MotorcycleAddicts.org  
Magazine Home Home Forums Register Gallery New Posts Mark Forums Read



Comment
 
LinkBack (2) Article Tools
7 most active articles
Motorsports Photography Part 2 - To Blur or not to Blur
Motorsports Photography Part 2 - To Blur or not to Blur
Chris Kezer
Published by MCADXmag
04-01-2008
Featured Articles
Motorsports Photography Part 2 - To Blur or not to Blur

Depth of Field

If you start poking around the photography world you're bound to run into this term sooner or later. What is it and why is it important? Better yet, how do you make it work? Let's find out.

Quite simply, Depth of Field (DoF) is the amount of distance between the nearest and farthest objects in a photo that are in sharp focus. A photo can usually be defined as having 'great' (meaning deep) or 'shallow' Do
F.

Click image for larger version

Name:	6609.jpg
Views:	112
Size:	118.1 KB
ID:	8469Click image for larger version

Name:	6099.jpg
Views:	257
Size:	81.9 KB
ID:	8470

In the first photo, both the lead riders and the following riders are in focus. This is an example 'great' DoF. In the second photo we still have four riders in almost the same location, covering the same distance, but only the first rider is in focus. This is 'shallow' DoF.

Easy enough, right? So what's the big deal? The deal is not so much of a technical nature as it is an artistic one. Let's call it a matter of personal preference that is heavily influenced by the type of photography you are doing.

First, a couple of quick technical details: aperture, or f/stop as it is commonly called, is a ratio between the focal length of a lens and the diameter of the opening (aperture).

Focal length is the distance from the lens to the film or digital sensor. A longer focal length results in more magnification or a larger image.

Click image for larger version

Name:	focallength.jpg
Views:	41
Size:	41.0 KB
ID:	8476

The most common f/stops are:
1.4 / 2.0 / 2.8 / 4 / 5.6 / 8 / 11 / 16 / 22

Click image for larger version

Name:	aperturechart.jpg
Views:	28
Size:	38.0 KB
ID:	8474

Here's the tricky part; f/stops are inversely related to size, meaning that the smaller numbers (f/1.4) represent larger diameter openings in the lens, thereby letting in more light. An aperture of f/22 would then be much smaller, letting in much less light. Got it?

Now that your head is hurting, let's get back to the fun stuff.
When shooting sports or action photography I will almost always be using a large aperture setting such as f/2.8 or f/4. This will isolate the action and force the viewer to focus on your intended subject. I really don't want the spectators cheering in the background to be in focus; I want you to be looking at the action.

Whether a bike on the track, or a kid kicking a soccer ball - it doesn't matter. The viewer will focus on the parts of an image that are nice and sharp and ignore the rest. Since we're the ones telling the story, we get decide what's in focus.

How about the other other end of the scale? f/22 must get pretty lonely, right? Not really. Ever hear of Ansel Adams? More than a few of his landscape photographs were shot at f/64. He wanted us to be able to see everything in sharp detail. This will apply more to photos of your bike in front of a scenic overlook where you'd like the bike and the scenery to be nice and crisp.

These concepts are readily apparent in pretty much any magazine you care to look through. Pick up a Sports Illustrated and you'll see endless examples of shallow DoF with the heart of the action clearly in focus while the background is not. Feel like a little National Geographic? They use a lot of smaller apertures for greater DoF in order to show you all of those cool landscapes. Playboy uses a little of both...

There is one very important aspect of DoF that you need to know about. When shooting wide open at f/2.8, your DoF will be very, very shallow so you need to make sure you are carefully focused on the most important part of the image. It is not uncommon in portrait photography to have part of a person's face in focus while the rest is out of focus if you mess up. We're talking about a DoF that is inches deep.

On the other side of things, when shooting with smaller a DoF say f/22, you want to focus on the nearest object you want to be in focus. Everything else behind that focus point will fall into focus.

This can be demonstrated very simply with cans on a floor. The cans are placed at approximately one foot intervals with the camera about one foot away from the first can.

