Human Body Framing - DoF Cheat Sheet

[Stagecoach]

I'm starting to get into a new area (for me) of shooting some sports just for fun so as an aid to familiarising with DoF and humans as opposed to critters and landscapes I knocked up the below today.

It's based upon Bill's (William W) cheat sheet but modified somewhat and of course in metric measurements.

This is a prototype, I have not yet checked the figures for mistakes, would consider including feet and inches if anyone is interested, increase the lettering/numbering size or consider other ideas/changes.



I will not be able to reply to any comments for a day due to commitments.

Grahame

[Shadowman]

I would include at least one focal length as a method of comparison.

[Stagecoach]

I would include at least one focal length as a method of comparison.

Comparison with what John?

The focal length will not make a difference (unless at extreme FLs) if the framing is the same.

[xpatUSA]

I'm starting to get into a new area (for me) of shooting some sports just for fun so as an aid to familiarising with DoF and humans as opposed to critters and landscapes I knocked up the below today.

It's based upon Bill's (William W) cheat sheet but modified somewhat and of course in metric measurements.

This is a prototype, I have not yet checked the figures for mistakes, would consider including feet and inches if anyone is interested, increase the lettering/numbering size or consider other ideas/changes.

Grahame

Hi Grahame,

I like that presentation, much cooler than a boring spreadsheet. But, you know me . . .

I have a spreadsheet which I made for tabletop work. It allows entry of subject size, sensor size and framing.

I entered 1829mm for the whole body height, 12mm body height in the image plane, 27mm diagonal for the sensor and 1500 for the CoC diagonal factor. Sad to say, my DOFs came out wildly different:

2.39m, 3.45m, 4.95m, 7.47m and 11.37m.

[I had the focal length set to 70mm for the above - other lengths vary the DOF slightly but not enough to explain the difference between your and my results]

It also told me to stand 10.74m away from the subject [for 70mm].

Not saying that William's stuff is wrong but summat's up or summat

I'd be happy to send you the file and the link that I derived it from.

[IzzieK]

Grahame...I am with including feet and inches...if you do not mind. This will be an interesting subject for me to pursue on a small scale even if I have to drag myself to our hangar. Lots of photo-ops there before the winter sets in. I was just reading an article on "including people to your shots before I went for a trip last week and this visual chart will help me a lot. Thanks..

[Stagecoach]

Hi Grahame,

I like that presentation, much cooler than a boring spreadsheet. But, you know me . . .

I have a spreadsheet which I made for tabletop work. It allows entry of subject size, sensor size and framing.

I entered 1829mm for the whole body height, 12mm body height in the image plane, 27mm diagonal for the sensor and 1500 for the CoC diagonal factor. Sad to say, my DOFs came out wildly different:

2.39m, 3.45m, 4.95m, 7.47m and 11.37m.

[I had the focal length set to 70mm for the above - other lengths vary the DOF slightly but not enough to explain the difference between your and my results]

It also told me to stand 10.74m away from the subject [for 70mm].

Not saying that William's stuff is wrong but summat's up or summat

I'd be happy to send you the file and the link that I derived it from.

Ted, you confuse me, are you suggesting your spreadsheet is wrong or my data sheet above?

For my sheet take the scenario top right picture (note pictures are to exact scale WRT human in frame) and lets assume a 100mm FL lens.

1, The human is 1.829 mtrs tall (6ft) and for him to take up 80% of the 'horizontal' FOV (camera held in portrait) the horizontal FOV needs to be 2.286 mtrs.

2, To achieve a 2.286 mtr HFOV at 100mm FL your subject distance will be 10.16 mtrs

3, A 100mm FL at 10.16 mtr subject distance at f/11 will give you a DoF of 4.47 mtrs.

4, Similarly if you were to use a 50mm FL and Frame the Same (you move closer) your DoF will be almost identical. The same in reverse if you use a 200mm lens.


My figures have come from http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm which I always use.

I can not see where my figures are out, but want to be sure they are not before I progress it any further.

[Stagecoach]

Grahame...I am with including feet and inches...if you do not mind. This will be an interesting subject for me to pursue on a small scale even if I have to drag myself to our hangar. Lots of photo-ops there before the winter sets in. I was just reading an article on "including people to your shots before I went for a trip last week and this visual chart will help me a lot. Thanks..

