Photo tricks. Part 21.

A small but very useful trick to get a greater depth of field.

Influenza increase

Influenza increase

In macro photography or when shooting small subjects at close range, it is often very difficult to place the entire subject in the area of ​​sharpness. Usually, to increase the depth of field, it’s more powerful to close the diaphragm, but sometimes even the smallest aperture is not enough to get the desired width GRIP.

Even if we take the ideal case, for example, when I shoot in a light cube and I have enough light to use the maximum closed aperture, the whole object often does not fit in the depth of field.

Below is a small snapshot of the toy. Shot on a lens Nikon AF Nikkor 28-105mm 1: 3.5-4.5D Macro in macro mode and on camera Nikon D700 FX. At 105mm focal length in macro mode, the maximum F-number can only be f / 29 - stronger aperture cannot be closed... When I shoot a toy, composing the frame in such a way that the toy takes up most of it, the distant part of the toy does not fall into the depth of field and is blurred. The arrow shows how blurred the inscription “SanFrancisco Cable Car”. No matter how hard I tried, even at F / 29 I could not make such a frame in which the toy would completely fit in the field of focus.

Photo

Example shot

To "make the whole toy sharp" it is enough apply one trick - to shoot in a more general shot, and then - to frame by cropping the excess in a graphics editor (for example, the “frame” tool in Photoshop).

Crop

Crop of the original image. So we got a big DOF.

The trick is that with a larger shot, the focusing distance changes, which affects the depth of field. The larger it is, the greater the depth of field. Photos show approximate focusing distances and DOF values ​​taken from EXIF snapshots.

conclusions

I often use this trick to shoot small objects. Sometimes it’s enough to take it off not so large, and then cut out the desired part in the picture, getting the depth of field a little wider. The main thing is not to abuse this method, otherwise you can unlearn how to compose the frame correctly. Sometimes this method gives amazing results. This is one of the few shooting methods where cameras with a large number of pixels can really be in demand, only sharpness at minimum apertures is very much affected by diffraction.

Thank you for attention. Arkady Shapoval.

Add a comment:

 

 

Comments: 43, on the topic: Photo tricks. Part 21.

  • Alex

    You see - and the paravoz came in handy!

  • Dmitriy

    Or stacked ...

  • Sergei

    Thanks for the good advice in the piggy bank.
    It seems to me that if you cannot do something right away and without tweaks, then most likely the wrong instrument is chosen. In this case, the lens.

    • Lex

      And what lens to take here? a diaphragm of less than 32 can already be done in few places, only this way or gluing

      • Sergei

        Maybe an ordinary telephoto? Not macro. In which the depth of field is enough without extreme clamping of the diaphragm. With this locomotive, doesn’t it seem like blurring the background?

        • Arkady Shapoval

          The depth of field depends on the aperture and focusing distance, visually a telephoto will sometimes only blur the background more strongly with the same frame layout :) By the way, the photo for the article was shot at 105mm, which completely falls under the short TV range.

        • Segrey

          Yeah, on a TV set ... On F29 at 300mm, not every snail will fit into the depth of field.

  • Denis

    In these matters good compacts rule (like the same Canon G series), with small matrices macro photography is their strong point ...

    • Sergei

      or Fujik F30

      • Arkady Shapoval

        In fact, cameras with a small sensor do exactly what is described here automatically. Reduced sensor - "crop", immediately cuts out the desired frame with a large depth of field :)

        • Denis

          Cameras with a small sensor shoot the same at shorter lens focal lengths, and this already increases the depth of field. In this case, the diaphragm can be opened much wider, and diffraction does not interfere. So I would not say that they cut out something, here the optics draws something else ...
          In general, I used to get used to macro photography in compacts, and at first I was surprised by the regular capabilities of DSLRs in this regard. And now, too, there are DSLRs, and the compact is good, if you need to remove what small things, I take the compact (I don’t have any optics for high-quality macro and I don’t see any reason to buy, I don’t shoot macro in bulk).

          • Arkady Shapoval

            Actually, due to the small sensor, it is possible to use open diaphragms with large depth of field.

            • Alexey

              And then what is better to photograph macro? Crop and mirrorless?

              • Arkady Shapoval

                It depends on what macro, depending on what purpose :) as in any question, there is no single answer.

          • Igor

            I agree, DOF depends on focal and aperture. When shooting with a soap box, the real focal length is about 8 mm.

