Nature Photographers Network
This is the preserved archive of the original Nature Photographers Network. The community continues at naturephotographers.network.
Just How Much DOF?
‹ PreviousWildlife GalleryNext ›

Just How Much DOF?

by Brad Hill

Gallery: WildlifePosted March 16, 2011287 views16 comments
Spring is hitting my home range right now, an I'll be spending more time in the field and leading a lot of photo tours and workshops in the next while. So...over this past weekend I decided to test some new gear and capture some teaching images. So I plunked myself down along one of the local "squirrel highways" and nabbed some shots...

One of the very first thing novices learn when they acquire their first SLR is that the "depth of field" (or DOF) of an image varies with the aperture used to capture that image. Yet, on the instructional photo tours I lead I get two questions very, very frequently - and often from highly experienced photographers. The questions?

1. How DO you determine DOF when capturing wildlife images in a field setting?

2. Even if I know HOW to control my DOF in the field, what is the "right" amount of DOF for a given situation?

It's impractical to deal with both of these questions here, so I'll just ramble on a bit about question 2 here - the aesthetic aspects of DOF. But first, a tiny bit of context...

Unlike studio photographers, nature photographers - and particularly wildlife shooters - have very little control over the conditions under which they capture their images. The vast majority of the time we can't (and don't want to!) control what our subject is doing or control other critical variables, like lighting. BUT, one thing we have some control over during image capture is the aperture we choose and, consequently, our DOF. Of course, available light and exposure issues limit our control, but thanks to the new generation of DSLR's that perform so well at moderate to high ISO's, we now have more control over our aperture and DOF than ever before. Ensuring you know how to "harness" that DOF is absolutely critical to capturing visually interesting images...

Now back to that pesky question #2...

The question of "what is the right amount of DOF" touches on the aesthetics of an image and is much more subjective and thus totally open to debate. But here's my take on the creative aspects of using DOF effectively. I'm a huge believer that the philosophy of "simplify and isolate" (simplify your composition, isolate your subject) is a great "mindset" for a wildlife photographer to take into the field. One way of "simplifying and isolating" is to use a narrow DOF to remove distractions from the background of an image.

I'm also a real believer in the concept of "visual contrast", i.e., that the eye is drawn by contrast in any of a number of visual differences in a scene - differences in light (traditional contrast), differences in colour, differences in apparent motion (think "panning" with a sharp subject with blurred background), and differences in image sharpness. When you apply this "visual contrast" model to DOF, it basically says the eye will be drawn more to sharp regions in an image if there is a sharpness differential in a scene, i.e., that parts of the image are out-of-focus. And, by the way, I also believe that having distinct soft out-of-focus zones in an image can contribute to the apparent sharpness of the portions of the image that ARE in focus.

In the case of this image I wanted the eye drawn to the eye and nose region of the squirrel, so I was more than willing (and even happy) to have the distal portions of the back slightly out-of-focus to add to this "effect" (of drawing the eye). And, of course, I wanted the background totally soft and distraction free...

The moral of the story? Simply this: knowing how to control and effectively use your DOF in a field setting is a huge asset for a wildlife photographer to have. Knowing (and judging) your DOF is a technical task, but choosing the one that will best help you to achieve your aesthetic goal is a creative endeavor. Just another instance of the right-brain, left-brain "cooperation" that's needed in wildlife photography.

Subject: Red Squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) mugging for the camera
Location:Findlay Creek, BC, Canada
Camera: Nikon D7000
Lens: Nikkor 400 mm f/2.8 VRII lens paired with TC-20EIII 2x teleconverter (effective focal length of 1200mm).
Exposure: 1/160s at f16. ISO 180. -0.67 stop compensation from matrix metered exposure.
Crop: None - this is full frame.

If you're interested in my thoughts on question #1 above, I have an even longer (:wink:) discussion about this topic on my website where I address some ways to assess your DOF in the field. Just click on the "In the Field" tab for the discussion...

http://www.naturalart.ca/galleries/latest/.

If there are any Nikon users who are curious about that 2x TC - there's links to 100% res images on my website (just use that same link above)

Comments and feedback greatly appreciated...probably better to view larger version prior to doing so...

Cheers...