Hi Izzie,

I will add the 'old world' measurements once I'm sure there's no mistake in this.

Grahame

[dem]

I would include at least one focal length as a method of comparison.

+1. I would add one more column which tells how far the camera has to be away from the subject when using say a 35 mm (50 mm ff eq) lens.

[William W]

Nice work Grahame.

I am very happy that you "ran with it" - and this weekend too! (pun intended).


***


My DoF “cheat sheets” which I’ve posted at CiC are refined to include ONLY three apertures (F/2.8 F/5.6 and F/11) and ONLY three framings (Full Length; Half Shot and Head Shot) each at the two Camera Orientations (Vertical and Horizontal i.e. Portrait and Landscape).

Those provides a total of 18 ‘numbers’ which represent DoF. Although I have other refined sets and also my final-original more extensive DoF cheat sheets for the DoF for: 6x7; 6x4.5; 135 and APS-C Format Cameras I now “use” only the eighteen numbers from the 135 Format DF Cheat Sheets which appear below.

When I wrote “use” above – I mean that I know the set of the 18 below numbers by rote: I don’t refer to the “cheat sheets” at all now, because I know the numbers – I just made these cheat sheets as an example learning tool for my students – and I‘ve been happy to share them and also the idea here at CiC.

If you look carefully my numbers, they form a pattern: that’s because I have rounded them (conservatively rounded for safety).

For the aperture stops in between my set of three: I just average the DoF numbers wither side either side.

As now I shoot mainly with digital media, for APS-C I need only remember the 135 Format Sheet and I simply shift the Apertures one stop (because APS-C Format :: 135 Format “comparative equivalence DoF” is so close to 1⅓ Stops).

One reason for refining my original sheets to only two sets of nine numbers - was that those 18 numbers could be written on the back of a postage stamp (literally) – and for those who remember the spring loaded guide at the back of cameras where one could place the film roll box end – that’s where I kept my original set of 18 DoF numbers – the size of a small postage stamp. Similarly I used to have a set of numbers representing Manual Flash Working Distances and they were taped (postage stamp size) to the back of the Flash Heads.

Having an expansive cheat sheet, for example A4 size might be useful, and I thought it was when I began making mine: but the type of work that I was doing early on in my career, necessitated that any aid be at my eye’s view and rapidly and easily adapted for use whilst I was working under the pressure of time..

It only took me a couple of shoots to realize that I was easy to remember 18 numbers for 135 format and another 18 tor 6x4.5 format, especially if I rounded the numbers to make a pattern. . . and as already mentioned I now only ‘use’ the 18 numbers for 135 Format, represented here:

***



*



***

Couple of very important points in consideration of the comments in Post #2 and Post #8 –

The major premise for having such a device as a DoF Cheat Sheet is NOT to have to worry about considerations of either:

 Focal Length
 Shooting Distance

The whole point about the Axiom of Depth of Field is that both Focal Length and Shooting Distance are irrelevant - that’s the beauty of simplicity.



***

ADENDUM - perhaps to think about:

After about a year of using my DoF numbers by memory, I found that I was not consciously remembering the numbers at all, but just setting the aperture automatically – it was that revelation that was the germ of my understanding of the camera becoming an extension of the hand and the hand an extension of the brain and that lead me to the understanding that most of the technical stuff can, with enough focussed practice, become an automatic response – and it was then I began setting about making targeted exercises for my Photography: just like a pianist practices Scales or Hanon exercises.

WW

[Shadowman]

Nice work Grahame.

I am very happy that you "ran with it" - and this weekend too! (pun intended).


***


My DoF “cheat sheets” which I’ve posted at CiC are refined to include ONLY three apertures (F/2.8 F/5.6 and F/11) and ONLY three framings (Full Length; Half Shot and Head Shot) each at the two Camera Orientations (Vertical and Horizontal i.e. Portrait and Landscape).

Those provides a total of 18 ‘numbers’ which represent DoF. Although I have other refined sets and also my final-original more extensive DoF cheat sheets for the DoF for: 6x7; 6x4.5; 135 and APS-C Format Cameras I now “use” only the eighteen numbers from the 135 Format DF Cheat Sheets which appear below.

When I wrote “use” above – I mean that I know the set of the 18 below numbers by rote: I don’t refer to the “cheat sheets” at all now, because I know the numbers – I just made these cheat sheets as an example learning tool for my students – and I‘ve been happy to share them and also the idea here at CiC.

