U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Photography
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-10-2011, 08:36 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,834 posts, read 20,125,216 times
Reputation: 11959

Advertisements



Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson View Post
He's just saying that since it was shot with an aperture of f/5.6 and a shutter speed of 1/750 there is probably some way to get the camera to use the same exposure, except with a slower shutter speed (which will not affect anything) and an aperture of f/8 or even smaller in order to get more depth of field. That would, presumably, make the distant mountains a little sharper.
Actually, you don't need to go f/8 unless you want something closer to you in focus as well. A larger aperture like f/5.6, at 37mm focal length (35mm equivalent) will deliver similar results as f/8, if the focus is set at (at least) 16 ft away compared to (at least) 12 ft for f/8. In other words, with f/5.6, if focus is set at a point on the fence assumed to be 16 ft away, the DOF will extend from 8 ft (from the camera) to infinity. Wheras, with f/8, you would need to set the focus at least 12 ft away, and the DOF will extend from 6 ft to infinity (so you gain 2 ft towards you, compared to f/5.6).


You can accomplish an infinite DOF with f/5.6 as well, except that you must not r hyperfocal distance would increase with larger aperture. In case of f/5.6, you maintain the shutter speed but just need to set the focus at least 16 ft from the camera (and everything from about 8 ft to infinity can be expected to be sharp).

Last edited by EinsteinsGhost; 11-10-2011 at 08:56 AM..

 
Old 11-10-2011, 10:04 AM
 
Location: Barrow, Alaska
3,539 posts, read 5,735,789 times
Reputation: 1814
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Actually, you don't need to go f/8 unless you want something closer to you in focus as well. A larger aperture like f/5.6, at 37mm focal length (35mm equivalent) will deliver similar results as f/8, if the focus is set at (at least) 16 ft away compared to (at least) 12 ft for f/8. In other words, with f/5.6, if focus is set at a point on the fence assumed to be 16 ft away, the DOF will extend from 8 ft (from the camera) to infinity. Wheras, with f/8, you would need to set the focus at least 12 ft away, and the DOF will extend from 6 ft to infinity (so you gain 2 ft towards you, compared to f/5.6).


You can accomplish an infinite DOF with f/5.6 as well, except that you must not r hyperfocal distance would increase with larger aperture. In case of f/5.6, you maintain the shutter speed but just need to set the focus at least 16 ft from the camera (and everything from about 8 ft to infinity can be expected to be sharp).
That's all true, but misses the point that the original question was whether the distant mountains could be sharper. If the discussion of a wider depth of field is intended to allow those mountains to be sharper there is the presumption that the plane of focus for that image was at less than the hyperfocal distance. Therefore the intent is not to include more of the foreground into the DOF, but to include more of the background.

If that's not what the point of your discussion is... then you're just needlessly confusing the OP with technical information that won't help him at all.
 
Old 11-10-2011, 10:13 AM
 
Location: Northglenn, CO
522 posts, read 571,469 times
Reputation: 1140
Abandonded backhoe in Nederland, CO





Thanks for all the advice, guys. I'm soaking up every bit of info I can before purchasing my equipment in January.
 
Old 11-10-2011, 10:15 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,834 posts, read 20,125,216 times
Reputation: 11959
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson View Post
That's all true, but misses the point that the original question was whether the distant mountains could be sharper. If the discussion of a wider depth of field is intended to allow those mountains to be sharper there is the presumption that the plane of focus for that image was at less than the hyperfocal distance. Therefore the intent is not to include more of the foreground into the DOF, but to include more of the background.
And you think it won't be possible with f/5.6 compared to f/8. I provided calculated numbers, about where the two would differ. If you've got a problem with that, bring it on. And in case you missed it, the difference will largely be on things closer to you, with the DOF extending from there to infinity. The picture I posted today (National Portrait Gallery, London) was taken using f/4.5 and still has a fairly deep DOF for that reason.

Quote:
If that's not what the point of your discussion is... then you're just needlessly confusing the OP with technical information that won't help him at all.
Please explain why technical information on hyperfocal distance won't help him or anybody else.
 
Old 11-10-2011, 10:46 AM
 
Location: New Mexico U.S.A.
21,525 posts, read 30,779,314 times
Reputation: 24877
For nearly 300 years, San Felipe de Neri Parish has provided a spiritual heart for Albuquerque,
New Mexico. Taken using a Canon PowerShot SX10 IS (http://www.flickr.com/photos/poncho_nm/3363555086/meta/in/set-72157626884057274 - broken link) :






Rich
 
Old 11-10-2011, 11:46 AM
 
Location: Bellingham, WA
9,767 posts, read 11,406,765 times
Reputation: 14627
 
Old 11-10-2011, 05:18 PM
 
Location: Barrow, Alaska
3,539 posts, read 5,735,789 times
Reputation: 1814
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
And you think it won't be possible with f/5.6 compared to f/8. I provided calculated numbers, about where the two would differ. If you've got a problem with that, bring it on. And in case you missed it, the difference will largely be on things closer to you, with the DOF extending from there to infinity. The picture I posted today (National Portrait Gallery, London) was taken using f/4.5 and still has a fairly deep DOF for that reason.

Please explain why technical information on hyperfocal distance won't help him or anybody else.
You didn't pay attention to what was said though. DOF and hyperfocal distance is not going to remove blur caused by haze.

Never mind the fact that sharpening that particular image was detrimental to the artistic quality of the picture anyway.
 
Old 11-10-2011, 09:01 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,834 posts, read 20,125,216 times
Reputation: 11959
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson View Post
You didn't pay attention to what was said though. DOF and hyperfocal distance is not going to remove blur caused by haze.
Duh, different issue. That doesn't make use of hyperfocal distance as a technique useless as you suggested.

Quote:
Never mind the fact that sharpening that particular image was detrimental to the artistic quality of the picture anyway.
Not necessarily. It is a good picture with blurred background and it would have been a good picture with an infinite DOF as well.
 
Old 11-10-2011, 09:19 PM
 
1,574 posts, read 2,655,609 times
Reputation: 3705
The tanker Atlantic Lily departs from the Port of Anchorage this evening under a full moon.

 
Old 11-10-2011, 10:28 PM
 
Location: Bellingham, WA
9,767 posts, read 11,406,765 times
Reputation: 14627
^I can't rep you again but that is quite a picture!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $99,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Photography

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:20 AM.

2005-2016, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top