View allAll Photos Tagged depth
Depth of View
Hand carved tractors.
Aperture: f/4.0
ISO: 800
Focal length: 55 mm
Principal of design: Emphasis and economy
This photo was not planned for. I took the photo because I really like taking pictures of the sky (I love clouds), and I like how the houses slowly fade out. My main focus was the first house, since it had the most cloud-y texture behind it.
Gear Depthing Tool. Made from a design in an article by Richard Wilson in 2MM Mag April 93, p18. This is a wonderfully solid and easy tool to use.
A seawater pool down near the waterline at Sailor's Beach was marked all the way around with these markers. I wonder what they're meant for?
In this photo I focused on the background of the image and left the raindrops against the window out of focus.
I think this photo demonstrates depth of field by focusing on the on the closest part and having the the furthest items slightly blurred.
This image shows an example of composition: DEPTH. The subject on the right is clear while the background's depth can be seen at he way back.
42/52: Not really a successful picture but the best of the bunch this week. I wanted to do a vanishing point shot in a tunnel but didn't find a very attractive tunnel and waited too late in the day to have good lighting.
i was experimenting with my 35mm f/2.0D and a 12mm lens extension tube the other day, and robyn's sweater was apparently the coolest thing around, because I took like 50 photos of it. luckily for you, i've only uploaded one.
i was also experimenting with the d300's live view feature, and i've got to say, it totally rocks. d300 live view + tripod + remote sb600 flash + rf remote = awesome
All of my "interesting" pictures were an example of a small depth of field, and just because I love the way that we can make one object or person be the main character of the entire photograph, and I really love it.
1/100 F8.0 ISO 3200
#depth Bigger aperture setting gives me the ability to only focus on the subject and blur out the background
This is a simple comparison of the effects of aperture on an image. For those who don't know, an f-stop number is a ratio between the size of the lens opening between the aperture blades and the focal length of the lens. So the larger the f-stop number, the smaller the opening of the aperture blades and vice versa. For the same given illumination, going from f/4 to f/5.6 cuts the area of the open aperture in half as does going from f/5.6 to f/8. One of the most important considerations is the concept of depth of field, which is the zone in front of and behind the focussed subject which appears to be in focus. This zone will be larger for physically smaller apertures.
In this dipytch, the left image was taken at f/5.0 while the right was taken at f/11. You can see that the trees are much fuzzier in the f/5.0 shot than in the other taken at f/11. Many photographers use this to their advantage to isolate the subject from its surroundings. A "busy" background can be rendered unidentifiable using a larger aperture (remember it is a reciprocal so a larger aperture is labelled with the smaller number and vice versa). Notice how the left woodpecker "pops" from the background, while the right one gets lost in it. And this is why many landscape photographers use small apertures with large depths of field so that as much of the picture as possible will appear to be in focus.
I know this can be confusing but if you remember this simple depth of field explanation, you can use it to better achieve what you want in your images.