Woodland Scenery, DOF and Impression of Depth.

[xpatUSA]

On a forum far, far away, someone posted this:



The EXIF showed it as shot at f/14 with the implicit intention of maximizing the DOF. I asked what influenced the choice of f/14 and the poster confirmed that max DOF was indeed a factor and he also mentioned that it was focused at the hyperfocal distance, further implying that he wanted everything in-focus.

My woodland is less open than the above but there are a couple of driveways. I do find that, if I shoot similarly to the above, the image is a mess of in-focus detail and not terribly impressive. (curse that Foveon sharpness ).

So I'm wondering if woodland shots such as the above should be focused at less than the hyperfocal distance so as to apply a tiny but visible bit of blur to the background objects, thereby applying one of the several "impression of depth" factors.

With the original poster's camera, f/14 is getting close to giving significant diffraction compared to the standard CoC for it's sensor - almost equal as a matter of fact, with a blur circle about four times the pixel size. (lets not get into a discussion about CoC though).

So I'm also wondering if woodland shots such as the above should be made at a lower f-number to get sharper details at the plane of focus.

I would be interested any comments and examples that Members may have to offer.

[Mike Buckley]

I equate the look of depth with the look of three dimensions. The most important factor for me to achieve that look is always light. Beyond how the light is recorded by the camera, I can then dodge and burn certain areas of the image to enhance the three-dimensional appearance. Last, I can also sharpen certain areas of the scene more than other areas to help make that happen.

My only concern about the aperture I choose is to ensure in a scene such as the photo above that everything is in focus. On the one hand, I don't concern myself with the impact of diffraction because I also don't make prints that are so large that the diffraction would be noticeable when viewed at a reasonable viewing distance. On the other hand, when capturing a scene such as this, I would almost always be using a focal length and a distance between the scene and camera that would allow me to keep all areas of the scene in focus without using an aperture that is so small that diffraction would become an issue.

[xpatUSA]

I equate the look of depth with the look of three dimensions. The most important factor for me to achieve that look is always light. Beyond how the light is recorded by the camera, I can then dodge and burn certain areas of the image to enhance the three-dimensional appearance. Last, I can also sharpen certain areas of the scene more than other areas to help make that happen.

Thanks Mike. That was a good general explanation of how to get an impression of depth a.k.a. the '3D' look.

My only concern about the aperture I choose is to ensure in a scene such as the photo above that everything is in focus.

That is interesting because "everything in focus" was desired by the original poster, too. Is that desire peculiar to woodland scenery - or is it also applicable to urban streets, landscapes, boats on beaches, etc. ?

On the one hand, I don't concern myself with the impact of diffraction because I also don't make prints that are so large that the diffraction would be noticeable when viewed at a reasonable viewing distance.

On the other hand, when capturing a scene such as this, I would almost always be using a focal length and a distance between the scene and camera that would allow me to keep all areas of the scene in focus without using an aperture that is so small that diffraction would become an issue.

From which, does that mean you would consider (like myself) that the original poster's f/14 (1.5 crop) was verging on too much?

[Manfred M]

Well written, Mike.

The old days before the short throw autofocus lenses, camera lenses had DoF markings inscribed on them that indicated roughly what would be in focus for a specific f-stop. I do understand that there were all kinds of assumptions about these, but none-the-less, by "guesstimating" distances it was relatively easy focus ones camera to maximize the DoF of the image. The hyperfocal distance is just one very specific application of this concept. If the furthest element of a shot was not "infinity", focusing short was often used with the selected focus point; this technique is still used a lot by street photographers and is often referred to as "zone focusing", as everything in the zone is going to end up being sharp enough. In the film days we would follow the "one extra stop rule"; for example set the focus for f/8 but shoot at f/11 just in case we missed a bit in our distance estimate.

As for diffraction, I'm with Mike on that one, especially in your case where everything going to be viewed on your screen. Downsampling the camera output is going to be resampled for a 2MP sized display (8MP for those how are using 4K displays).

The old "rule of thumb" was tho

[Mike Buckley]

That is interesting because "everything in focus" was desired by the original poster, too. Is that desire peculiar to woodland scenery - or is it also applicable to urban streets, landscapes, boats on beaches, etc. ?

In my mind, every choice in photography has to do with the photographer's vision, not the subject. As an example, Ansel Adams very early in his career made "pictorialist" landscape images that had an unsharp dreamy look (though he later wrote that he was never a "pictorialist"). Soon after and then throughout the rest of his career, his landscapes were sharply in focus from front to back in the scene. However, I will concede that most photographers often have a particular vision for shooting one genre and perhaps a different way for shooting a different genre.

does that mean you would consider (like myself) that the original poster's f/14 (1.5 crop) was verging on too much?

I wouldn't know. That's because, for reasons explained in my first post, I don't concern myself with diffraction and, as a result, am rather ignorant about the aperture settings that would tend to create it.

[AlwaysOnAuto]

If all of the photo isn't in focus as originally wanted, isn't it going to be hard(er) to figure out what the subject of the photo is?

[xpatUSA]

If all of the photo isn't in focus as originally wanted, isn't it going to be hard(er) to figure out what the subject of the photo is?

