This post covers both assignment 1 and assignment 2 because I want to illustrate the difference between the shallow depth of field of the wider apertures and the deep depth of field of the narrower apertures.  These were all taken on Parliament Hill in Ottawa during the 2011 National Tulip Festival.  They are all similar photos of the Peace Tower.

First are two almost identical photos that both use a singular theme aperture of f/4 but focus at different distances from the camera (focus on different objects).

28 mm, ISO 400, f/4, 1/640 sec.

26 mm, ISO 400, f/4, 1/900 sec.

Though the composition and exposure settings are very similar in these two photos the shallow depth of field means the main subject changes depending on where the focus is.  In the first the focus is on the Peace tower so that becomes the main subject of the photo and the burred tulip takes a supporting roll.  In the second the tulip is the main subject and the tower a background element.  The tower is still recognizable and is included to give some context as to where the tulip is located (This isn’t just any tulip, it’s in the capital of Canada) but it is not the subject this photo.   The next photo uses a deeper depth of field to show both a tulip and the tower.

34 mm, ISO 1000, f/18, 1/125 sec.

The narrow aperture (f/18) of this photo means that there is a much deeper depth of field and while the focus is still on the peace tower the tulip is sharper than the first photo.  It still isn’t tack sharp like in the second photo, but it is much more in focus than the first.   In this photo the tulip is less of an accent and more a part of the overall story of the image.  The background and the foreground work together to tell the story of where we are and the flowers that are there.  Notice that I required a much higher ISO (1000) to get the shutter speed down to something manageable to hand hold.  The narrow aperture means less light gets in and I needed to slow the shutter speed for a proper exposure.  The speed got so slow that I had to up the ISO to keep it manageable.  Alternatively I could have used a tripod, but I did not have one available on this trip.

These last two photos a little bit wider shots that use a somewhat narrower aperture to show a bit more of the parliament buildings and the tulip beds around them.

18 mm, ISO 400, f/11, 1/100 sec.

18 mm, ISO 400, f/13, 1/100 sec.

These two photos use something closer to a “who cares?” aperture, but again the intent was a deep depth of field to maintain focus from the foreground to the background.  The apertures used were sufficient to achieve that.  These pictures give an idea of the flowerbeds around parliament hill.

I have another post of some more abstract photos that I took around the tulip festival and I will try to get those up a little later.

Last weekend I went down to see the Ottawa Tulip Festival.  I’ve been here for many years and have actually never been down to see the tulips before.  I have a few sets of pictures that I would like to post.  This first set is from Commissioner’s Park and is those that fit Assignment 2 – Shallow Depth of Field.

I only had my 18-200 mm lens with me so I didn’t have the extremely shallow depth of field available that my 50 mm f/1.8 offers.

18 mm, ISO 200, f/4.5, 1/800.

These two tulips were somewhat isolated from the others in the bed, but I still wanted to ensure that they were isolated from those around them and from anything in the background.  A “who cares?” aperture may have been more appropriate, but then the trees in the background would be a bit more distracting.  I really like the way the extreme back lighting here makes the petals glow, but there is still enough light to see some green in the stems.  This would have been a good opportunity to use a reflector to bounce some light back to light up the shadows in the foreground.  This is a tight crop from a much wider photo but I wanted to focus on these two flowers.  This one had the most Lightroom post processing from the set.  I played with the exposure and recovery sliders to bring out the blue of the sky (I did have my polarizer on, but shooting right into the sun it does not do too much) and I even adjusted the blue luminosity and saturation to bring it out even more.  I also spot healed some blemishes and holes on the petals.

200 mm, ISO 200, f/5.6, 1/400 sec.

Another flower isolation shot, although this one has a different feel to it altogether.  Here the shallow depth of field really isolates the one tulip but the out of focus tulips in the background give the impression that this flower is not alone in the flowerbed.  The dark trees in the background also blur to the point that they are just black or a very dark green.  Again this is a back lit subject which makes the petals glow over the intentionally underexposed background.  I used the spot metering mode to get the correct exposure for just the petals, recomposed and took the shot.  I like the way the back lighting (slightly to the side) highlights the edge of the stem.

200 mm, ISO 200, f/5.6, 1/200 sec.

200 mm, ISO 200, f/5.6, 1/200 sec.

In these two captures I used a “singular theme aperture” but is not really a single subject that is the main focus of the picture.  In this case the narrow depth of field highlights several tulips that are all the same distance from the lens and blurs those that are closer or further away.  This gives a sense that the tulips are part of a much bigger crowd, which they were.  I seemed to be in a back light mood.

65 mm, ISO 200, f/5, 1/500 sec.

Another group shot of the flowers, though front lit this time.  Again there is no single subject but the large aperture (small f/stop) narrows the depth of field and as the tulips blur towards the top of the frame it implies that the flower bed goes on much further even though that is near the edge of this particular flower bed.

