Archives for the month of: June, 2006

This is the third installment of this series on basic photography concepts. We’ve discussed the concepts of Exposure and Focal Length and Lenses. Today I’m going to cover Depth of Field…

Photography Concept 3: Depth of Field

The concept of Depth of Field (DOF) is one of the key ingredients in cooking up a successful photograph. In simple terms, DOF is the distance in front of, and behind your subject within which objects are within an acceptable level of focus or sharpness. A shallow depth of field means that the sharpness of objects falls off within a short distance in front of or behind your main subject. A deeper, longer or greater depth of field would mean that objects further in front of or behind your main subject are within an acceptable level of sharpness.

There are two major reasons for wanting to control the depth of field when making a photograph:

  1. To isolate a subject from its background (using a shallow DOF)
  2. To better capture objects in the foreground or background of a photograph (using a greater DOF)

One of the most prevalent uses of a shallow DOF is when you’re taking a shot of a person or animal. You choose a shallow DOF to more effectively isolate that person from the background. This can be quite pleasing, and many times this will distinguish your photograph immediately from the typical snapshot.

Maximum depth of field is many times utilized in landscape photography where you want to capture foreground, middleground and background objects all with an acceptably high degree of sharpness.

Of course shallow and deep DOF is not limited to one genre of photo or another. DOF can be used in many different situations for many different purposes. This is what makes photography such a creative endeavour!

So how do you control depth of field? The amount of DOF achieved is dependent on the aperture, distance to your subject and focal length of the lens. There are many online DOF calculators you can use to calculate the DOF (one of which is here), but for the purposes of this series of posts I think it’s more important to give some rough guidelines just to illustrate the concept. You can invest more time in it depending on how important an accurate DOF is to you and your photography.

If you want to isolate a person or object by blurring out the background (and foreground) there are a few things you should do:

  • Use a wide aperture (small f-stop number) - this will depend on the maximum aperture of the specific lens you are using
  • Use a longer focal length - although the focal length you choose will likely be governed more by the composition of your photograph than the DOF you’re trying to achieve
  • Maximize the separation of your subject and the background - put the background further outside of your DOF

If you want to capture a greater depth of field - for instance when you want to include both your friends and the amazing backdrop in the photo and get them both sharp - then there are a couple of things to remember:

  • Use a smaller aperture (large f-stop number)
  • Use a shorter focal length

Keep in mind the lessons learned in part one of this series. If you’re going to keep your overall exposure correct, then you must balance a smaller aperture with a slower shutter speed (and vice versa for a larger aperture). So many times you will find that if you want to maximize the DOF (say using an aperture of f/22) you might end up with a shutter speed that is relatively slow. This might give you a blurry shot if you don’t use a tripod to keep the camera rock-steady during the time the shutter is open.

Some other points:

Many DSLR’s come with a DOF preview button. Normally when you’re looking out the viewfinder of your camera, you’re always looking through the lens at it’s widest aperture (so the viewfinder image is bright). When you press the DOF preview button, the viewfinder image will darken but you will get a truer sense of what the captured DOF will be. This is indispensible if getting the right DOF is critical to you.

Don’t always go for the absolute shallowest possible DOF for those portrait shots of your kids (I’m guilty of this on many of my shots). While it does isolate the subject, you also want to make sure that important areas are not blurred. It is quite possible to find that the eyes of your subject might be sharp while the nose ears are slightly soft and slightly out of focus.

Here’s a shot with a shallow DOF. In this case I used a wide aperture (f/1.8) and as you can see, only her face is in focus. Her shoulders and hair are blurry. In this case I liked the very shallow DOF (even her chin is not entirely in focus) and felt it added to the image.

[click on the image to see a larger version]

If you’re going for a very large DOF and finding that you’re without a tripod or you need to maintain some minimum shutter speed, don’t forget that you can boost your shutter speed by changing to a higher ISO setting. This is something you couldn’t really do very quickly on a film camera. And with the increasing quality of digital sensors these days, you can get by with an ISO of 400 or 800 with a still-acceptable level of image noise. This can sometimes mean a critical boost in shutter speed which might let you get a sharp shot when you’re without a tripod or other stabilizing device.

Here’s a shot looking up a tree. I wanted to capture the texture of the bark immediately close to the lens and maintain focus up to the top branches. In this case I went with a small DOF (f/22). You’ll notice that the shutter speed is relatively slow, so I ended up bracing my camera against the tree to keep it still while the shutter was open.

