what do you think about the depth of field of this picture?[pic]
 

how is such a narrow DOF done? what camera settings would you guess for this? fstop, shutter, focal length?? is a DOF preview required to get such a shot?

http://content6.novoporn.com/g18483/10.jpg

*insert pic of blind person*

Sorry thats done in post. Well part of it was done by the camera but not all of it. You can see the image if you open it in a new tab.

is the pic nt showing in the thread? it is here eh.

anyhoo, here it is hosted elsewhere.

http://filefap.com/pfiles/37940/fd.jpg

still no photo...

totally bizarre, hosted at 2 different places and i can see them in the thread.

lolz, oh well.

I'll describe this for those of us who are blind.

There is a picture of Ray Charles playing piano. His glasses have cleverly been turned into red x's and there is a caption that reads "Can't see shit".

3rd host

http://www.uploadbabe.com/images/268_fgsf.jpg

Yes done in post quite easily. Thats a diff pic than the first one you posted though. From the same set though.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

I see it now...and its hot!

looks like alienskin bokeh was used

Randy West hospitalized.. wish him the best!
 

total mistake

Done just as easily by creating a new layer with blur, then erasing the portion you want unblurred.

Not really. That gives you a two dimensional blur. DOF is 3D ;)

Looks like in post to me, why they would want to blur the pussy in that pic is beyond me.

If thats a 3d blurr its a bit on the soft side as its really hard to see it that way. At least on my screen. To me it looks more like a new layer with a blur like sticky said..

Zoom macro:

Same effect on a quarter
forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=31912819

To me it just looks like the blur layer was erased with a softened edge. But I bow to Quantums experience as I could be wrong. :winkwink:

I thought you just need a "fast" lens for that...

shoot at 2.8F, lens wide open.. focus on her eyes, re-compose.

I could very easily be wrong, but here's what I see

Look at her eyelashes (in focus) and the top of her hand - spatially, these are in the same distance from the camera, and in focus.

Now, on her left hand (our right) go down the finger-tips: each one is progressively more blurred / out of focus than the previous, working all the way back to the back of the scene.

If this is faked DOF, it's very well done - because it's correct in terms of spacial positioning.

But I could be wrong :)

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh It's not a macro lens you twit!
It's just someone shooting w/ a high aperture (probably like 2.8)

I dont like that picture anyway.

looks like pussy fail :)

I only spent like 2 mins on this, but here is the original

http://stickyedits.com/dof1.jpg

Quick duplicate layer, gaussian blur, then erase the area you want in focus, then take the blur tool to the area you want to further blur to make it appear more depth of field like. not perfect, but I know there are a lot of people out there that do this is post and have their technique down much better.

http://stickyedits.com/dof2.jpg

Opps forgot to unblur the watermark lol. And couldn't find a pic that would better suit it. But someone can pretty easily do this in post I thinks.

when you say "lens wide open" do you mean full telephoto?

i find it hard to get such a narrow DOF at focal lengths <80ish.

also, what's the proper distance away to achieve this DOF .

thx :-)

It's obviously fake too ;)

hehe well ya. But point being I know there are a lot that either fake or enhance dof. As do you, btw been wanting to show some of your stuff off to a friend of mine, you should do a new thread, or post some pics in the photography thread I started the other day you posted in. Or just post a link to where I can show her some of your stuff. :thumbsup

lens wide open = 2.8 f
would think the photo was shot with a 70-200 2.8f lens of some sort
so yes telephoto zoom lens, most likely near the 200mm end of the lens

Shoot it with my cock and it won't look the same but it'll look even better!

The original is NOT a faked DOF...

Dont even question yoruself Quantum :pimp

http://www.lumpyimages.com/pinktree.jpg

All about the aperture/exposure :thumbsup

It's really the lens aperture (how much light is let in) that determines the DoF, not the distance to the subject. A smaller f- number will result in more DoF blurring, but it also needs more careful focussing.

Wide open means literally that, the aperture diaphragm inside the lens is wide open.

Most stuff is now online on my dump, in a much more friendly format:
http://www.ninjito.com :)

that first one looks like he shot it that way, Whether he intended to or not is beyond me.

thanks for the inputs everyone

i agree that these 2 aspects are quite important but focal length and distances must be figured in to the equation if one is out to achieve DOF type shots.

for instance, f2.8 at 18mm will not have the DOF of f2.8 at 20mm focal length, in fact, most any aperture at wide angles will keep the background relatively focused.

most lenses come with DOF charts where you can see the DOF range at various f stops and zoomed positions..or you can look it up online.
i used to do shoots for Barely Legal magz, they want everything flat, the entire image in focus.. in order to do that you have to shoot at f9-f11 with most glass and never zoom in more than probably 60mm
most adult web photogs shoot at f5.6 unless they are doing something special..

A favorite DOF shot a few summers back.


http://www.fetishopolis.com/kap-images/skkap761.jpg

Depth of field is hot.

http://i39.tinypic.com/2h4ltzc.jpg

A Quick DOF lesson
 

Assuming you don't want to post-process all your DOF needs, here's how to achieve shallow depth of field optically:

f/2.8 isn't large enough unless the focused and non-focused area are farther apart than I see in this picture. For a human body to both in and out of focus, I would go at least to f/1.8, and 1.4 if you can.

Wide angle lenses won't work too well. Although a tele lens in needed, the factor that really determines DOF is the ratio of how far away the out of focus are is to the focused area, relative to the ratio of the how far away the focused are is to the lens. In other words, if you're 200 feet away from the in focus subject, and the intended defocus are is only 2 feet, it won't be very much out of focus--that's only 1%. However, if you're much closer, like 10 feet away from the focused area, the intended defocus area still 2 feet, that's fully 20%. That should really throw the background out of focus, especially with a f/1.4 lens.

Given the environment in this pic, 50mm, which has the same field of view as a 75mm lens on a cropped sensor, could work fine if you're 8-12 feet away. Bottom line, get as close as you can without resorting to wide angles and try to fill the frame.

Shutter speed doesn't have anything to do with DOF whatsoever. But obviously it's important for proper exposure, which is always fundamental.v:2 cents::2 cents::2 cents: 6 cents baby

:pimp:pimp

No picture for me here, cant see that picture

good stuff!
:thumbsup

Out of the fucking way people! Professional coming though.... :thumbsup:thumbsup

Does this one have DOF or just strange blur?

I actually removed the lens and held it up backwards to emulate a macro lens. That's why it shows the aperture at zero.
http://www.retnuh.com/files/echinacea.jpg

no shit eh. now i just have to find a f/1.4 telephoto! i'm thnkng of picking up the 85mm f/1.8

the only nikon lens i can find with 1.4 is a 50mm

LOL, thanks for the props, you and 2 others. I hope it helps explain DOF better. :thumbsup I'm actually not a professional, though I shoot like one! :winkwink:

Hey man. You can get a Sigma 30mm that has an f/1.4 that works for Nikon and I think they have a Canon mount too. The 50/1.4 is a great lens if you can drop the benjamins on it.

The 85/1.8 is an outstanding lens. I might get one but for now, an 80-200/2.8 meets most of my needs. And I have a 50/1.8 so if I need 85mm and f/1.8, I use the 50mm, and walk backwards!:pimp

Don't sweat it if you can't drop the cash on an f/1.4. I think you can get a 50/1.8 for around $125. A 1.4 costs a lot more, but often is worth it.

f1.8 - 85mm is a fine prime lens...
good luck with it and dont forget to show us the outcome of your studies.