Brad

Comments

16 comments
Comment posted by Max Waugh on March 16, 2011 at 11:17 AM
Brad, I think the DoF is great here. It's something I'm definitely not an expert in utilizing, and to my untrained eye I would have never thought f/16 from the way the background is nice and soft (I would have guessed something a bit wider). I like that the front of the tree is sharp but the back is not, and this initially gives me the impression that the squirrel is located in the back half of the, er... sharp area (for lack of a better term). So I'm just curious, when composing did you focus on the eye, or some other part of the squirrel or stump? Something I often struggle with shooting landscapes especially is determining where the in-focus range begins, even at a high DoF. So in this case I'm sure I would've managed to make the front of the stump soft. :rolleyes:

Max
Registered on September 26, 2008, 428 Posts, 2329 Comments
Comment posted by Brad Hill on March 16, 2011 at 11:33 AM
Hey Max,

Good questions. In this case I was using a lens/TC (and camera) combo that I wasn't too familiar with, so I consulted some DOF tables on my iPhone when I was waiting for a squirrel to show up. They told me I had about 2" of DOF to work with @ f16, and I knew it would be distributed equally in front of and behind the focal point (when you shoot with longer than a 200mm lens you're pretty much at a 50:50 front/back DOF distribution). Anyway, I definitely wanted that stump in focus and the nose/eye region in focus, so and I until the squirrel was positioned so that the nose was on close to the same vertical plane as the stump and focused just behind the nose.

RE: the soft background at f16. No digital softening of that - all optics. The whole key on get smooth, soft backgrounds is ensuring the right ratio of relative distances, i.e, you have to ensure that the background is significantly further from the subject than YOU are from the subject. With shorter focal lengths you need a higher ratio (subject to background:subject to you), but with this 1200mm equivalence in lens the background didn't have to be too far away at all to render smoothly (the light green is trees about 20 meters behind the subject; the subject was about 9 meters from me). I could have stopped down to f32 and still had a soft background (but then would have been introducing some pretty major refraction issues).

Hope that helps...

Brad
Registered on May 29, 2007, 431 Posts, 6061 Comments
Comment posted by Max Waugh on March 16, 2011 at 12:21 PM
After reading your settings, I had a sense of the background distance, so that makes sense. The 50/50 front/back ratio is helpful information. I often make the mistake (as I'm sure many photographers do) of assuming that the in-focus area "begins" at the point you're focusing on and goes beyond that. Quite a bit different from understanding that the focal range is actually adjusted include areas in front of the focus point as well.

Max
Registered on September 26, 2008, 428 Posts, 2329 Comments
Comment posted by Sally King on March 16, 2011 at 3:10 PM
What a cutie. I love the way he is holding his paws. The light and the colors in the surroundings make this a very peaceful pleasing image to view.
Registered on December 2, 2008, 416 Posts, 4450 Comments
Comment posted by Rick Cloran on March 16, 2011 at 5:01 PM
Brad, useful info and a really nice portrait of this guy. He must have gussied up for a date to be that clean on his belly. :biggrin:
Registered on April 6, 2004, 119 Posts, 1989 Comments
Comment posted by Oscar Benavides on March 16, 2011 at 6:44 PM
Thanks for the information, Brad. Nice shot of the squirrel. I like the compo and the colours of the background.
Registered on January 2, 2011, 12 Posts, 141 Comments
Comment posted by Mark Seaver on March 16, 2011 at 9:14 PM
Brad, This shot works very well and having the back of the stump, behind the squirrel oof really allows us to see the squirrel's back clearly. I find your statement about 50:50 distribution of DOF very interesting, since in shorter lenses, the ratio is roughly 33:67 front:back. I'm also fascinated by how many good photographers don't understand dof. To me (as a mostly landscape shooter) that's the most important part of making an image. If I had to pick what camera feature to do without, I'd drop auto focus before I'd drop dof preview.
Registered on January 23, 2011, 1103 Posts, 17270 Comments
Comment posted by Brad Hill on March 16, 2011 at 10:04 PM
Hey Mark,

Many think that the 33:67 distribution in front/back of the focal point is for all lenses - you'll even find books on wildlife and bird photography - where telephotos are the rule - discussing it as though it was a law written in stone (including in "The Art of Bird Photography" by Art Morris). I guess they never bothered to check DOF tables for lenses of 200mm or longer!

