrate?

I saw this photo in a video on the YouTube channel "linusandhiscamera" where he was teaching how to adjust and invert the color of negatives.
Click here to watch the video in question.

 

[runswithsizzers]

I saw this photo in a video on the YouTube channel "linusandhiscamera" where he was teaching how to adjust and invert the color of negatives.
Click here to watch the video in question.

Anytime you post a photo made by someone else, it is only fair to give the photographer credit. If you post a photo here without telling us anything about it, then the assumption might be that YOU took the photo, which is misleading and causes confusion.

 

[warden]

I have a Yashica FX-3 Super 2000, and I’m a complete beginner in analog photography (honestly, photography in general).

I’m trying to properly understand Depth of Field, but here’s my main problem:

the viewfinder doesn’t show changes in real time, so I have no idea how the photo will actually look on film. It feels like the result could be either a horribly blurry mess or a perfect shot — and right now it’s basically luck.

I tried a few Depth of Field simulator websites, but I’m not sure I fully understood how to apply that information in real life.

My lens has that distance and depth-of-field scale (kind of like a ruler), and I was told it’s used to “calculate” or estimate DoF. I want to learn how to use this properly and professionally, not just guess and hope it works.

For example:

• I want to take a portrait where the person in front of me is completely sharp and the background is blurred.
• I want to take a wide landscape where everything is sharp, even people in the scene.
• Or even a portrait with the background also in focus.

Right now, my understanding is something like this:

For a portrait, I should open the aperture to around f/5, use a 50mm lens, focus at about 1.5 meters, and shoot.

But I honestly don’t know if I’m on the right track or just repeating things without really understanding them.

How do you actually learn to predict and control Depth of Field on a fully manual film camera like this, before pressing the shutter?

ML Zoom 35-70mm F/3.5-4.8 Lente C/Y

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Welcome to the forum! Learning about depth of field is easier with a prime lens rather than a zoom but I suggest not changing equipment just yet; you have everything you need to learn about controlling depth of field with that zoom so once you’re more comfortable with the basic use of your lens that’s the time to make targeted adjustments to your kit.

 

[xkaes]

Depth of field is on your lens.

DOF scales are on most lenses, but not on most two-touch zooms, as mentioned (like the Yashica ML 35-70mm f3.5/4.8), and plenty of of one-touch zooms don't have it either.

I wouldn't bother getting a camera with a DOF button because when you stop down the lens, the viewfinder gets so dark it's hard to see. Stick to lenses that have DOF scales. There are some 35-70mm zooms that have it -- even some 28-85mm. I've got a 21-35mm zoom that has them!

 

[Don_ih]

DOF is on most lenses but not on most two-touch zooms.

Yes, we've established that.

 

[koraks]

I saw this photo in a video on the YouTube channel "linusandhiscamera" where he was teaching how to adjust and invert the color of negatives.
Click here to watch the video in question.

Ah, thanks so much! It didn't look like something shot with the 35-70 lens you mentioned earlier, hence the question. I agree with @runswithsizzers that it's always a good idea to provide a source for content that's not your own. I'll add the YT link you kindly provided to your post so that this is covered in this case as well. Thanks again!

 

[MattKing]

I support fair attribution for other's work.
I usually don't worry as much though when it comes to the sort of mundane illustration pictures like the excellent ones posted by @xkaes in post #30.
And as for your example picture, I can't decide whether the separation of subject and background is due to an unusual subject or some digital (most likely) manipulation.
I don't think that it is due to employing a much longer than 70mm lens on 135 film, because the facial features don't appear to me to exhibit the same flattening of perspective effect as I would expect to see with the sort of large camera to subject distance that one would use a 200 - 300 mm lens, but perhaps that particular model has very dramatic features and facial bone structure.

 

[Pedroga]

I'm going to do some tests. I'm going to take 3 portraits at 3 different apertures: 50mm f/3.5, 70mm f/3.5, and another random one that I think of at the time.
I don't think the effect will look good at any of the options I choose; the aperture isn't large enough for the effect I'd like, but the learning experience is what matters.

 

[koraks]

If you're looking for something like the image we discussed, I think you'll want something like a 135/2.8 at the very least or a 100/2 or so, or perhaps go even longer towards 180-200mm. I agree that 50/3.5 or 70/3.5 probably won't give you the emphasis you're going for. That's rather challenging to get with shorter lenses.

 

[MattKing]

If you are going to try this, try to get your subject some place like the crest of a hill, where you can get quite close to your subject, and where the background is a long way away.
Consider as well focusing slightly closer - e.g. on the nearest cheekbone rather than the eye.
When it is relatively limited, usable depth of field is itself roughly distributed with about 1/3 of the usable depth closer to the camera than the focus plane and 2/3 of the usable depth farther from the camera than the focus plane.
IIRC, this was shot with a 110mm lens and a mid-range aperture choice on 6x4.5. This is roughly equivalent to a 70mm lens on 35mm.

 

[wiltw]

Quick illustration...
Shot with 50mm f/2.8, the near book is 2.25m away, focus point on sugar jar is 3m distant (about the distance of a 'portrait' shot) far book is 3.9m away...

• perfect vision DOF extends from about 2.9m - 3.1m
• manufacturer standard DOF extends from about 2.8m - 3.2m

Remember, this should be viewed at the distance to your monitor equal to the diagonal measure of the image (as it appears on your monitor).
While the near book is certainly out of focus, the far book is 'not so bad' focus, yet the far book is certainly well outside the DOF zone for both 'manufacturer standard, and for 'perfect vision' viewer in spite of what DOF calculators say you should see! For reference, the back metal rail is about another 10m behind the rear book, yet it is still recognizable despite blur.

Yet the example image from your post #13 shows a highly blurred background. How might they have done that? The very blurred background could have been
A. a very large physical aperture size (diameter in mm -- NOT necessarily a big f/number): 200mm f/2 is 100mm diameter, while 50mm f/2 is only 25mm

B. more likely...digital postprocessing to render background extremely blurred