[click on the image to see a larger version]

If you’re into macro photography you will find yourself trying to maximize the DOF. As you move closer to your subject the DOF becomes very very short. In many cases you want the blurred background but at the same time you might have trouble keeping the entire object in focus.

Here is a shot of my rings with what ended up being insufficient DOF. Notice that the back area of the rings is out of focus.


[click on the image to see a larger version]

This is really the super-basic layman’s version of DOF. It’s a tool that you will find yourself considering more and more each time you take a photograph. As usual I’ve only covered the basics, but it’s enough to allow you to experiment and get your own feeling for it. And as with so many types of learning, reading about it is never worth the value of actually doing it, so get out and experiment!

[update: I see that Kent Newsome has illustrated the concept of shallow DOF in his recent post Handstands. Notice the focus increase and then drop off as you pass the middle couple of Polly Pockets. Nicely done.]

Additional Interesting Link: Here’s a decent online SLR simulator which lets you play around with the aperture and shutter speed settings to give you a feel for exposure and depth of field. [Link]

The Earthlink nausea is obviously contagious. Dave Winer writes today:

So let’s tell them what we think. Earthlink sucks, and we don’t appreciate you wasting our time before we get to listen to the Gillmor Gang.

While Steve Gillmor throws bait at Dave Slusher during his latest Daily Gillmor (with Adam Curry) begging for Dave to show how an Earthlink ad should really be done, he’s missing the simple fact that having the 6 minute ads is a waste of his listeners time - and consequently a waste of Earthlink’s time, at least on this podcast.

But of course I could be wrong. In fact I must be. I forgot that Steve Gillmor is always right and everyone else (especially Mike Arrington) is almost always wrong. At least that’s what Steve thinks.

Update: I should clarify that the 6 minutes I cited above is not all Earthlink related. There is a good chunk of it pre-recorded and placed there for GoDaddy.com. It’s something I skip as well. However, I’ve been listening to Todd Cochrane do his GoDaddy ads on his Geek News Central Podcast for a long time now and I usually don’t skip them. Why? Well his are short (relative to Gillmor) and his are recorded live in-line with his podcast, not pre-recorded. For some reason that makes a difference to me.

One of the myriad of things that holds my interest from time to time is web design and design in general. I dove into learning HTML and a bit of CSS to create a home page prior to starting this blog. It was by no means a masterwork, but I was pleased with it as a first effort (check it out here if you’d like). I was pleased with it primarily because it was simple, hand-coded and relatively standards compliant. I was never a huge fan of sites that were heavy on Flash (photographer’s sites are notorious for this) since I’m usually scrambling for a ‘skip this intro’ button.

However, Flash seems to have been maturing all the while and there are now some really useful things being done with it. I have just come across what I think is an effective (finally!) and attractive use of flash technology. It’s a site showcasing a graphic design contest. It’s simple, useful and could be applied to more general purpose projects as well. Check it out. The show is powered by something called Autoviewer which is developed by Airtight Interactive. They also have what looks like a nice (and free) photo gallery flash engine called SimpleViewer that you can use on your own site.

You just know you’re an engineering-type (who’s into photography) when you think this is just plain sexy:

For someone like me who dove headlong into computing back in the early 80’s with a Commodore VIC-20, it don’t get any better than this. Take it away Bill…

Take a bike ride to the ice cream shop with Tony Woodlief and family. It goes from this:

…only they don’t account for that part of me that has absolutely no problem killing someone, and I choreograph in my head exactly how the fight would go and always the bad people end up a bloody broken mess and exceedingly dead.

to this:


Now it is all out in the open, the fact that I am a big fat stupid loser. I knew they would find out eventually, but you’re never prepared when the dread moment arrives.


After reading it, I suddenly remember why I’m subscribed to him. Wonderful posts and wonderful writing. Something to aspire to. Check it out.

Dave Slusher has read my mind with his post regarding the latest Twit episode and Dvorak. I’m getting tired of listening to his schtick as well. Interestingly, in a ‘stars are aligning’ moment, two things happened:

  1. Leo Laporte (who I do respect) has posted separate mp3 tracks of the most recent twit episode and put up the challenge for others to mix it together. I would definitely leave the Dvorak.mp3 file out of the mix completely… and…
  2. Dave Winer posts about being disgusted with Dvorak regarding his sleazy tactics to generate page views. It’s about time Dave posted about this. Ever since he took the video I was beginning to wonder if he missed the fact that it was a sleazy thing to do. He also lets us know it was Scoble who was laughing during that video. But then again Scoble has that goofy laugh on just about every recording he’s done. It’s his trademark and I like it :)

I think Steve Gillmor missed much of the point when he quoted my previous post. He confirms this misinterpretation in his next post in which he states:

“I appreciate these complaints as much as the praise, not because I enjoy being called clueless, or as Richard in my previous post does, a complete asshole, because these folks are listening.”

