Focus

Discussion in 'UK Photography' started by Steve, Feb 12, 2008.

  1. Steve

    Steve Guest

    Hi
    I seen a recent post on this group of a link to some wedding
    photographs and was amazed at the quality of some of the photo's, what
    caught my eye was one photo was in complete focus. The background and
    foreground was focused, as a complete newbie to photography, could
    someone tell me how this is done?

    I have a Canon EOS 300v

    TIA
    Steve
     
    Steve, Feb 12, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Steve

    Tony Polson Guest


    Maximum depth of field is achieved by using the smallest possible
    aperture (highest possible number). However, this will result in a
    slower shutter speed so you need to watch out for camera shake.

    For the same angle of view, and with all other things being equal, you
    also get more depth of field with a smaller sensor. So your 300D will
    give greater depth of field than a full-frame Canon EOS 5D or 1Ds.
     
    Tony Polson, Feb 12, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Yes, this is one area where the small sensors on compact cameras have an
    advantage. For most other purposes it is a problem.

    Roger
     
    Roger Blackwell, Feb 12, 2008
    #3
  4. Steve

    Tony Polson Guest


    There is another advantage, in that there are fewer problems with
    light rays hitting the sensor at steep angles of incidence. With full
    frame sensors, this can cause light fall-off towards the corners of
    the image and emphasise any chromatic aberration.

    I have had to take very great care with my choice of wide angle lenses
    for my EOS 5D. In the end, I have chosen to use Carl Zeiss and Leica
    in preference to Canon wide angle lenses.
     
    Tony Polson, Feb 12, 2008
    #4
  5. Steve

    Ben Micklem Guest

    The OP is using a 300v, a film camera.

    To the OP: using a wider lens will make these "all in focus" shots a lot
    easier. With lenses wider than 20mm it will be easy- f/8 should be enough,
    unless there is something in frame very near the camera. The 300v has a
    depth of field preview button, so you can check in the viewfinder what will
    be in focus (at really small apertures, it will get pretty dark, so be
    prepared to wait a while for your eyes to adjust).

    Ben
     
    Ben Micklem, Feb 12, 2008
    #5
  6. Steve

    Tony Polson Guest


    Thanks for that! I'm so used to being "the only person still using
    film" that I automatically assume everyone else is using digital!

    Fortunately, my comments about using a small aperture still apply.
     
    Tony Polson, Feb 12, 2008
    #6
  7. Steve

    Mark Dunn Guest

    You woudn't usually want deep focus in a wedding photograph, in my humble
    professional opinion. Bits of foliage growing out of unfortunate places are
    less noticeable if well out of focus. IIRC with medium format you usually
    have just enough DOF to cover a group 2 deep comfortably.
     
    Mark Dunn, Feb 12, 2008
    #7
  8. Steve

    Woody Guest

    All lenses have what is known as a hyperfocal setting. In simple terms
    this is the focus setting of the lens that gives the maximum depth of
    field.

    One end of the hyperfocal rangewill be infinity, the other will depend
    upon the aperture. If by accident your camera has hit this focus setting
    then that is why everything is in focus.
     
    Woody, Feb 12, 2008
    #8
  9. Steve

    Michael Guest

    Yes, but wider than 20mm on a 35mm camera is very expensive. And I
    doubt anyone taking serious wedding pictures would be using a superwide
    angle lens on a 35mm SLR.
     
    Michael, Feb 13, 2008
    #9
  10. Steve

    Ben Micklem Guest

    I picked up a brand new Tokina 17mm f3.5 Nikon AIS old stock for £65. A
    wedding photographer can charge in the region of £500 an hour, so I don't
    think this is a lot of money.

    If you have not seen excellent superwide wedding shots, you have not seen
    very many contemporary wedding portfolios.

    E.g. Stephen Swain's website has good examples:
    http://www.stephenswain.com/wa4/index.html
    The black and white confetti shots, and a couple of overhead group shots-
    probably a 17mm.

    I have used a 10mm lens on DX format for overhead group shots from a ladder.

    A lot of clients today want shots that don't look like those of their guests
    who use compact cameras. Compact camera zooms are lucky if they go wider
    than 38mm equivalent, so it is easy to get an unusual wow factor image by
    going superwide. The other end of the spectrum are very fast lenses, or
    longer lenses, that reduce the DOF, something that compact cameras again
    cannot do.

    Ben
     
    Ben Micklem, Feb 13, 2008
    #10
  11. Steve

    Michael Guest

    Sorry but I am not accustomed to seeing weddings shot on 35mm film
    cameras at all. I am accustomed to seeing weddings done on MF or now on
    digital, but not on 35mm.
     
    Michael, Feb 15, 2008
    #11
  12. Steve

    Ben Micklem Guest

    Have you shot a wedding with MF? It is painfully slow, involves more
    extensive posing and a tripod. In the 1990's there was a revolution in what
    people expected of a wedding photographers- fine grained 400 speed colour
    film, and very fine grained 100 and 160 speed films, allowed prints to 8x10
    that were very close to MF, as far as most people could tell. People wanted
    wedding photographs like they saw in magazines- a reportage style. People
    didn't want their wedding day ruined by posing for hours, completely
    breaking the mood of the occasion.

    Medium format has a place for group photos, but more memorable shots have
    been captured at weddings on 35mm for two decades. Digital is here now, and
    offers more flexibility and speed than 35mm, and with the quality of MF.
    And, returning to the topic, wedding photographers on digital are using
    super-wides. Even wider than ever. Nikon has a full frame 14-24mm f2.8 lens.
    There is definitely a demand and need for super-wides at weddings and other
    social photography.


    Ben
     
    Ben Micklem, Feb 15, 2008
    #12
  13. Steve

    Michael Guest

    I guess today's brides and grooms have no taste.
     
    Michael, Feb 16, 2008
    #13
  14. Steve

    Duncan Guest

    I think Michael that it's the influence of celeb shoots and the image that
    they have wanting a modern feel. The market being driven by what they have
    seen than a vision of their own.

    It also give rise to the snap happy amateur who thinks they can do it with
    their low budget digital camera, pose a professional and get away with the
    results because they are matching the expectations of the couple.
     
    Duncan, Feb 16, 2008
    #14
  15. Steve

    Tim Streater Guest

    Indeed. Not everyone reads Hello or whatever its called.

    Our wedding was on a brilliantly sunny September day in 2004. Only the
    official photographer, with his MF camera, tripod, and flash (as far as
    I can recall), was able to deal with the white dress and the white
    wedding cake without burnout. None of the various DSLRs present appeared
    able to handle it anything like as well.

    I was also impressed that he only took a couple of shots of each of the
    posed groups. In no instance were there eyes blinking, or people looking
    away, ...
     
    Tim Streater, Feb 18, 2008
    #15
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.