            • Sergei

              and distance to the object. but does not depend on crop factor.
              just to get equal grip on crops, you need to change the distance - so the grip will change.
              simple test - Nikon d800 tripod - a snapshot in FF mode and a snapshot on the same camera in crop mode.
              the flu is identical (although different crop factor), but part of the frame is cut off in the crop mode picture.
              to fit the same crop into the picture, the camera must be rearranged - change the distance! - thereby increasing the grip :)

              • Arkady Shapoval

                Yes, for pictures with the same framing, you need a different distance on the crop and the full frame. These conclusions can be reached in different ways :)

              • Igor

                I think so:
                Let's try to solve the problem using the graphical method:
                Let's draw two vertical parallel lines and connect their opposite ends. The point of intersection will be the focal length, on the left is the subject, on the right is the matrix. Now let's mark on the line “matrix” points, closer to the center, simulation of the crop. If we also connect these points with the line of the subject, we will see that the intersection point has shifted to the right, the focal length has become shorter. The smaller the matrix, the shorter the focal length, when the size of the matrix tends to zero, the focal length will also tend to zero.
                If the depth of field depends directly on the distance to the subject and the aperture value, and vice versa on the focal length.
                Then, in this example, the distance between the lines does not change, the aperture value remains constant.
                When the focal length tends to zero, the depth of field will tend to infinity, because the relationship between these values ​​is inverse.

          • Sergei

            Arkady is absolutely right - the smaller the sensor is relative to the full frame, the more it cuts off due to which the effect described above is obtained.
            optics, of course, will not “draw” something else - simply because optics should not know how much less the matrix is ​​behind it :)
            how to explain to you .. you took a shot on film. Then they began to trim it with scissors :) did the optics change from this? :))))
            another thing is that to change the angle of view (which depends on the crop!) it is necessary to change the DISTANCE to the object - here the grip will of course change - as it is written in the article.

            • Denis

              Optics in compacts draws different primarily because the focal lengths of the lenses there are not comparable with SLRs. And she gives a small picture, which the matrix uses as a whole, without cropping anything.
              For instance. Let's take a standard lens for a cropped SLR 18-55, its maximum magnification at macro will be 55 mm. Now we take Canon G12 and see that it has a 6.1-30.5 mm lens, and at the same time its MDF is minimal (and maximum macro capabilities) at a short focus, i.e. There can be no talk of any comparison of a DSLR with its 55 mm macro and a compact with its 6.1 mm. And hence the diaphragm and depth of field ...

              • Arkady Shapoval

                We are talking here about the principle itself, not about comparison. The principle rests on the size of the sensor, focal lengths and distance. Due to the decrease in the sensor, other focal lengths, etc. are required.

              • Sergei

                Denis, you do not understand what the conversation is about.
                optics with FF can be used on the crop, albeit on a soap box, if you can stick it :)
                and it will “draw” the same :)

              • Denis

                “Optics with FF can be used on the crop, even on a soap dish - if you can stick it :)” - it is possible, but how is this connected with the macro capabilities of soap dishes? No way. For focal optics with FF are orders of magnitude higher than focal point cameras.
                Yes, if you take a thread of an 85-mm lens and a matrix from a soap dish - you get the effect that we talked about, move away and cut out.
                Why am I all this? On top of that “In fact, small sensor cameras do exactly what is described here automatically. The reduced sensor - "crop", immediately cuts out the desired frame with a large one ”- the article describes how you can move away from the subject and then cut out a part of the frame with a large depth of field. On the contrary, you will need to get closer with a soapbox for the same frame, because the focal length is much shorter.

              • Sergei

                Denis, try re-reading all the above.
                especially the example with the D800 - the crop does not give any additional opportunities with other identical factors, with the exception of
                - frame cropping
                - low price
                - small dimensions and weight.
                and do not confuse the focal point and the angle of view of the lens - but all together with the equiv. focal :)

                PS
                strictly speaking, Arkady's example is above - after increasing the distance and cropping, the final frame contains fewer pixels than the original one - the payment for the "digital zoom" :)

              • Sergei

                as for the macro capabilities of the crop.
                example.
                Nikon D610 - 24MP FF
                Nikon D7100 - 1.5 crop at 24MP
                We put a 105 micro lens, a tripod.
                Immediately the difference in frames is the full object in the D7100 and a lot of unnecessary things in the D6100 in the frame. solution options -
                1.Move the D610 closer to the object - means to reduce the depth of field (!)
                2. to crop the excess from the frame on the D610 means to lose pixels (!) In comparison with the D7100.
                it is obvious that in this particular case the D7100 (crop) is better for the macro than the D610.

                if you take a camera with the same pixel size (!) on the matrix, then crop does not give any advantages - for example D800 (36Mp) vs Nikon D5100 / 7000 / and other 1.5 crop on a 16Mp matrix).

              • Denis

                Yes, where does the comparison of crop 1.5 with FF with the same optics? With this, and so everything is clear. This is a completely different optics and a different crop.

