Into the distance

[Gungarlin]

I recently bought myself a new camera (Nikon D7500) and telephoto lens. And am still coming to grips with the various controls and options that are available on it.

This photo is quite literally an "arm chair" shot. I was sitting in my lounge room, playing with different settings and firing off shots to see the results. It was a prettry grey morning with a bit of light rain, whilst working on the 2nd (or 3rd) cup of coffee. I was staring out across the back balcony into the tree tops of the bush behind me, the clouds parted, the sun shone through and I took this. I was trying to convey a sense of distance of the bush behind my house, by forcing focus onto the sunlit tree some 50 or so metres away. The blurred green is the frond of a tree fern that is trying to invade the balcony. The red/brown blur to the left is a section of shade cloth. Any thoughts please.

[Manfred M]

Welcome to CiC Ian. My wife shoots the D7500, so I know the camera reasonably well. It's a strong, modern camera that has the same sensor and processing pipe as the D500, so a thoroughly modern, powerful camera. Working with it and getting to understand it will be critical to making strong images.

When I look at your image, I have to think that this was really a shot you didn't really think about, but were just trying things out. There isn't a strong subject that engages the viewer and one has to ask if the blurred green and red areas add to what you were trying to do or if they are just distracting elements? In general, when we shoot, we try to eliminate or at least distracting elements.

[Gungarlin]

Thanks for the comment Manfred.

I was trying to give the impression that the tree was some distance off. From what you're saying, I gather it would be best to have a clear/focused foreground. Would working to get the background out of focus increase the sense of depth?

Cheers

[DanK]

Ian,

I am very wary of "rules" for photography. There are good exceptions to everything. So, I prefer to talk about guidelines or rules of thumb. One of them is that blurred material in the foreground is often distracting. Blurred material in the background usually is not. As a good example of the latter, look at especially the second portrait in Manfred's recent posts of Dasenach women, Dasenach Woman 01 - 03. The blurred background doesn't distract. On the contrary, it helps draw your attention to the woman's face. Blurred material in the foreground usually has the opposite effect.

Dan

[Manfred M]

Ian - the modern way of critiquing images tends to deal with things that distract the viewer from seeing the image in the way that the photographer would like, and as Dan points out, that generally means that out of focus parts of the foreground tend to distract and out of focus areas in the background tend to provide a frame for the subject.

For a strong image, you want a subject that captures your viewer's attention and surroundings that complement the subject. Landscapes are a touch different, as they don't always have a subject, but the concept of distracting elements versus elements that capture the viewer's attention are still important.

[rpcrowe]

Piggy backing on Dan and Manfred's comments above.

The human eye - with vision processed by the human brain can view things selectively... That is, to disregard things that are not important to the view and hone in on the important items within that view!

The camera does not have that capability and gives equal importance to all areas of an image unless, the photographer can isolate the subject artificially...

There are many ways to provide importance to a subject. First is to select a subject to start off with. The subject can be a small area of the image or a rather large portion of the image as in many landscapes

Then selective focus, size, color and brightness/contrast and placing, are all methods of honing in on a subject.

OOF areas in the foreground will only occasionally emphasize a subject, most often (at least for me) they will compete for importance within the image with the main subject. However, an OOF background will IMO most often separate that primary subject from the background itself...

[xpatUSA]

I was staring out across the back balcony into the tree tops of the bush behind me, the clouds parted, the sun shone through and I took this. I was trying to convey a sense of distance of the bush behind my house, by forcing focus onto the sunlit tree some 50 or so metres away.

In art, a sense of distance is often conveyed by less detail and lower saturation. but usually, objects at a distance are not the subjects. Nevertheless, an impression of depth rather than just distance in subjects can be given by a very slight de-focusing but from front to rear.

I imagine that it would be quite difficult to emulate the eye/brain impression. The only way I see that being done including a feeling of distance is something like a rose bush in bloom properly focused at the end of a pathway with other bushes each side in-focus or slightly OOF but with the color saturated in the foreground but less so on the subject.

Still doesn't sound right but the best I can do.

This might be helpful ...

http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/DOFR.html

... or thoroughly confusing.

[xpatUSA]

In art, a sense of distance is often conveyed by less detail and lower saturation. but usually, objects at a distance are not the subjects. Nevertheless, an impression of depth rather than just distance in subjects can be given by a very slight de-focusing but from front to rear.

I nipped out into the drizzle and took a quick shot of my burn-pile:



Due to it's location and lighting, the pile is clearly the subject of the shot, but the size and distance is indicated by the trees and the inclusion of the satellite dish. I focused on the dish at f/4 , normal lens - 41mm equivalent.

Relative distances are clearly indicated by the degree of out-of-focus. Please ignore the camera-shake ... I'm getting old.

HTH

Comments welcome ...