If you're asking me, Alan, I was not the one who wanted 'all of the photo' in focus. That would be the original shooter. In a woodland scene with no particular subject per se, the whole scene is the subject but, just like the classic boat on the beach, do we make the boat super-sharp from front to back? Does that not make the boat look flat - almost like a pop-up in a children's book?

We're drifting off-topic a bit (impression of depth) but the posted image does actually have a subject. Can anybody see it with everything focused as it is?

My main concern vis-a-vis focus & DOF, is still impression of depth conveyed by a diminution of focus toward the rear of the woodland scene. Nearby trees super-sharp, mid-ground a tad less so, background quite a bit less. Background twigs against the sky somewhat blurred and lacking in contrast, etc., etc., blah-di-blah.

[AlwaysOnAuto]

Sorry, I can't see the forest for all the trees in the way.

That really is a pretty nice shot when you look at it in the Light Box full size.

[xpatUSA]

Sorry, I can't see the forest for all the trees in the way.

Har-di-har. Should I delete my previous post?

[AlwaysOnAuto]

No, not at all. I wish I could view it full size and not have to scroll so much. (guess I have a tiny monitor)

[AlwaysOnAuto]

I don't get out to the woods much any more, but, I do understand where you're coming from re: DOF. I recently played around with one of my lenses shooting Porsches at a meet and tried to get some DOF shots to see if they worked. Some did, some didn't.

[pnodrog]

The sharpness of focus has only a minor part to play in portraying impression of depth in landscape photography. It is far more important with close up subjects. For landscape photography perspective, recession and moving from warmer saturated tones to duller cooler tones are more important factors.

Without giving the focal length of the lens and format used the aperture used is not overly relevant.

[Shadowman]

I think the deep DOF would be more impressive if there were something in the foreground that served as an anchor for the rest of the composition, An interesting mushroom or other element might work.

[xpatUSA]

No, not at all. I wish I could view it full size and not have to scroll so much. (guess I have a tiny monitor)

Yes, it's a 4704x3136px, so it's not your tiny monitor. No size restrictions on that other forum! I linked to it full-size so that folks could zoom in on those far-distant twigs and marvel how sharp they are.

[xpatUSA]

Well written, Mike.

The old days before the short throw autofocus lenses, camera lenses had DoF markings inscribed on them that indicated roughly what would be in focus for a specific f-stop. I do understand that there were all kinds of assumptions about these, but none-the-less, by "guesstimating" distances it was relatively easy focus ones camera to maximize the DoF of the image. The hyperfocal distance is just one very specific application of this concept. If the furthest element of a shot was not "infinity", focusing short was often used with the selected focus point; this technique is still used a lot by street photographers and is often referred to as "zone focusing", as everything in the zone is going to end up being sharp enough. In the film days we would follow the "one extra stop rule"; for example set the focus for f/8 but shoot at f/11 just in case we missed a bit in our distance estimate.

Interesting. "Focusing short" was indeed what I had in mind prior to Mike's "everything sharp" post.

As for diffraction, I'm with Mike on that one, especially in your case where everything is going to be viewed on your screen. <> The camera output is going to be re-sampled for a 2MP sized display (8MP for those who are using 4K displays).

Yes, I'll be staying with an HD monitor for the foreseeable future. [edit]Indeed, re-sampling downward can affect the apparent DOF of an original image - good point almost worthy of separate discussion.[/edit]. Consequently, I shoot at 2336x1568px (Sigma Merrill binned low resolution - about 3MP) which is not too far off from my 1920x1200px monitor.

The old "rule of thumb" was tho

?

[xpatUSA]

Without giving the focal length of the lens and format used the aperture used not overly relevant.

It was shot at 30mm on a 1.5 crop camera.

f/14 was mentioned by itlself in the context of diffraction which can effectively increase the circle of confusion and affect the sharpness at pixel level.

[pnodrog]

Due to a post being edited this post is no longer applicable....

[Cantab]

Ted, in post #7, you asked if anyone could identify the subject of the photo. There have been few brave volunteers apart from suggestions that it's the forest per se. Do you see something more specific? In any event it's an intriguing image.

I was convinced that the photo was taken with a wide angle lens because of the leaning trees on both sides of the image. But you say it was a 30mm lens on a crop frame camera so I'm obviously wrong on that count.

[xpatUSA]

Ted, in post #7, you asked if anyone could identify the subject of the photo. There have been few brave volunteers apart from suggestions that it's the forest per se. Do you see something more specific? In any event it's an intriguing image.

Well, Bruce, I have the advantage of knowing the title of the post in the other forum: "Home of the Giant Woodpecker". So the subject was actually the big holes in the tree in the middle ground. My pathetic point of the question being that everything is in focus front to back which makes the subject a tad less obvious, LOL.

I was convinced that the photo was taken with a wide angle lens because of the leaning trees on both sides of the image. But you say it was a 30mm lens on a crop frame camera so I'm obviously wrong on that count.

I wondered about the trees leaning outward too. Perhaps if the 'path' is upward and the camera was therefore pointing upward?

[Mike Buckley]

Though the holes in the tree may have been the intended subject, the image is improperly framed to make them so.

As for the lean of the trees, trees often do not grow vertically because they instead grow in search of the sun. If an opening in the canopy is not directly above them, they will commonly lean toward the opening. If a lot of the dirt close to the trees is washed away, as can happen especially when the ground is shaped as in this scene, that in itself can cause the trees to lean later in life.