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 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.

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.

Every now and then I find an article related to the current assignment and I feel like I should link to it, just for fun.

An article posted on istockphoto.com called minimizing greatness discusses wide open apertures and shallow depths of field.  It mentions that sometimes you want to blur the background to obscurity and isolate your subject and at other times you may want to blur the background and/or foreground a little bit so that the subject is in sharp focus but the fore and background are still recognizable enough to provide some context for the main subject.

There are plenty of articles out there on the subject of different aperture sizes and the corresponding depths of field, but this one came up at a relevant time.

A few more pictures from the farm to wrap up that set.

ISO 200, f/1.8, 1/1250 sec.  Just another with an extreme aperture that completely blurs the background and isolates the main subject while giving no information about the location.  In this case the shallow depth of field is great for minimizing the distractions.  This is really a singular theme photo made using a singular theme aperture.

ISO 200, f/3.5, 1/125 sec.  A slightly smaller, yet still an isolation aperture isolates the main apple from the background leaves and apples.  The highlights in the background take on the polygon shape of the aperture mechanism in the lens.  With a slightly deeper depth of field it is easier get the main subject in focus.

ISO 200, f/1.8, 1/500 sec.  Another extreme aperture was used to isolate the main flower.  The other flowers and buds are close enough that they are recognizable but don’t distract from the main subject.  The ground in the background is really out focus and not too distracting.

Continuing around the country house I came across this birdhouse on a post.  I decided to try out a couple different apertures and I wish I had kept going and taken it to the extreme small apertures for a full comparison, but these two give a good comparison of two somewhat different apertures.  I should have bumped up the ISO and taken one with a story telling aperture (my 50 mm prime goes down to f/22 which would have made the background much clearer).

ISO 200, f/1.8, 1/3200 sec.

ISO 200, f/11, 1/80 sec.

The first photo has a very narrow depth of field and almost completely isolates the birdhouse.  The DOF is in fact so shallow that even parts of the birdhouse are noticeably out of focus.  The background is so blurred that it is unrecognizable and the birdhouse could really be anywhere.  At this large aperture the spot highlights in the trees (often called bokeh) take on some interesting characteristics (a topic for another time).

the smaller aperture of the second photo leads to a much deeper depth of field and though the background is still blurred it is much more recognizable (and some may say more distracting from the birdhouse).

It is not always necessary to go to the extreme of f/1.8 to isolate the subject, especially if you want the entire subject to be in sharp focus.  Perhaps f/2.8 or f/4 would have been a good alternative that significantly blurred the background but kept the entire birdhouse in focus.  If the desire of this photo is to show off the rustic birdhouse then the first photo here is a good aperture to use.  If the birdhouse was in a unique or interesting setting then the smaller aperture (wider or deeper depth of field) would be more suitable to show off the birdhouse and its surroundings.

In this case i feel that the background isn’t very interesting and distracts from the main subject.  I like the first photo better.  I actually feel that the blurring of the extremities of the birdhouse due to the extreme aperture setting adds some interesting depth to the photo.

Another from the country house.  This is rusty.

ISO 200, f/1.8, 1/1600 sec.

The results of this one are slightly different than the last one because even though the same aperture (the fastest my 50 mm prime will go) was used, the background isn’t as blurred as it was with the birdhouse.  This is because my subject, rusty, is further away from the camera than the birdhouse was and the ratio of the distance to the subject to the distance to the background is not as extreme.  This means that you won’t get the same extreme blurring of the background and you can still make out what the background is.  If I wanted to blur the background beyond recognition I would need to move closer to the subject, and therefore see less of it (with the same focal length).

The shallow depth of field works here because the focus of this photo is the horse sculpture, not the house.  The blurred house gives a hint as to the sculpture’s environment, but if it were in clear focus the horse would not stand out as much.

We were at a country house the other day (scoping out the location for our wedding pictures) and I was walking around looking for some shallow depth of field opportunities.  With the assignment in mind a decided to solely use the 50 mm prime lens because it has a much smaller aperture than my zoom lens and therefore a much shallower depth of field.

ISO 400, f/1.8, 1/2000 sec.

I thought this was a cool birdhouse and I didn’t want to take just a normal picture of it centred with the tree as the only background, but I also didn’t want distractions in the distance on the right hand side of the image.  The solution was to use a wide open aperture, focus on the birdhouse and the distant background would blur enough to not distract from the subject.  I think it works well for this picture. Even the tree starts to blur a little as it fads away with this extreme aperture.

I did find that sometimes f/1.8 gave too shallow of a depth of field and it made it too difficult to get the subject in clear focus.  More on that later.