135 mm, ISO 200, f/5.6, 1/400 sec.

The last of this group is a different perspective than the rest.  I don’t have a good macro lens or macro capabilities so I don’t do too many of these shots.  I used a wide aperture to put the background out of focus because the dirt and leaves in the background would only distract from the main subject.

I am finding that using a wide aperture to isolate a subject is probably the easiest of the first three assignments.  When you blur the background (and foreground) it is easy to remove distracting elements and not have to worry about your composition as much.  It is the deep depth of field shots where you really have to think on different plans and control how many different elements interact with one another.

I have many other photos from this bike ride that I would like to share.  I hope to get them up over the next few days.

Another couple of pictures from the farm.  It seems that that is the only time I am getting out with my camera lately.

ISO 800, f/8, 1/400sec.

With the tree being the only subject in this photo and the sky being completely flat the depth of field was not really a consideration so it did not really matter which aperture I used.  Therefore i used a “who cares” aperture to get a medium depth of field in the hopes of getting a sharp photo.

ISO 800, f/8, 1/800 sec.

There was only snow in the background so it didn’t really matter what aperture I used since she would be somewhat isolated no matter what so I used a middle of the road aperture.

Another from around the country house.  For some reason this tree decided to hang on to several apples but not its leaves.  A perfect candidate for a shallow depth of field (isolation aperture) photo.

ISO 200, f/3.5, 1/800 sec.

In this one I wanted to focus on one of the apples while having the others blurred but recognizable.  At 18 mm the largest aperture on my 18-200 mm lens is f/3.5 so I went with that and focused on the closest apple.  I didn’t nail the focus but  when shrunk for the web it still looks good.  The colourful apples contrasting with the dull tree and overcast sky are enough to make them stand out and they don’t all need to be in sharp focus.  In fact, if a deeper depth of field were used the contrast between the apples and the tree would not be as dramatic.

A wind blown tree near Nobleton, Ontario.  I seem to like pictures of lone trees.  It’s rare that you see one tree alone with almost nothing else around it.

ISO 800, f/8, 1/800 sec.

I was just taking pictures of the tree when the person and dog walked into the frame and I liked this one better than shots of the tree alone. There were no foreground or background elements so this is an ideal situation for a who cares aperture and a medium depth of field.

Over the holidays we went for a visit to the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) in Toronto.  I hadn’t been in a long time and thought it would be neat to check it out.

I didn’t go crazy with pictures and the only ones I really liked were of the dinosaurs (obviously) but I quickly confirmed my suspicions that it was going to be a large aperture day and I quickly gave up on the zoom lens and put on the 50 mm f/1.8 lens.  With a ban on tripods and monopods in the museum wide open apertures were not a choice but a necessity and I started looking for situations where a shallow depth of field would look good.  I mostly used aperture priority mode and let the camera pick the shutter speed and I also used some pretty high ISOs which added some noise but allowed for some faster shutter speeds in the dimly lit museum.

ISO 1250, f/1.8, 1/320 sec.  I was a fair distance away from this guy in order to frame him properly so after I focused on the eye (sockets) a large part of the skull was in focus while the body and tail blurred nicely.

ISO 125, f/1.8, 1/20 sec.  Another hanging from the ceiling of the ROM crystal I again focused on the eye sockets and took advantage of the shallow depth of field to to blur the more distant parts of the body.  The shallow depth of field of a wide aperture is advantageous for shooting these skeletons.  The open nature of skeletons means that you are going to see many different parts of the structure overlapping.  if all of the bones are in sharp focus (using a narrow aperture to get a deep depth of field) it is difficult to determine where one bone ends and the next one begins.  A shallow depth of field means that the features further away from the focal plane are out of focus, giving a sense of depth to the photo and differentiating the different body parts of the skeleton.  If you were taking photos for a scientific record you would likely want photos that are tack sharp throughout and therefore would use a narrow aperture (and a tripod, and maybe extra lighting, etc.) but for a a more artistic shot the shallow depth of field from a wide open aperture works nicely.

ISO 1250, f/1.8, 1/250 sec.  The shallow depth of field in this one isolates the head from the body and really makes it stand out.  Composition was difficult in the confined, busy spaces of the museum.  I was constrained to my 50 mm lens and it was sometimes very challenging to get far enough away from the subjects to frame them nicely.

ISO 3200, f/1.8, 1/400 sec.

ISO 3200, f/1.8, 1/640 sec.  These two photos of the same scene illustrate the power of a shallow depth of field.  Both photos have similar settings (the difference in shutter speed is an artifact of using aperture priority mode) but the focal plane has been changed (I auto focused on the desired subject and held the focus lock button and recomposed before taking the picture).  Comparing the two shots really shows how a wide open aperture can be used to isolate a subject within the frame even if there are other potentially distracting elements around it.