Click image for larger version

Name:	Fone8first.jpg
Views:	64
Size:	60.6 KB
ID:	8464Click image for larger version

Name:	Fone8middle.jpg
Views:	20
Size:	53.1 KB
ID:	8465Click image for larger version

Name:	F22first.jpg
Views:	15
Size:	107.3 KB
ID:	8466Click image for larger version

Name:	F22middle.jpg
Views:	29
Size:	103.9 KB
ID:	8467Click image for larger version

Name:	F22last.jpg
Views:	74
Size:	109.6 KB
ID:	8468

In the first image my aperture is set at f/1.8, the largest aperture I can get with the equipment that I have, and I have focused on the first can. Notice how very little of the image behind the can is in focus? This is shallow DoF.
The second image is also at f/1.8 but I have focused on the middle can. This is a great example of how DoF works both in front of and behind your subject. The first two and last two cans are out of focus.
In the third image I have changed the aperture to F/22 and focused again on the first can. Now compare it to the first example at f/1.8. Starting to make sense now?
The fourth image is still at f/22 but is now focused on the middle can and the last image is focused on the last can.

That wasn't so bad now, was it? Now we know how to get things in focus and fuzzy all at the same time. We're good to go. Well, hold on to your breeches, Grasshoppa. We're only just getting started. By changing the size of our aperture we're changing how much light we're letting into the camera and that's going to directly impact what our shutter speed needs to be set at. We'll leave that until next next time, though. For now, go take some photos of soda cans and have fun.
  #1  
By bwhip on 04-06-2008, 02:01 PM
The photo examples are excellent. Well done.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
By CBRVFR on 04-07-2008, 12:06 PM
I tried your experiment, but all of the cans were out of focus. Also, they were beer cans. Empty ones. And I couldn't find my camera.

But the article is great!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
By nhfirefighter13 on 04-07-2008, 05:49 PM
Those beer cans are tricky subjects.

If anyone has questions about anything in these articles, please feel free to ask.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
By ONEvcs on 04-18-2008, 04:12 PM
Can you break up all the mambo jumbo information on a lens description? Do they follow some kind of standard order when giving that information away? What does it all mean?

For instance:
Nikon Zoom Telephoto AF VR Zoom Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8D G-AFS ED-IF Autofocus Lens (Vibration Reduction) - Black

Can you, please, brake it up?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
By nhfirefighter13 on 04-18-2008, 04:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ONEvcs View Post
Can you break up all the mambo jumbo information on a lens description? Do they follow some kind of standard order when giving that information away? What does it all mean?

For instance:
Nikon Zoom Telephoto AF VR Zoom Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8D G-AFS ED-IF Autofocus Lens (Vibration Reduction) - Black

Can you, please, brake it up?
AF= autofocus
VR= vibration reduction...is like Canon's Image stabilization. This allows you to take shots in lower light conditions while not having to deal with camera shake.
70-200mm= the focal range of a zoom lens.
f/2.8= the max aperture the lens is capable of. By only stating one aperture, they are saying that you can keep the lens at f/2.8 at 70mm or 200mm. If the lens has two f-stops (f/3.5-5.6 for example) the max aperture at 70mm would be 3.5 but if you zoom out to 200mm the max aperture drops to 5.6. The lens isn't capable of staying at a constant max aperture. Your less expensive lenses will be like this.
The AFS, D, G, ED and IF....I have no idea. They're probably lens designations or evolutions or camera mounts...
Reply With Quote
  #6  
By ONEvcs on 04-18-2008, 04:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nhfirefighter13 View Post
AF= autofocus
VR= vibration reduction...is like Canon's Image stabilization. This allows you to take shots in lower light conditions while not having to deal with camera shake.
70-200mm= the focal range of a zoom lens.
f/2.8= the max aperture the lens is capable of. By only stating one aperture, they are saying that you can keep the lens at f/2.8 at 70mm or 200mm. If the lens has two f-stops (f/3.5-5.6 for example) the max aperture at 70mm would be 3.5 but if you zoom out to 200mm the max aperture drops to 5.6. The lens isn't capable of staying at a constant max aperture. Your less expensive lenses will be like this.
The AFS, D, G, ED and IF....I have no idea. They're probably lens designations or evolutions or camera mounts...