If you look carefully my numbers, they form a pattern: that’s because I have rounded them (conservatively rounded for safety).

For the aperture stops in between my set of three: I just average the DoF numbers wither side either side.

As now I shoot mainly with digital media, for APS-C I need only remember the 135 Format Sheet and I simply shift the Apertures one stop (because APS-C Format :: 135 Format “comparative equivalence DoF” is so close to 1⅓ Stops).

One reason for refining my original sheets to only two sets of nine numbers - was that those 18 numbers could be written on the back of a postage stamp (literally) – and for those who remember the spring loaded guide at the back of cameras where one could place the film roll box end – that’s where I kept my original set of 18 DoF numbers – the size of a small postage stamp. Similarly I used to have a set of numbers representing Manual Flash Working Distances and they were taped (postage stamp size) to the back of the Flash Heads.

Having an expansive cheat sheet, for example A4 size might be useful, and I thought it was when I began making mine: but the type of work that I was doing early on in my career, necessitated that any aid be at my eye’s view and rapidly and easily adapted for use whilst I was working under the pressure of time..

It only took me a couple of shoots to realize that I was easy to remember 18 numbers for 135 format and another 18 tor 6x4.5 format, especially if I rounded the numbers to make a pattern. . . and as already mentioned I now only ‘use’ the 18 numbers for 135 Format, represented here:

***



*



***

Couple of very important points in consideration of the comments in Post #2 and Post #8 –

The major premise for having such a device as a DoF Cheat Sheet is NOT to have to worry about considerations of either:

 Focal Length
 Shooting Distance

The whole point about the Axiom of Depth of Field is that both Focal Length and Shooting Distance are irrelevant - that’s the beauty of simplicity.



***

ADENDUM - perhaps to think about:

After about a year of using my DoF numbers by memory, I found that I was not consciously remembering the numbers at all, but just setting the aperture automatically – it was that revelation that was the germ of my understanding of the camera becoming an extension of the hand and the hand an extension of the brain and that lead me to the understanding that most of the technical stuff can, with enough focussed practice, become an automatic response – and it was then I began setting about making targeted exercises for my Photography: just like a pianist practices Scales or Hanon exercises.

WW

I guess my confusion with this chart is that it was presented as a tool for sports photography, the possibility of getting physically closer to the action is at times impossible and the only way to achieve the same 80% filling of the frame is with a zoom lens.

[TonyW]

Hi Bill. I believe you have an error in the first row of your first table. Since the DoF is proportional to the f number, the 30' should be 20'.

This also means that if you don't mind a bit of mental arithmetic you only have to remember six numbers rather than 18.

Also, it looks from Grahame's table that the DoF is inversely proportional to the square of the magnification, although it's hard to tell exactly because of the rounding and I seem to remember that this is not true for high magnifications like macro shots. If you accept this, you need only remember one number for each crop factor although admittedly the mental arithmetic starts to get a bit much.

[xpatUSA]

Ted, you confuse me, are you suggesting your spreadsheet is wrong or my data sheet above?

Didn't mean to confuse, honest!

I wrote a spreadsheet based on a paper by Dick Lyon. You entered input into a web page by Max Lyons.

All I was trying to say is that if two methods give significantly different results, something is up. [see below]

For my sheet take the scenario top right picture (note pictures are to exact scale WRT human in frame) and lets assume a 100mm FL lens.

1, The human is 1.829 mtrs tall (6ft) and for him to take up 80% of the 'horizontal' FOV (camera held in portrait) the horizontal FOV needs to be 2.286 mtrs.

With my spreadsheet, I can do that (portrait) - I had assumed landscape and had entered 80% of 15mm as the subject size. I'll run it again for 80% of 22.5mm = 18mm (size of subject at the sensor) . . .

2, To achieve a 2.286 mtr HFOV at 100mm FL your subject distance will be 10.16 mtrs

. . . I got 10.26m

3, A 100mm FL at 10.16 mtr subject distance at f/11 will give you a DoF of 4.47 mtrs.

I got a DOF of 4.3m

Looks like we're about the same now I've entered in portrait mode

4, Similarly if you were to use a 50mm FL and Frame the Same (you move closer) your DoF will be almost identical. The same in reverse if you use a 200mm lens.

Agreed.

My figures have come from http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm which I always use.