Now I know it is not de rigeur in the blogosphere to take the higher road (and I’m no saint - that’s for sure) but I feel it needs a small correction. That little quip in the middle of my previous post was meant to compare the positive drive and energy of Robert Scoble with the generally negative/grouchy/boorish/impatient attitude of one Mr. Gillmor during his Gillmor Gang podcasts. If you’ve heard any of his recent podcasts you’ll know exactly what I mean - take a listen to just about any exchange he has with Mike Arrington on the show and you’ll hear it in spades. I’m not sure if it’s all for real, but he’s made me a bigger fan of Mike - and his phone- as a result.

However I think it’s a rather glaring misinterpretation to say I think Steve is a ‘complete asshole’. I reserve that term for a select few people I encounter in life - and sorry to disappoint you Steve, but you ain’t it. Maybe some people in the blogosphere would appreciate a little hot sauce being added to their blog posts but I’ll take mine plain - thank you.

What Steve does get right is his appreciation for the fact that we are listening. Now if he can somehow get us to stop skipping through the first 5 minutes of advertisements maybe he wouldn’t be so grumpy ;)

So Robert Scoble is leaving Microsoft. He’s been able to de-mystify Microsoft without being dishonest and without behaving like a shill. I think he’ll do well wherever he goes - he just seems to have that kind of positive drive and energy (Have you ever noticed that he is the complete antithesis of Steve Gillmor? ). It pisses me off however to read this post which apparently broke the story. The author takes pains to sound so authoritative on the situation. Go read Robert’s own blog post which sets the record straight. It’s nice to see that good guys do not always finish last.

Addendum - see also this follow-on post .


As you may or may not be aware, I’ve been running a dual boot WinXP / Linux machine here at home for quite some time. I like both operating systems, each has it’s strengths and weaknesses. I was bitten by the Unix bug back around ‘92 when I used a Unix based Sparc system with OpenWindows to do my masters thesis.

Well I’ve recently upgraded to Ubuntu 6.06 (DapperDrake) on the Linux side of my box and I’m quite pleased with it. I’ve always had a bit of a penchant for eye-candy and I got the new XGL-Compiz graphics system working in short order. This system shifts the bulk of the window managment to the graphics processor which allows you to do some pretty neat things like having windows that wobble around when you drag and resize them and it has a nice representation of multiple desktops in the rotating 3D cube. So you can run apps on any or all of the 4 desktops and then switch between them. The benefit being that you can better illustrate the multi-desktop concept to new users with this graphical representation (rather than statically switching from one to the next). The XGL implementation allows things like full motion video to keep playing on the cube - and around the corners of the cube while you’re rotating it. Quite neat. And keep in mind that I’ve got a system that is about 2.5 years old with a simple Intel on-board graphics chip - no graphical speed demon in any sense, but it still runs rather smoothly with all this additional eye-candy. Check out this video to see what it can do.

Now is this a threat to the ever-delayed Vista? Probably not. I like how it works and I like the fact that it’s open-source developed. But it still takes some extra commitment to getting it up and running and fixing odds and ends. Like many things in Linux, they sometimes take a little more effort to get running smoothly but usually you are rewarded with something quite nice. But that extra effort is something that 95% of the mainstream PC user population wouldn’t be interested in spending. If they can get Dell - or someone else - to start putting Ubuntu as the default OS on a series of PC’s you might have something. I do believe that at one time you could order Linux based PC’s online from Wal-mart, not sure if that’s still true.

No matter. I have a great, stable, open-source OS with very nice eye-candy now and I’ve also got XP for those few things that Linux doesn’t handle yet to my tastes.

Last night, my four year old daughter came and stared at my computer desktop as I was working and after I dragged a window across the desktop she said, “Make that window jiggle again Daddy..” and then seeing the dektop wallpaper she said, “Move that window away… show the bare foot again, that’s neat.”. Maybe the Gnome/Linux/Ubuntu camp has a future user already. :)