A lot of lenses aren't at their best WFO as well. Even a stop can make a big difference, while still delivering bokeh, and as DOF perception is also influenced by focal length, not just aperture, WFO needn't be a forgone conclusion, and much depends on the intent and knowledge of the photographer. GWC's as the OP posits, do in fact exist but as I opined earlier, that's a narrow subset, and most working or serious photographers are way beyond that.
Change of DOF with various FL is ONLY due to the apparent subject size change. If you move the camera to suit the FL of the lens, to keep the subject the same amount of the frame for all shots, DOF Zone Depth is IDENTICAL.
50mm at 20' vs. 100mm at 40' vs. 200mm at 80' vs 400mm at 160' vs. 800mm at 320'...all have identical DOF Zone Depth at the same aperture!
For what focal length? You can't state a single number. The usual advice for mid-20th century film use was that diffraction compromised a photograph at about one quarter of the lens focal length. For a 50mm lens, that was 12.5 or f/11. However, the size you intend to enlarge a negative will influence the perception of sharpness, so you may opt to ignore the 1/4 recommendation.Diffraction becomes visible at f/11.
Back in the days of ISO 400 max sensitivity film, you learned to use max aperture plenty!
Change of DOF with various FL is ONLY due to the apparent subject size change. If you move the camera to suit the FL of the lens, to keep the subject the same amount of the frame for all shots, DOF Zone Depth is IDENTICAL.
50mm at 20' vs. 100mm at 40' vs. 200mm at 80' vs 400mm at 160' vs. 800mm at 320'...all have identical DOF Zone Depth at the same aperture!
Yes, hence the word "perception". FL also determines FOV of course. If I move the camera in with a shorter FL to the same subject size the FOV will change, so the perception will change, even though the COF equation has not.
In the early '70s I had gotten several lenses for my Minolta slr. I was photographing a statue and I wanted to keep the image size and the exposure. The 50mm lens did not have enough depth of field, so I put on the 35mm lens and moved closer. Again there was not enough depth of field. So I put on the 28mm lens and moved in. Again there was not enough depth of field. So I put on the 21mm lens and moved in. Again there was not enough depth of field. Same problem with the zoom telephoto lens.
Years later when I was working at Kodak I asked my boss about it. He had me write the lens equation on the board. He then had me make a substitution related to keeping the image size the same. All the focal length terms dropped out of the equation. I wish that I had written down the mathematics so I could post it now. Does anyone remember the mathematics and would please post it?
Nope back in the days when I shot Kodachrome 64 I still don't use max aperture. If I can't use long exposure I rather not taking the pictures. I hate shallow DOF images.
Wonder what kind of macro lens that is. Most macro lenses close down at least one more stop because at the distances they are designed for, the extra depth of field is usually needed. My macro/micro lenses (depends on the mfg for nomenclature) stop down to f/32 and don't show noticeable diffraction wider than 22.My macro lens is only usable at f/5.6 and f/8
I think by now we have established that photographic equipment, lenses, shutter priority and their combinations have moved on a bit since the 1970s...
I never worked as photographer. Getting an image at any cost isn't my goal.You obviously never worked as a photojpournalist, when 'got to get a shot' was what mattered to an editor, and some shoots were in poor light and flash was not allowed!
Yes, but most people here are using cameras and lenses made in or before the 70s.
Wide-open and bokeh seem to me to be for SLRs - it's generally not something you think about with rangefinders. When shooting a rangefinder, you tend to focus where you think the d.o.f. will get everything you want in the picture in focus. Not being able to notice the nice psychedelics of the background kinda puts them out of your mind.
That said, I find bokeh much more noticeable on the gg of large format. But you are generally trying to get your subject in focus from nose to neck....
And, of course, on a DSL, you can see the bokeh in every shot as it shows up on screen.
And, you know, the bokeh generated when standing in front of trees looks like the backdrop for school photos, so maybe people are impressed with the professionalism of the photographer when they see it.....
If I was shooting sports or flying birds, I'd use shutter priority. Since I shoot landscapes mainly, I'll use aperture especially because I'm shooting a tripod although since I use film, that's on my metering. The lens and cameras are all manual settings for aperture and shitters. When I travel or just running around in the street, I leave my digital camera on P which is modified Auto. I let the camera do the thinking for me. It's smarter than I am most of the time.
I worked this out a previous time when you mentioned it - see the post, #15 in this thread: Charts of Depth of field vs focal length, scaling f/#
takeaway message: If you change focal length and then move your feet so as to keep magnification (image size) constant, then the DOF remains constant.
I think by now we have established that photographic equipment, lenses, shutter priority and their combinations have moved on a bit since the 1970s...
Bokeh, to make a stab at the etymology and original use, even though the Japanese word simply means fog or haze, in photography terms it most certainly originated as an allegory of the practice of applying gradated print colour on woodblocks when printing Japanese woodblock prints.
Above is not a wood block print (just something I had handy on my HDD), but it perfectly illustrates the principle and the Japanese sensibility for gradated colour.
Also historically, whether it's SP or AP that is easiest to implement and on whether that has any bearing on the preferred method, I think is quite undecided.
From what I can glean it's very, very close.
Even if we take into account the difference between leaf and focal plane shutter control.
Both can in principle be controlled equally easily with a simple capture the needle system. And of course if there ever was a slight difference, when you bring solenoid, voice coils and motors, in more modern cameras (70's and up) into the equation, it's very much the same.
Outside of a very few special cases, it's neigh on impossible to get an accurate impression or idea of how bokeh and DoF is going fall in the photo, by stopping down. You can get a very rough idea of what is going to be in focus, but it is rough, because of course the screen get's darker and grainier once you stop down.
Thus you are left with imagination, which no matter the experience, will not be accurate at all with all the variables. Especially where it really matters, with tele lenses that are almost fundamentally slowish in handheld versions and therefore present a darker image in the finder.
Part of my, perhaps implicit, reasoning here is that shutter priority is actually a better way of controlling aperture, than directly controlling aperture.
Most of the cameras that has SP as only program, has some accommodation for letting you know what the aperture is going to be, so it's not completely up to the camera.
This is all about speed of capture. The second you are doing something measured and precise, like a landscape or a still-life you will use a tripod and manual exposure.
SP is just a version of P (program) with a hard skewing in one direction.
Depending on the lens, you have very different possibilities WRT shutter speed. That's part of the genius behind the lens modes on the Canon T70. There is just build, in making it even easier.
Staying in the sweet zone of optimal apertures of the lens, if you are that way inclined, is also fully possible with SP.
The difference between 1.4 and 2.8 can be quite small and as said impossibly hard to judge or imagine accurately. Even harder with higher apertures like the difference between f8 and f11.
On the other hand with shutter speeds you very often have an idea of what is reasonable in a given situation, what you absolutely need or can get away with, with a given lens. And you might also have some idea, that you want a certain amount of motion blur and even camera movement blur, or contrary that it should e avoided as far as possible for that particular photo.
What I often observe with me and others, is that out of habit or laziness, that the aperture will either go to full open as default, or you will set it to optimum aperture and forget about it.
And then it will stay there, until you are forced to think about it. That will lead to suboptimal and boring photos IMO.
Not so with shutter speeds. There you are forced to think about the implications all the time.
Now, I'm not saying that AP doesn't have its place. It certainly does.
I just have come to the conclusion that it often becomes a glorified substitute for P mode, with none of the inherent variety that is build into that.
Of course you could buy an Olympus and have both aperture dial and shutter speed dial on the lens.
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?