              • Sergei

                Yes, where does the comparison of crop 1.5 with FF with the same optics? With this, and so everything is clear. This is a completely different optics and a different crop.
                ====================================================================== ================
                Denis,
                crop x2.7 differs from crop x1.5 only in large cutting :)
                as well as crop x4, x 5, etc
                the example with x1.5 is just very visual :) and dispels fairy tales and myths. :)
                don't like x1.5? test for x2.7 - Nikon 1.
                Crop optics are no better than FF - it just takes into account that the matrix will discard some of the information :) therefore it is smaller, easier and cheaper.

                once again - read everything that is said above. :)

              • Denis

                “Crop x2.7 differs from crop x1.5 only by a larger cut :)” - and a smaller focal length, i.e. the image scale does not change, in contrast to the above comparison of the same glass with different matrices. Will you put other optics on the CD? No. And since the optics are different, then the depth of field is different. With the same EGF. Is it so hard to understand?
                What fairy tales and myths are we talking about in general? That compacts can shoot macro at open apertures without having the razor-thin depth of field like on DSLRs? So try to shoot, you will see all the difference. The laws of optics confirm everything - less focal length, more depth of field. Due to the large matrix, DSLRs cannot have a small focal length (the smallest in a fish eye - 8 mm - is still larger than a “soapbox” one), that's why they press the aperture to increase the depth of field. So what does the compact cut from the 6mm lens?

    • Segrey

      On my Canon Powershot G2, with a macro photo, even a mushroom foot will not enter the depth of field if I focus on the cap ...

  • anonym

    Congenially!)))

  • Kirill

    and if, as an option (with small pixels), take two shots by focusing one on the near part of the subject, the second on the far, and in the same Photoshop superimpose and erase the non-sharp part (like multiple exposure, only “multifocus” and manually) :) ...

    • Arkady Shapoval

      Here, this method has already been discussed, called stacking or gluing.

  • Yarkiy

    There is one more way, though very doubtful. You can use a lens of 18 - 55 on the crop, it has an MDF of ten centimeters, and almost point-blank with a diaphragm tightened at 55 mm. That's how I shot big bugs. And this method is dubious, mainly because of the bias towards the whale.

  • Denis

    I also always shoot small things with subsequent cropping, I shoot on Live View, to initially get a margin of sharpness.

  • Novel

    The main thing is maneuvers!

  • Ullar

    Hello, Arkady.
    On your advice, I purchased the lens from this article - 28-105 / 3,5-4,5. Camera - Nikon D90. the lens is good, but there is a problem. It sometimes (often, by the way) gives a front focus of five to seven centimeters, i.e. from the eyes of the model "goes" to the ears. Focusing on the center point without further recomposition of the frame. I begin to specifically test on all sorts of subjects - it focuses normally, wherever you aim. I put the focus point approximately on the bridge of the nose, or in the corners of the eyes - where is the contrast. The focusing area is not wide (at first I sinned on it). I don’t understand what the problem is. Can you suggest anything?

  • Ullar

    I downloaded the target, tested it with two lenses (the second - 16-85 DX). Alas, back focus with this lens.

  • Ivan

    Arkadiy men zdaktsya scho I will not leave the role of vidigra fokusna vidstan obktiva. Chim bіlsh wide-range obtektiv (35mm) tim bіlsha depth rіzkostі.

    • Denis

      This is exactly what I was trying to convey above recalling compacts with small matrices and small focal lengths. But they started to impose a crop on me, they say the matter is the size of the matrix, it cuts out, and the optics draw the same way :)

  • Sergei

    Tell me, please, is it possible to solve the problem of shooting in microscope mode on a DSLR? For example, you need to remove the mobile phone board so that not only all the details are visible, but also their markings. On ordinary soap dishes, this is easily solved. Macro mode, minimum zoom, turn off the flash, focus on both elbows, and with a distance of about 5 cm you can get the desired pictures.
    I remember my friend bought a DSLR and started making fun of my soap box. I offered him to photograph the board with my cool camera. He climbed into a chair and leaned it against the wall so that to take pictures from different distances - he did not succeed in anything good.

  • Gendolf

    Good day. Your friend was probably not very experienced :).
    Just a few tools and you can take great photos with a huge zoom SLR camera http://gendolf.info/makrofotografii/. If I’m not mistaken, this is a macro ring + 2 helios lenses to each other front. Filmed on Nikon D70s, you need to repeat it in the D90, megapixels can add a little increase.

Add a comment

Copyright © Radojuva.com. Blog author - Photographer in Kiev Arkady Shapoval. 2009-2020

English-version of this article https://radojuva.com/en/2014/01/faraway-tale/