 Paula Vergara |
focus, focus, focus...
Thanks.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Tim Devick |
You don't have enough depth of field to get both the flowers close to the camera as well as the building in the distance in focus. There are a couple of solutions. If you can override your camera's automatic settings, choose a larger f-stop number (like f/16). This will give you more depth of field. A second solution is to use a wider angle lens. Generally speaking, you get more depth of field as your lens gets "wider". If you're using a 50mm lens, try a 28mm lens. If you're using a zoom lens, zoom out to the widest setting.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Maynard McKillen |
Dear Paula: Do you know the f/stop that was used to take the photo, and the focal length of the lens? That data may prove a useful starting point for discussion. Tim D's response offers several potential solutions, and if betterphoto visitors and members know the f/stop, the focal length of the lens, and even the camera model and exposure mode you used (Program, Manual, Aperture or Shutter Priority Semi-Automatic), your question may elicit more responses. Are you familiar with the optical phenomenon that Tim D. mentioned, Depth of Field (occasionally also called Depth of Focus)?
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Paula Vergara |
Tim & Maynard, Thanks so much for your input. Unfortunately, I do not recall the f/stop that I used, but wouldn't you risk overexposure if you use a larger f/stop? I was using an ancient Pentax K1000, with manual focus (auto focus not an option on this camera). I believe it was a 50mm lens that I was using. I am familiar with "depth of field" but not quite sure how it all works. Thanks.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Maynard McKillen |
Dear Paula: Knowing that you were using a K-1000 and 50mm lens is a helpful starting point. Usually, the K-1000 had a 50mm lens with f/stops from f/2 to f/16, though it could have a newer 50mm with f/stops from f1.7 to f/22. The terms "larger" and "smaller" have an infamous relationship with the actual numbers used to represent f/stops. The larger f/stop numbers like f/ll, f/16 and f/22 actually denote progressively smaller and smaller lens openings, while f/4, f/2.8 and f/2 denote progressively larger openings. F/16 lets in quite a bit less light (1/64th as much, I believe) than f/2. If the K-1000 light meter is working, and accurate, you could take a photo like the one you submitted using any of the f/stops on your 50mm lens, and the light meter would help you select the corresponding shutter speed that resulted in correct exposure. Now, the question arises: if you can take the photo at any f/stop, why choose one particular f/stop over any other? It turns out that not all f/stops are created equal. Each one of them would require the use of a different shutter speed to produce a correctly exposed negative or slide, true, but aside from that, each f/stop will have a different effect on the amount of the photograph that appears sharply focused. Music please: Each f/stop creates a certain depth of field! (cymbals crash) F/stops that let in progressively less and less light (f/11, f/16, f/22) allow progressively more and more of the image to appear sharp. F/stops that let in progressively more and more light (f/4, f/2.8, f/2) allow progressively less and less of the photo to appear sharp. As Tim D. mentioned, f/16 would be a better f/stop to use when taking the photo you sent than, say, f/4 or f2.8. F/16 will result in greater depth of field (a "deeper" zone of sharp focus) than any f/stop that lets in more light, like f/8, f/5.6, f/4, etc. What a pile of words. I hope you can sort out some of them. Certain cameras make it easier to understand depth of field by actually letting you see it! Such cameras have a depth of field lever or button. You select an f/stop, aim and focus the camera, push the lever or button and "zowie", you see how much of the photo will appear sharp. Don't look too hard to find it on your K-1000. The depth of field button isn't found on that model. I suspect it was left off to make the camera more affordable for its intended market, the entry-level 35mm SLR user. While you experiment, you might research "hyperfocal distances" and peruse a few books on how to operate 35mm cameras. The latter usually illustrate how f/stops influence depth of field, and for many camera operators, there's nothing like seeing the difference produced by changing a camera setting. Such books will also demonstrate how to use the depth of field scale on the lens (I'll bet you've looked at the top side of your lens and wondered what all those extra lines and those pairs of f/stop numbers to either side of the focus line were all about.) Have fun!
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Paula Vergara |
Wow, I couldn't have asked for a better response than that! Thanks. I ALWAYS get the f/stop info backwards. I think it's time to invest in a new 35mm camera. This website is a great resource! Thanks!
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Maynard McKillen |
Dear Paula: Just in case you take the photo again at f/16 and get a similar result, you might consider this: Suppose you do shoot at f/16, and your light meter recommends a shutter speed of 1/15 of a second, which it might on an overcast day. The foreground could still turn out soft if it were windy out, since the grasses might be in motion while the shutter is open, and this would cause the grass to record as a blur. (It would take a tornado to get the buildings to move as much as the grass.) Of course, you always use a tripod when you have to take a photo using a shutter speed below 1/60th of a second, so that blur is not actually caused by you, the nomadic tripod, moving while the shutter is open. Sermon ends here...
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
|||||||||||
