 Kimberly J. Whipps |
Depth of Field I would like some advice. I have seen photos where the depth of field is so shallow that one eye is in focus and the other is blurry. I have tried to achieve this shallow DOF but have not yet. I have a Digital Canon 20D with a 28-135mm. Can anyone give me some tips on what to do? Can I get such shallow DOF with my current lens? Any suggestions greatly appreciated.
|
|
|
|
||
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
very close distance at the 135 range at the 3.5 apeture, or whatever that lens is. That's all, wide apeture, close focus distance, and longer focal length make it shallower.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kimberly J. Whipps |
Yeah, been there, done that...still not shallow enough.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
You filling the frame with face?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kimberly J. Whipps |
Yes sir.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
How close are you relative to that first one in your gallery?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kimberly J. Whipps |
The first image in my gallery I was about 2 feet from the subject.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
I really meant if you shot closer(distance wise as well as filling the frame) than that one. If that one is about the same, that's not what I meant by filling the frame with the face. If you shoot just the face, I think you'll get what you want. That lens is probably above f/4 when it's at 135, but I think it still should work.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jennifer Hopper |
Seems like less light would help too. No?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jon Close |
The maximum aperture range of the EF 28-135 IS USM is f/3.5-5.6, not particularly wide. Re the first photo (model prostrate, face and left shoulder framed, feet in the background.) - was this shot at maximum aperture? What zoom setting and aperture? I suspect to get the shallow DoF you want with that composition you simply need a wider aperture. Maybe 50 f/1.8 or f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, or 100 f/2 will give the effect you're wanting.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Too straight on. She'd need a more of a profile shot, 3/4 type. She'd get eye to ear with that shot, which is about the same distance as one eye to the other. Now if she's looking for the same pose, same perspective, she'd need something in f/2.8. But she'd still need to change the angle.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Melissa L. Zavadil |
I have a shot similar to what you are discribing in my gallery, I used a macro lens for this. My regular lens similar to the one you are using would not work for this.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||