• Announcements

    • iacas

      Create a Signature!   02/05/2016

      Everyone, go here and edit your signature this week: http://thesandtrap.com/settings/signature/.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
nevets88

Photographers - these Royal Lytham photos - How is the depth of field manipulated?

10 posts in this topic

The first photo in the gallery below - if you ever seen the scene in "The Social Network" where the depth of field was manipulated to make everything look super sharp - the crew race in England - is that done in the photo? It looks like a combination of HDR, DoF manipulation or some kind of specialized filter.

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2012/7/17/and-yet-more-observations-from-rainy-lytham.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Want to get rid of this advertisement? Sign up (or log in) today! It's free!

DoF is simply a matter of the aperture. Lower f-numbers = shallower depth of field. Landscape photographers almost never shoot below f/8, for example.

I think Geoff also added some effects and stylization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

A lot of this just looks like typical instagram tilt/focus filters or w/e they are where like a perfect circle is in focus but everything else is blurry. As Iacas said DoF is purely the effect of the size of the aperture used during the exposure.

As an example, here are 2 shots I took with my 55mm F1.4 prime lens. F 1.4 is an extremely large aperture and I think 1.2 is generally the largest you can get commercially, but at this aperture, the Depth of Field is so small at close ranges I can describe it as the size of a nickel or quarter. If it's not on the EXACT focal plane, it won't show up in focus. IN both of these, only the very center of the images is in focus and you can barely read that it says "Arcane" below one and "Joker" above the other.

This is the opposite of say this one which I took at F4.0

Or this which I took taken at F7.1

Lastly, this was a sunrise taken over a lake with fog coming off of it, shot at F14.0
(apologies if this shows up really big, not sure if it will automatically resize)

( For a larger panoramic click HERE )

But essentially the "larger" the F number, the smaller the aperture (less light is entering the lens) and the more "appears" to be in focus both in front of or behind the primary focal point/plane. Smaller F numbers are great for portraits because you can keep the subject in focus (face) and the background can be purposely blurred by shooting at say F2.0 or smaller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by iacas

DoF is simply a matter of the aperture. Lower f-numbers = shallower depth of field. Landscape photographers almost never shoot below f/8, for example.

I think Geoff also added some effects and stylization.

Indeed, I see some after affect on some of the shots.

I have a portrait lens with an f-stop low as 1.8

I took a nice photo of my clubs at f/1.8

The front and back are blurry and the middle of the shot is very sharp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What he is referring to is called "tilt-shift".

Google it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by pixel5

What he is referring to is called "tilt-shift".

Google it.

Ah yes I think you may be right. Is that done with the camera or post processing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by Jimbo Slice

Ah yes I think you may be right. Is that done with the camera or post processing?

It's best done with the camera. You use a tilt-shift lens, which can shift the lens relative to the camera and adjust the focal plane of the lens not to be parallel with the film (CCD) plane. It can be done to some degree in post-processing, as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A relatively affordable way to do it with a camera is a LensBaby, they make a few different kinds with different effects but I think they are all tilt-shift (which is what I meant when I said tilt/focus...had a brain fart -.-)  The cheapest way, instagram which I'm pretty sure all of those photos were taken with or are from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DarkPrince, those are some great photos.  Thanks for sharing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Originally Posted by Beachcomber

DarkPrince, those are some great photos.  Thanks for sharing.


Thanks, I've recently begun to look into getting some prints made of some and selling them in the area but I'm still trying to wrap my head around the logistics and overhead when it comes to pricing since I don't think they are super amazing and feel weird charging $20-30 a piece depending on size/quality of the paper + the cost of gas driving to the photo lab 45 minutes away lol. Thanks again for the compliment. I'm currently revamping my photobucket but I've always got random stuff up there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2016 TST Partners

    GAME Golf
    PING Golf
    Lowest Score Wins
  • Posts

    • Jack or Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?
      Look at Ben Hogan. He played in exactly one Open Championship. Before Arnold Palmer brought it back into the fold as something you should be playing every year it was just too expensive for such a little purse to win. There wasn't much prestige in winning it during that time.  Look at the US open. Since 1993, only 52% of the time a non-US golfer won the US Open. From 1950 till 1993 only 92% of was won by US golfers.   Same with the PGA Championship. Since 1993 the US has only won 56% of them. From the time they went to stroke play (1958) till 1992 the US won 86% of them.  Same with The Masters. Since 1993 the US has won 56% of them. From 1950 till 1992 the US won 77% of them.  It just goes to show you that the influx of non-US golfers to the PGA Tour field of players has made it that much more difficult for US golfers to win a major.  Could I say that it was 30% easier for Jack to win those majors because of the non-US golfers who stayed away from traveling to the US to play?  US Open: 40% less likely US player wins after 1993
      PGA Championship: 30% less likely a US Player wins after 1993
      The Masters: 20% less likely a US Player wins after 1993
       
    • Great golfing quotes
      You're Never a 14 handicap! Hitting balls like that!!! End of round Nice playing with you, you scored net 80, you know you should really stay out of bunkers! Attributed to my fellow members, all of them did any one see that? No I hate golf Probably happens to everyone
    • Nike hyperflight golf balls
      Thanks for the hidden gem!!! Thats encouraging stuff. I really like the ball Ive been playing, but after reading that, Im looking forward to giving them a shot.
    • How Do You Decide Where to Play Golf
      Decision matrix: Course quality, then time available, then cost. dave
    • Longer or More Accurate?
      That doesn't make it a trick question. People aren't so lousy with accuracy that they're off 200 yards, but their tee shots travel 200 yards toward the target fairly often. The 10% thing helps to adjust them to the proper scale. I hit my driver 270, but I don't miss by 1/4 of that distance (67.5 yards). The wildest 100-shooting golfers are about +/- 10°. Their average is about 7°. 80-golfers are around 6°. 70 golfers probably about 5°. PGA Tour pros are around 3.5°. So 10% of those numbers are 0.7, 0.6, and 0.5°, with 0.35° for PGA Tour players. And yet, give each of them a full 1° (or  14% more accuracy for 100-golfers, 17% more accuracy for 80-golfers, 20% more accuracy for 70-golfers, and nearly 30% more accuracy for PGA Tour players… and they still come up short (or, at the PGA Tour level, only begin to break even). This means that the poll is biased, indeed, but in the opposite direction you think, @Marty2019. The poll could have said "would you choose 25% more accuracy or 10% more distance" and everyone (generalized to groups, not individuals) would STILL be better off choosing the distance. The only "trick" is that people value accuracy way, way too much, to the point where many are happy to take only a 10% improvement in accuracy while even a 25% improvement still can't account for the added value of driving the ball an extra 10% farther.
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Images

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. TessaEdin
      TessaEdin
      (24 years old)
  • Blog Entries