I can not see where my figures are out, but want to be sure they are not before I progress it any further.

Later,

[Stagecoach]

+1. I would add one more column which tells how far the camera has to be away from the subject when using say a 35 mm (50 mm ff eq) lens.

Dem, I will add the 'subject distance' for each scenario of full, 1/2, 1/4 & 1/8th body framing for the three FLs of 100, 200 and 300mm.

I will not go to shorter FLs because this is then more within the realm of close up portrait work.

[Stagecoach]

Nice work Grahame.

I am very happy that you "ran with it" - and this weekend too! (pun intended).


***


My DoF “cheat sheets” which I’ve posted at CiC are refined to include ONLY three apertures (F/2.8 F/5.6 and F/11) and ONLY three framings (Full Length; Half Shot and Head Shot) each at the two Camera Orientations (Vertical and Horizontal i.e. Portrait and Landscape).

Those provides a total of 18 ‘numbers’ which represent DoF. Although I have other refined sets and also my final-original more extensive DoF cheat sheets for the DoF for: 6x7; 6x4.5; 135 and APS-C Format Cameras I now “use” only the eighteen numbers from the 135 Format DF Cheat Sheets which appear below.

When I wrote “use” above – I mean that I know the set of the 18 below numbers by rote: I don’t refer to the “cheat sheets” at all now, because I know the numbers – I just made these cheat sheets as an example learning tool for my students – and I‘ve been happy to share them and also the idea here at CiC.

If you look carefully my numbers, they form a pattern: that’s because I have rounded them (conservatively rounded for safety).

For the aperture stops in between my set of three: I just average the DoF numbers wither side either side.

As now I shoot mainly with digital media, for APS-C I need only remember the 135 Format Sheet and I simply shift the Apertures one stop (because APS-C Format :: 135 Format “comparative equivalence DoF” is so close to 1⅓ Stops).

One reason for refining my original sheets to only two sets of nine numbers - was that those 18 numbers could be written on the back of a postage stamp (literally) – and for those who remember the spring loaded guide at the back of cameras where one could place the film roll box end – that’s where I kept my original set of 18 DoF numbers – the size of a small postage stamp. Similarly I used to have a set of numbers representing Manual Flash Working Distances and they were taped (postage stamp size) to the back of the Flash Heads.

Having an expansive cheat sheet, for example A4 size might be useful, and I thought it was when I began making mine: but the type of work that I was doing early on in my career, necessitated that any aid be at my eye’s view and rapidly and easily adapted for use whilst I was working under the pressure of time..

It only took me a couple of shoots to realize that I was easy to remember 18 numbers for 135 format and another 18 tor 6x4.5 format, especially if I rounded the numbers to make a pattern. . . and as already mentioned I now only ‘use’ the 18 numbers for 135 Format, represented here:

Couple of very important points in consideration of the comments in Post #2 and Post #8 –

The major premise for having such a device as a DoF Cheat Sheet is NOT to have to worry about considerations of either:

 Focal Length
 Shooting Distance

The whole point about the Axiom of Depth of Field is that both Focal Length and Shooting Distance are irrelevant - that’s the beauty of simplicity.



***

ADENDUM - perhaps to think about:

After about a year of using my DoF numbers by memory, I found that I was not consciously remembering the numbers at all, but just setting the aperture automatically – it was that revelation that was the germ of my understanding of the camera becoming an extension of the hand and the hand an extension of the brain and that lead me to the understanding that most of the technical stuff can, with enough focussed practice, become an automatic response – and it was then I began setting about making targeted exercises for my Photography: just like a pianist practices Scales or Hanon exercises.

WW

Bill,

My original intention had been to simply produce a 3 x 3 matrix as yours but having drawn my euro standard man in CAD and also learned that the head height is 1/8 of the body height and that the centre of bending is 4 head heights from the foot I got carried away.

In addition, where your chart mentions 'Tight Head Shot' I used the opportunity to show a very tight head shot accurately as the 1/8 part of the body sequence of Full, Half, Quarter and Eighth.

As with all information and data it's always difficult to know how much to record or remember and with computerisation these days there's also instant access to all this in an App on your phone.

For my own purpose the fact that I can look at something like this which relates to what I'm interested in at present and appreciate the differences it will teach me to recognise that these differences must be addressed when shooting. But, I'm certain that it would not be long before it becomes second nature.