My main concern is to make sure what I am buying is really what I want to buy, and that it'll work with my camera.
So among all those letters, and capabilities, and performance descriptions, how do I know that the lens will really work with my camera ?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
By nhfirefighter13 on 04-18-2008, 04:37 PM
To the best of my knowledge (I'm not a Nikon guy) all Nikon/Nikkor lenses will work with all Nikon camera bodies.
Canon is a different story.
What camera body do you have?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
By ONEvcs on 04-18-2008, 05:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nhfirefighter13 View Post
To the best of my knowledge (I'm not a Nikon guy) all Nikon/Nikkor lenses will work with all Nikon camera bodies.
Canon is a different story.
What camera body do you have?
I've got a D80, which is much more camera than I'll ever need, I'm the first to admit it. I thought only some lenses where compatible with some particular bodies, even for Nikon. I'm probably wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
By nhfirefighter13 on 04-18-2008, 09:14 PM
If they are anything like Canon, and I'm sure they are, they most likely have some lenses that are specifically designed for the bodies with a 1.6x sensor. The good thing is that you're almost always going to be safe with the better, faster lenses. That lens will work with your D80, no problem.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
By ONEvcs on 04-18-2008, 09:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nhfirefighter13 View Post
If they are anything like Canon, and I'm sure they are, they most likely have some lenses that are specifically designed for the bodies with a 1.6x sensor. The good thing is that you're almost always going to be safe with the better, faster lenses. That lens will work with your D80, no problem.

Cool, thanks for your help.
BTW, you've got a very nice website. My favorite picture is the one with the Owl, with a close second being the girl with the lollipop.
I'm sure I'll be taking pictures like those in the next two weeks.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
By nhfirefighter13 on 04-18-2008, 09:23 PM
Here ya go:
Compatible lenses for the D80 are:
1) Type G or D AF NIKKOR: All functions supported
2) DX AF NIKKOR: All functions supported except FX-format (36x24)/5:4 (30x24) image size
3) AF NIKKOR other than type G or D*2: All functions supported except 3D Color Matrix Metering II
4) AI-P NIKKOR: All functions supported except autofocus and 3D Color Matrix Metering II
Reply With Quote
  #12  
By nhfirefighter13 on 04-18-2008, 09:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ONEvcs View Post
Cool, thanks for your help.
BTW, you've got a very nice website. My favorite picture is the one with the Owl, with a close second being the girl with the lollipop.
I'm sure I'll be taking pictures like those in the next two weeks.

Practice, Practice, Practice.
Thanks, btw. The website isn't done though. I've only been working it for about a year now. One day it'll be done in time to start a new design.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
By TAZ on 05-22-2008, 12:27 PM
Nice article, NH!
Excellent use of the bike and can example shots to illustrate the differences in apertures.
I'm off to check out the shutter speed article now...
Reply With Quote
  #14  
By nhfirefighter13 on 05-22-2008, 01:47 PM
Thanks, Taz!
Reply With Quote
Comment

Bookmarks

Tags
None

Article Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

LinkBacks (?)
LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.motorcycleaddicts.org/learned-hard-way/12909-motorsports-photography-part-2-blur-not-blur.html
Posted By For Type Date
nomadicme's Bookmarks on Delicious This thread Refback 09-02-2008 02:38 PM
Digg / All News, Videos, & Images / Upcoming This thread Refback 04-07-2008 06:07 PM

Similar Threads
Article Article Starter Category Comments Last Post
Motorsports Photography MCADXmag Learned the Hard Way 7 05-05-2008 01:04 PM
Photography ONEvcs Off Topic 11 03-25-2008 01:45 PM
Hopkins, Vermeulen To Take Part In Free-to-the-public Motorsports Demonstration At As Paperboy Roadracingworld 0 08-06-2007 08:52 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0
Best viewed at 1024x768 or higher. Not affiliated with or endorsed by any of the manufacturers discussed.

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 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64