You said:
If I had to pick what camera feature to do without, I'd drop auto focus before I'd drop dof preview.

I agree that DOF preview is important in landscape work, but I personally almost always find that button next to useless when I'm doing wildlife work with dynamic subjects (where the goal, more often than not, is optimizing DOF rather than maximizing it). And, you couldn't get me to give up my autofocus even under the threat of death! :wink:

Interesting how different photographic disciplines use the same tools so differently!

Cheers...

Brad
Registered on May 29, 2007, 431 Posts, 6061 Comments
Comment posted by Richard Teller on March 16, 2011 at 10:28 PM
I am just going to comment on the image. I think this is a great image. The dof for this image is perfect it puts everything in focus that needs to be in focus and isolates the main subject from the background so that it just pops out. The background is also very pleasing.
Registered on August 23, 2010, 1162 Posts, 6692 Comments
Comment posted by Ashley Vincent on March 16, 2011 at 11:50 PM
Very interesting reading Brad and I greatly appreciate your time and dedication in helping to shed more light on specific area like this that can certainly go a long way toward understanding and improving on photography techniques.

Technical aspects aside, your image of this squirrel in such a delightful little pose has me smiling ear to ear :^) And to think you captured such a fantastic shot while you were simply testing out some new gear, making it sound like it was such a piece of cake for you, well, while I'm green with envy at the level of your skill, I'm also thoroughly inspired by the thought that one day I may also arrive at the same level too ;^)

Kind regards,

Ashley
Registered on March 1, 2011, 154 Posts, 2083 Comments
Comment posted by Nancy Lea Sandy on March 17, 2011 at 12:32 AM
Thanks for the extra time and effort you took to share some very interesting and informative aspects of photography. It's little gems like this that keep me out in the field trying to put them to work in my own images. I just found my dof button and I never realized that dof tables even existed. Where can I find them and are they lens specific? Love the squirrel but appreciated the narrative more.
Registered on January 24, 2011, 576 Posts, 6942 Comments
Comment posted by keith mitchell on March 17, 2011 at 4:31 AM
Brad thanks for all the information really useful .
Think the image is superb lovely detail and he or she posed beautifully for yoiu.

Keith.
Registered on July 12, 2008, 127 Posts, 1735 Comments
Comment posted by Brad Hill on March 17, 2011 at 8:44 AM
Hi Nancy,

You asked:
I never realized that dof tables even existed. Where can I find them and are they lens specific?

DOF calculators are available for iPhones and iPads, plus you can find them online. Here's one example:

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Most DOF calculators give you total DOF, distance in front of - and behind - the subject that's in focus, and some even give percentages of how the DOF is distributed (% in front of focal plane to % behind focal plane).

To calculate the depth of field you must specify the camera (what's really needed is something called the "Circle of Confusion" - really! - and this is directly related to the size of your camera's image sensor), focal length of the lens, aperture, and, of course, the distance to your subject (focal distance).

Hope this helps!

Cheers...

Brad
Registered on May 29, 2007, 431 Posts, 6061 Comments
Comment posted by Kurt Bowman on March 17, 2011 at 10:22 AM
Again, a very good post and lesson Brad. As always, I appreciate your knowledge and the fact you are so willing to share it with everyone! Glad you mentioned the DOF tables. I have been using them for over a year now and that was because of a similar post you had back then on the topic of DOF.
BTW, I have to agree about getting rid of auto-focus...think I can give up DOF preview before that any day! :biggrin:
Registered on June 19, 2008, 1005 Posts, 8028 Comments
Comment posted by Andrius Pašukonis on March 17, 2011 at 8:23 PM
1200mm! :eek: . I didn't even know that people shoot with such focal lengths, especially for squirrels :smile: . I'm really impressed how you got your composition down with no post-crop needed with such a huge lens. I imagine that a tiny tip on your lens would throw it off with that focal length. Very informative comment thread. Thanks for sharing :wavey:
Registered on July 23, 2005, 111 Posts, 408 Comments
Comment posted by Gary Gulash on March 17, 2011 at 11:59 PM
He looks very content in his little tree hollow, appears to be pretty well worn too. :wink: Very attractive image, the dof has a lot to do with that. Excellent. I enjoyed your discussion and learned several things - thank you. :wavey:
Registered on January 28, 2005, 879 Posts, 12098 Comments