Grahame

[William W]

Hi Bill. I believe you have an error in the first row of your first table. Since the DoF is proportional to the f number, the 30' should be 20'.

Absolutely! I emailed the “artist” who transcribed my scribbles – and I have sacked her: she has since spoken to me and she is in tears. I don’t think that she will recover, she was a prized student. She will be living on the streets.

You know, that card (on cardboard) was drawn up several years ago and has been used several times in lessons and I did not notice that transcription mistake when I proofed it and I have never noticed it since and neither has anyone else: it's been seen by hundreds of people and no one has even noticed until now – so I have sacked myself also – I am now looking for new job, too.

Thank you so much for pointing that error out to me. I shall remove the erroneous card immediately.

*

This also means that if you don't mind a bit of mental arithmetic you only have to remember six numbers rather than 18.

Yes. Good point. I already understood that – but it’s a good point to mention as it might be a better method for others to remember, as we all learn differently and find different memory aids easier than others. My way of initially remembering was that I recited the number patterns, like reciting multiplication tables. Mental Arithmetic was reserved for the in between apertures, as I already have mentioned.

*

Also, it looks from Grahame's table that the DoF is inversely proportional to the square of the magnification, although it's hard to tell exactly because of the rounding and I seem to remember that this is not true for high magnifications like macro shots.

As I mentioned (maybe in the other thread) the Axiom for DoF is NOT suitable for Macro and Close-Up Photography.

WW

[Stagecoach]

Also, it looks from Grahame's table that the DoF is inversely proportional to the square of the magnification, although it's hard to tell exactly because of the rounding and I seem to remember that this is not true for high magnifications like macro shots. If you accept this, you need only remember one number for each crop factor although admittedly the mental arithmetic starts to get a bit much.

Tony, you are correct in that for macro things are not quite the same.

The rounding up of my figures does not help but in the next version I will amend the units so that the relationship is more obvious. Basically closing the aperture by 2 stops doubles the DOF.

There's also a typo on mine which is the DoF figure of 1.69 second from top right which should be more like 1.09.

Grahame

[Stagecoach]

. . .

I got 10.26m,

I got a DOF of 4.3m

Looks like we're about the same now I've entered in portrait mode

Ted, I find these small differences on various DoF calculators I have used and tend to ignore them. A lot depends upon the CoC that has been used.

To be honest I have never used a DoF calculator for 'accurate' readings because I believe that in real world photography 95% of the time it would not be possible to take an 'accurate' reading of the subject distance. But they are important as they give you a reasonable indication of what to expect.

[William W]

Tony W:

I have rechecked the big cardboard cards that I use in lessons and they are correct, so it looks like my error was only in the transcription to the 'paintshop' reproductions of those cards that I had made for web use - and I have deleted the erroneous 'web-card' and replaced it with the correct numbers and I inserted that in my previous post . . .

For those interested - the artist who did those paintshop images for me is now 'un-sacked' as she apologized profusely . . . and, well, she is my daughter. I however still remain sacked . . . and very embarrassed.

Thanks again, Tony.

WW

[William W]

. . .My original intention had been to simply produce a 3 x 3 matrix as yours but having drawn my euro standard man in CAD and also learned that the head height is 1/8 of the body height and that the centre of bending is 4 head heights from the foot I got carried away. . .

haha! I appreciate that logic. And that made me laugh too.

*

In addition, where your chart mentions 'Tight Head Shot' I used the opportunity to show a very tight head shot accurately as the 1/8 part of the body sequence of Full, Half, Quarter and Eighth.

Makes sense. I didn't appreciate that relationship on my first reading of your sheet. That's a good idea.

*

As with all information and data it's always difficult to know how much to record or remember and with computerisation these days there's also instant access to all this in an App on your phone.

I think that it is necessary to learn and remember what is useful for your own shooting scenarios.

*

For my own purpose the fact that I can look at something like this which relates to what I'm interested in at present and appreciate the differences it will teach me to recognise that these differences must be addressed when shooting. But, I'm certain that it would not be long before it becomes second nature.

I think so. The task of making the sheet has done much of that already, I expect.

WW

[IzzieK]

Hi Izzie,

I will add the 'old world' measurements once I'm sure there's no mistake in this.

Grahame

It's OK, Grahame...I can live with metric. I am used to both, just that it is easier to think in feet and inches...