In this set of photos the choice of aperture was pretty much thrust upon me by the shooting conditions: dimly lit and tripods forbidden.  I made the best of the situation by looking for situations where the shallow depth of field provided by the wide open aperture would look good.

ISO 1250, f/1.8, 1/160 sec.  This last photo may have been better suited to a medium depth of field aperture (say f/1.8) because it would have been easier to obtain a tack sharp photo of this flat slab and fossil with a wider depth of field.  In retrospect I should have tried a few different settings here just to see what would happen.  That is why I do these assignments.  Hopefully next time I see a similar shot I remember to use a ‘who cares’ aperture.

This one goes back to assignment 2.  We were out for a walk in the Stony Swamp area of the Ottawa greenbelt and about 5 minutes in we came across two deer munching on some bird feed.  I wasn’t really ready for it, but I did get a few shots.  I wish I was at a higher ISO so I could have shot at a faster shutter speed and eliminated some of the motion blur.  It was a fairly overcast day on top of being in a densely wooded area.

ISO 800, f/5.6, 1/160 sec.

This is the largest aperture for my 18-200 mm lens at this zoom level (200 mm).  I wish it was faster, but don’t we all.  The reason for using the largest aperture is twofold.  One reason is that it was not a well lit shot so using the widest available aperture permits a faster shutter shutter speed and the other has to do with the topic of assignment 2, it provides shallow depth of field.  I a densely wooded area there is a lot going on in the background and foreground and using a wide open aperture to get a shallow depth of field helps to isolate the main subject from the background trees and brush.

The new bridge at the Hoover Dam.  Opened to traffic the day we were there.  I really wish we had a chance to walk out onto the bridge.  I bet the view from there is amazing.

ISO 400, f/8, 1/200 sec.

The bridge and canyon here are so large that everything is essentially at an infinite focal distance and a who cares aperture applies.  An aperture of f/8 provided for a fast enough shutter speed on a gloomy day, but gives just enough depth of field.

We went to Vegas for our honeymoon, but I didn’t take a lot of pictures.  It was a very interesting place and there are plenty of photos to be had, but I really just took a lot of tourist type shots.

This one is of of the New York New York hotel and casino.

ISO 200, f/11, 1/640 sec.

This shot was taken with a focal length of 60 mm and though the statue of liberty and the empire state building replicas are not that close together, they were both far enough away from me that they might as well be at infinity.  I used f/11 so that i was leaning to the deeper depth of field side and they would both be in sharp focus, but for all intents and purposes this is a who cares aperture.

The first two assignments dealt with deep depth of field and shallow depth of field.  Small apertures (f/16 and smaller) create a deep depth of field and allow the picture to tell a story relating things that are close by to objects in the distant background.  Wide apertures (around f/5.6 and wider) isolate objects at a certain distance from the lens and blur everything else, giving the photo a singular theme.  But what should you do if everything in the frame is about the same distance away, say something (maybe a leaf) lying on the ground, or a landscape where everything is way off in the distance (everything is essentially an infinite distance from the lens)?  What aperture do you use?

In Understanding Exposure Bryan Peterson calls these “Who Cares?” apertures.  It doesn’t really matter from a depth of field point of view which aperture you use (from a depth of field point of view) when everything is the same distance away, but there are other considerations as well.  The main consideration when depth of field no longer matters is sharpness.  Lenses have a sweet spot when it comes to aperture and it is usually around f/8 or f/11.  Wider apertures tend to scatter light and thus reduce sharpness.

Another way sharpness is affected by wide apertures is actually influenced by the depth of field.  As discussed in the shallow depth of field assignment the margin for error on your focus distance right is quite small so if you don’t focus just right for the photo where everything is the same distance away, your entire photo will be blurry, or at least not as sharp as it could be.  Going the other way, a very narrow aperture (with a deep depth of field) will give you a lot of leeway with the focus but it often reduces the amount of light getting in to the point where you now need a slow shutter speed.  It may get to the point that you can no longer use a tripod.  So, the solution to these two problems is to use an aperture somewhere in the middle, say f/8 or f/11.

You would need to experiment to determine the actually sweet spot for your lens, but it usually somewhere around f/8 or f/11.  Some examples of situations where these “Who cares?” apertures are used are things like portraits against a wall, something on the ground or hanging on a wall, a sign, a landscape with no foreground, etc.

The Assignment

The assignment for this one should be obvious.  Take some pictures using a middle of the road aperture where the depth of field doesn’t really matter and the intent is for the entire photo to be sharp.  Make sure it makes creative sense to do so.

I know I have some photos the meet this criteria already so I may look for some examples from my previous work as well as going out to get some new shots.

Click here to see all of the assignments.

Click here for the results so far from this assignment.