You need to avoid 35mm and go to large format.
Problem solved.
Pinhole, of course!
Best equipment would be: an old tin can, a needle, and some film or photo paper.
Infinite DOF. Problem solved!
These look like they were shot at or near maximum aperture. Stop down to between f5.6 - f16 and you should be fine.Thanks for the advice everyone. So my main priority should be to increase my knowledge around focal lengths, depth of field, apertures. I gather a wide angle lens helps but really any camera will do so long as the settings are correct? I really like the look/build quality of the Pentax cameras.
For the last few days I've been gathering examples of pictures that, in my opinion, are poor. Mainly for their use of out of focus backgrounds (I hope they are sufficiently credited):
These are just a few examples of what I hate about the style. Overblurred backround, resolution lost in important parts such as the plummage of the bird. And then the last example with just mind numbing use of blur!
While they may be poorly executed attempts, I just feel like every picture taken in the world today (wrongly) tries to incorporate Boke
if the OP wants sharp backgrounds, h needs to focus on the background and not rely on depth of field to cover it!Welcome to Apug... er, Photrio! I don't understand your hatred for boke, since you love all things Japanese ( I do as well as I lived there for many years, and my wife is Japanese and insists on Japanese products). Boke is a Japanese word meaning unclear. It can also be used as an insult meaning dumb, stupid. Boke in an image is fine by me as long as it isn't obvious. That shouldn't be the subject of the photograph. It should be seamless, just like when burning/dodging a print in the darkroom or the light room. If you want to avoid extremely short depths of fields, then use wide angle lenses and shoot fully stopped down. The only thing that bugs me about boke is the spelling. Notice the lack of h at the end... But I realise it is there because people would pronounce it incorrectly... kind of like how we pronounce Nikon wrongCheers and good luck. Would like to see some of your images posted here.
If you want 'no blur', you need to use a tiny shooting aperture, like f/16, but that is not always possible...maybe you cannot handhold the very slow shutter speed that is needed for that small aperture. Use of 'hyperfocal distance' CAN help, but if the Hyperfocal Distance calculator says to focus at 250' out on the lake, where do you focus?!
Except for large format, not many lenses beyond macro/micro stop down to f64.
if the OP wants sharp backgrounds, h needs to focus on the background and not rely on depth of field to cover it!
I keep looking on e-bay for a front of lens 'leaf' shutter.. but of 'no avail"... yet anyway.
Ken
Off topic, but have you considered a packard shutter? Sinar also made lens boards with electronic shutters but they're rare, expensive, and probably not available in 8x10.
Those are incredible photographs and exactly what I'm looking for. Thanks for the advice!As I landscape photographer, I aim for the most DOF I can get. So I stop down the aperture far. (I mainly use a Mamiya RB67 medium format film camera). Of course, I have to use a tripod because that requires slow shutter speeds. When I travel, I take a light P&S 1" sensor (Sony RX100iv digital camera). No tripod. The smaller the sensor more DOF you get. I put it on P mode and shoot away happy as a lark. Here are samples. Plenty of DOF most of the time without thinking about it.
https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort=date-taken-desc&safe_search=1&tags=rx100&user_id=55760757@N05&view_all=1
Since this question was posed in digital, my recommendation would be to explore focus stacking using post-processing software as suggested by bdial yesterday. This can be employed to make the entire image "in focus" front to back.
Advantages:
1) I think nearly any camera sensor size and lens combination should work. Therefore, you're not limited to exotic or expensive equipment.
2) Post-processing software have numerous features that automate the stacking process and should make this fairly quick work once you dial in your workflow.
3) The technique is frequently employed by macro or astrophotography specialists to overcome DOF limitations or scene movement limitations to excellent effect. Forums or sites on these types of photography may share techniques and methodology worth exploring.
Given that this is in the digital section, the obvious answer would be "Focus out to where you think 250' would be, and take a test photo to zoom in on and review in the field, adjust and take again as needed"
...while today so many photographers of today are obsessed with portraits in which the eye is in focus and the nose and ears are out of focus. Nevermind that the portrait sitter's response is "Why am I out of focus?"Just recently I've read somewhere that historically, large depth of field used to be photographer's obsession, and it was one of the major selling points of smaller formats. Just like todays photographers masturbate over sharpness, large DOF was an obsession "back in the day". Can't recall how far back it was, or which book I saw this in.
Many younger photographers don't realize the purpose of big lenses with wide open apertures had a purpose other than narrow DOF. Back in the film days with SLR's, the brighter the lens, the easier it was to see your subject, focus, and compose especially when shooting in darker areas. Also, due to the slow speed of film, an extra stop let's say at f 1.4 rather than f2 , allowed a faster shutter speed to freeze the action. Of course, with modern digital, with live view and higher ISO speeds, f/1.8 or 2.0 would be fine. It's also lighter to carry and cheaper to buy and may distort less because less glass is needed. ....while today so many photographers of today are obsessed with portraits in which the eye is in focus and the nose and ears are out of focus. Nevermind that the portrait sitter's response is "Why am I out of focus?"
You told us what boke isn’t but not what it is.Unfortunately most young (under 50) photographers MISUNDERSTAND 'bokeh'. It is NOT 'how blurry' the background is! Yet so many people say they 'want bokeh' when they actually want a 'blurry backround' . Blame the internet for spreading mistruths!
'Blur' comes with use of a long FL in combination with a large aperture (very small f/number...like f/2). And whether you shoot a subject at f/4 with 50mm lens at 10' or 100mm lens at 20' or 200mm lens at 40' or 400mm lens at 80', the DOF is 'the same' in ALL of those cases.
And the degree of blur is only dependent on the aperture's physical size in millimeters (200mm lens at f/4 has a 50mm diaphram diameter; 400mm lens at f/5.6 has a 72mm diameter aperture and its amount of blur is greater, even if the subject size is identical in both frames. Notice that I NEVER called any of it 'bokeh' because none of it is what the term actually means!
If you want 'no blur', you need to use a tiny shooting aperture, like f/16, but that is not always possible...maybe you cannot handhold the very slow shutter speed that is needed for that small aperture. Use of 'hyperfocal distance' CAN help, but if the Hyperfocal Distance calculator says to focus at 250' out on the lake, where do you focus?!
You told us what boke isn’t but not what it is.
As I understand it, boke is the character of the background blur. There is good boke and bad boke. Good boke is when the blur is smooth and bad boke is when the blur has a ring of brightness. With good boke a branch out of focus in the background will look like a soft branch. With bad boke the branch will look like two. It’s all in the lens design and that’s why some lenses are expensive because they have the good boke
That’s a different issue but on point.The mirror telephoto lenses have the boke as rings which I find annoying and which would be called poor or bad boke.
+1 Is this person a troll. Sounds batty. But who am I to judge?I recommend an iPhone.
You told us what boke isn’t but not what it is.
As I understand it, boke is the character of the background blur. There is good boke and bad boke. Good boke is when the blur is smooth and bad boke is when the blur has a ring of brightness. With good boke a branch out of focus in the background will look like a soft branch. With bad boke the branch will look like two. It’s all in the lens design and that’s why some lenses are expensive because they have the good boke
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?