[Wannabe]

Is this how Aperture works? Am I doing this right? Kind of embarrasing posting my newbie pics here.. but I figure it's the only way to learn right?

[stupot]

Yes the wider the aperture (smallest f number) the shallow depth of focus so as with your pic the foreground is in focus and the background is out of focus. Its a great way of isolating your subject and blocking out distracting objects in the background.

So when your taking macro or even portrait shots you would select a wide aperture but for landscapes or similar you would select a smaller aperture (larger f number) because you want the whole seen to be in focus from foreground to background.

The problems lie in that the aperture you select will have impact on the shutter speed so for hand held shots this can be an issue. Look at it this way if you have a smaller hole letting in light to your camera you will need to expose your cameras sensor to that light for longer and vice versa.

[_MB_]

I'd more often than not use a mid range aperture as a starting point for macro, it can be frustrating using a wide aperture as you're so restricted with your depth of field.

[Wannabe]

Ok.. I think i'm getting it.. i'll keep trying! Thanks!!

[Les Meehan]

Originally Posted by stupot

Yes the wider the aperture (smallest f number) the shallow depth of focus so as with your pic the foreground is in focus and the background is out of focus. Its a great way of isolating your subject and blocking out distracting objects in the background.

So when your taking macro or even portrait shots you would select a wide aperture but for landscapes or similar you would select a smaller aperture (larger f number) because you want the whole seen to be in focus from foreground to background.

Stupot

I'm sure you know this but for the benefit of others:

Please DO NOT use the expression depth of focus when you are talking about the area of the subject that is acceptably sharp. The correct term is depth of field, think of fields outside the camera! This is one of those annoying mis-uses of terminology that can make it difficult to know what is actually being talked about. The term depth of focus refers to the distance in front of and behind the film plane or sensor plane where the circle of confusion is still acceptably small.

For those interested, depth of focus is more use in a darkroom where the depth of focus is at the position of the projected image from the enlarger.

This might not seem important to many but I think we should use terms correctly when helping others to learn.

Also, advice in such general terms as wide apertures for portraits and small apertures for landscape doesn't really give newbies the understanding required to make the most of the controls on the camera. It is better to explain about depth of field properly from the start which allows the newbie to apply the knowledge more creatively on a shot by shot basis, i.e. you may use minimal depth of field for a landscape to isolate something in the scene and maximum for a portrait to bring a background more into the image.

As for macro work the majority of images are improved by more depth of field not less.

As I said, Stupot, I assume you know this stuff and this post is aimed at the general masses not as a criticism of your post.

Cheers

Les

[stupot]

Les,

I used the term Depth of focus purely as i thought this would be easier to visualise, say depth of field to a newcomer and they probably wouldn't have clue what you meant. Granted maybe i should of use the correct terminology, but my thinking is have a person understand the principles involved rather than be pedantic about its nomenclature.

As for the general advice i gave it was purely gave as a starting point to try and understand aperture of course these rules a broken every day but if you feel an in depth explanation into the study of apertures would be much more suitable here post away. As i said it was a simplified explanation just for Wannabe to get a feel for the idea, if you were to go into the macro section in the gallery and looked at the exif info of some of the shots you would find a lot if not most shots with an aperture of 11f or wider (the wider end of the scale) and similarly if you went into the landscapes sections I'm sure a lot of the shots would be from the mid-range apertures or smaller, one thing I've learnt over the years if you bombard someone with too much technicalities on a subject they'll shut off! and my apologies if my approach annoys you.

Ta Ta

[_MB_]

f/11 is not what I'd term wide.

I agree overdoing the technobabble isn't helpful, but I think depth of field is an OK term, its referred to in all manuals of cameras where it can be set or adjusted and explained very well visually in most of those cases.

It can be even more confusing undoing incorrect terms in the future.

Circle of confusion is one I can do without though

[stupot]

Originally Posted by _MB_

I agree overdoing the technobabble isn't helpful, but I think depth of field is an OK term, its referred to in all manuals of cameras where it can be set or adjusted and explained very well visually in most of those cases.

Maybe i did over simplify things but it was a quick summary in very basic terms done at 11.30pm never at my sharpest then

[Boofers]

Hi Wannabe,
I use a shallow depth of field for my macro shots all the time. Meaning I have 3 planes of focus, "1" out of focus in front, "2" focus in the middle, "3" out of focus in the background. I will use the smallest f# to give me this,,,,for me that would be f1.2,,f1.4,,f1.8 or f2.0. I use these aperture numbers because they give me the sharp edge focus on the subjects I want to have in focus and what makes me happy . I know this will be another thing to think about, but having control of "what I call your focal plane" where your subject is in sharp focus. I don't know about film development all that much and have been a cracker box photographer for years,,,meaning that if the cracker is to my taste, I'm happy. Your picture looks good to me and by experimenting you will find a difference in your aperture settings that you can put to good use. Good thread.

Boofers

[Wannabe]

Thanks so much, everyone! I really appreciate the help!!

[Les Meehan]

I just knew my post would cause a problem

Stupot, I did try to make it clear that I wasn't having a go at you!

So I believe it better to inform new people accurately from the start, that's my opinion based on experience and as a qualified teacher. I fully appreciate that you were trying to be helpful and not confuse folk with techie stuff too early but in the long term it is more useful to inform accurately (not necessarily in much depth, but accurately).

As to macro shots usually having wider apertures, not to be too blunt but I suspect that the images with wider apertures are more a result of hand-holding the camera rather than informed choice re depth of field (I know, I know not always!! and if someone wants a shallow DoF for macro so be it). In my opinion, many macro images are actually ruined by insufficient DoF not enhanced by it.

Oh well, upset the apple cart again...

Cheers

Les

PS Let's not be so defensive about this stuff especially when I make it clear I'm NOT attacking individuals.

[Boofers]

Hi Les,
I think your spot on with your info, I shoot things like spider webs and find it a challenge to get in focus the tiniest little web with a narrow DOF. I agree that using these low aperture settings can very easily ruin a macro pic. On the colorful side of all that blur is those beautiful textures to get caught up in. Keep up the tech talk, I know I listen with full intent to figure out what focal points lay between my eye and the farthest part of my
lens range. I didn't have any problem with stupot, being the amateur that I am, I look for those who will speak up to help and correct in the spirit of better photography.

Boofers