DEfine Shallow DOF - DPChallenge Forums

12/17/2005 06:28:58 PM · #1

Shallow is a relative term. Is it to be as small as possible or in relation to the entire picture?

For example if I was taking a picture of a ring say for the Catalog challenge, I would make sure everything in front and behind was really blurry. If I am taking a picture of a tree on a lawn a bit more would be in focus then if I was taking a picture of something small like a ring but in relation to the entire picture the same area of the picture say two thirds would be out of focus.

Would the picture of the tree not qualify for the challenge or not score as high in that maybe three feet or so would be in focus as opposed to the ring which would only have about an inch in focus even though the area of each picture would still be the same relatively speaking?

Hope I didn't bore you with this long question, I just want to do my best with what I have and no don't go looking for a tree it's just an example.

Mike

cq107

12/17/2005 06:33:16 PM · #2

its all about the shot, as long as the main subject is in focus and an interesting photo...

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

12/17/2005 06:48:31 PM · #3

Thanks Josh.

soup

Canon EOS-30D

12/17/2005 06:51:06 PM · #4

i love shallow !

Message edited by author 2005-12-17 23:55:30.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

12/17/2005 06:55:48 PM · #5

Originally posted by soup:

The picture is a good example of DOF but it doesn't answer my question. Nice though and your Balance was outstanding.

Mike

taterbug

Nikon D300

12/17/2005 07:01:18 PM · #6

hmm, I don't know if there is a definitive answer to your question man, I think shallowness is all in the eye of the observer...

to me personally, I think that the examples you gave would work for me. I mean, if it is obvious that a narrow dof is used to emphasize the subject and strengthen the composition, I would think that is what the technique is about. But I could be way out of whack...it wouldn't be the first time :-P

MQuinn

Olympus OM-D E-M1

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

12/17/2005 07:01:55 PM · #7

I think Tim answered it perfectly for ya mike, he gave you perfect visual examples of shallow DOF.. Just look...

soup

Canon EOS-30D

12/17/2005 07:03:58 PM · #8

thanks ;}

espy2

Nikon D50

Quantaray AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 LD Tele-Macro for Canon

12/18/2005 03:22:00 AM · #9

Originally posted by MPRPRO:

In my own research of this subject, there is shallow DOF and Wide DOF ( I think they call it wide anyway..LOL). The shallow DOF is when one particular subject in the photo is in focus and the rest is not. A Wide DOF is like a landscape, or wide shot, where everything is in focus. So shallow can mean the subject you want in focus can be anywhere in the photo, be it middle, front, or back. Meaning that if it is a flower in a field, you could have the front flowers blurred and the back flowers blurred, but the middle flowers would be in focus - and so forth. Front flowers in focus and back blurred, or just the back flowers in focus.

It simply means that only what you "intend" to be in focus, is in focus, and the rest is not.

The interesting thing about this challenge this time around, is there is NO advanced editing like there was in the other Shallow DOF challenge here. With advanced editing, and looking through those prior entries, I can see a LOT of cloning and blurring and things were done in Photoshop or PSP. This time it will have to be done in camera, and that is a challenge in itself.

Rose

e301

12/18/2005 04:00:57 AM · #10

In your example Michael, I would say it's relative - people won't be making an absolute mathematical assessment of the amount of distance that is in focus.

e

jpeters

Nikon D200

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

12/18/2005 12:27:10 PM · #11

I am curious about what is shallow enough as well. Here is an example I took a few weeks ago. Is this shallow enough for everyone?

hanneke

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

12/18/2005 12:31:02 PM · #12

I shot this one with F2.5 with a canon 50 mm lens. This might be shallow DoF, IMO ;)

edit: sorry, don't wanna shock anyone, but this is the only proper photo i have with this lens.

Message edited by author 2005-12-18 17:31:36.

jpeters

Nikon D200

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

12/18/2005 12:35:08 PM · #13

Originally posted by biteme:

I shot this one with F2.5 with a canon 50 mm lens. This might be shallow DoF, IMO ;)

edit: sorry, don't wanna shock anyone, but this is the only proper photo i have with this lens.

That is definitely a shallow DOF (probably just an inch or two), but mine is probably a few feet. Personally, I think anything which shows depth by having an in-focus subject with an out-of-focus background would qualify, but a general concensus would be nice before shooting.

ursula

Fujifilm X-T2

Fujifilm XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 R LM OIS

12/18/2005 12:41:05 PM · #14

This is shallow DOF:

All three with the 105 mm macro at F2.8

kyebosh

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 80-200 f/2.8L

12/18/2005 12:45:41 PM · #15

Originally posted by jpeters:

I am curious about what is shallow enough as well. Here is an example I took a few weeks ago. Is this shallow enough for everyone?

I would not consider this shallow DOF.

Artyste

Sony Ericsson W810i

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Pentax

12/18/2005 12:45:50 PM · #16

Originally posted by ursula:

This is shallow DOF:

All three with the 105 mm macro at F2.8

Hehe, these are definitely shallow DOF.. extreme cases thereof.

As many other have probably stated, Shallow DOF simply means having a portion of your photo in sharp focus, while the rest, either foreground or background, or (most commonly), both, are out of focus, are progressively going out of focus.

This can be as extreme as these samples, or it can be less extreme. One thing I would not consider a *shallow* DOF is say, a subject that is fully in focus, with only a background far behind them out of focus.

ralph

Nikon Z9

12/18/2005 12:47:46 PM · #17

also the micro 105mm

jpeters

Nikon D200

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

12/18/2005 12:49:10 PM · #18

Originally posted by Artyste:

Okie dokie. I could go along with that.

idnic

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

12/18/2005 12:50:46 PM · #19

LOVE the fork, Ursula. Left comment.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

12/18/2005 02:04:22 PM · #20

3mm or less.

espy2

Nikon D50

Quantaray AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 LD Tele-Macro for Canon

12/18/2005 02:11:24 PM · #21

WHEW! Took my shots today of the subject I had all picked out, and I am VERY pleased with it. I wish the rest of you well in the challenge!

Rose

espy2

Nikon D50

Quantaray AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 LD Tele-Macro for Canon

12/18/2005 02:32:45 PM · #22

By the way, a subject does not have to be in the middle of a photo to be Shallow DOF, ie the pill example or others below. It can be the subject you are trying to portray only in the background, or only in the foreground as well. In this case below, I am showcasing the food, and would have called it "Iams" had I entered it.

Not even close to my actual entry, but was one test shot I did over the past few days when learning Shallow DOF. I don't know how to make it smaller and a clickable link to the larger in my port. Hope it isn't too large.

Rose

Message edited by ursula - replacing large image with thumbnail.

ursula

Fujifilm X-T2

Fujifilm XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 R LM OIS

12/18/2005 03:40:57 PM · #23

Originally posted by Artyste:

One thing I would not consider a *shallow* DOF is say, a subject that is fully in focus, with only a background far behind them out of focus.

Why not?

ursula

Fujifilm X-T2

Fujifilm XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 R LM OIS

12/18/2005 03:43:25 PM · #24

Originally posted by Rose8699:

By the way, a subject does not have to be in the middle of a photo to be Shallow DOF, ie the pill example or others below.

Neither the pill example nor others are "in the middle of a photo".