Photography

1 readers

1 users here now

A place to politely discuss the tools, technique and culture of photography.

This is not a good place to simply share cool photos/videos or promote your own work and projects, but rather a place to discuss photography as an art and post things that would be of interest to other photographers.

founded 11 months ago

MODERATORS

communick@viewfinder.pro

Shallowest depth of field for full-car photo (alien.top)

submitted 10 months ago by ibeinspire@alien.top to c/photography@viewfinder.pro

12 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I've been trying to work this out but I can't quite.

85mm f1.4 looks great

70-200 f2.8 @200mm looks great too (better?)

If you crop 85mm to 200mm you would get 200mm f3.3 equiv. So the 70-200 is actually better.

Ok so 105mm f1.4 exists... That's 200mm f2.66 equiv. 135mm f1.8 is the exact same equiv. But you have to crop (not ideal).

Is there anything better still?

Does subject distance matter? Maybe with a 50mm f1.2 but with you physically closer depth of field would be more shallow? Probably not.

I don't care about having the whole car in focus, I just want critical focus on one part and a super dramatic look.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] partiallycylon@alien.top 1 points 10 months ago (5 children)

Bigger sensor (mediums/large format) or bigger "equivalent" sensor. Basically zoom all the way in on your longest lens, set your focus and aperture, and take a panorama with however many photos it takes to fill the frame you want. You'll probably end up with hundreds of photos. Automerge them in Photoshop, and resize the resulting image to something more reasonable, unless you want it with gigapixel resolution. If you do it right (and by that I mean you don't miss a part of the photo resulting in a blank gap) or your computer doesn't run out of memory, it will absolutely have the effect you're and looking for. Source: I've done this many times with landscapes to tremendous success.

[–] Clayss654@alien.top 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

So you’re just doing a massive in close focus stack?

[–] partiallycylon@alien.top 1 points 10 months ago

That would be way too extreme, I think. You back up to where the objects of interest (the one in focus) approximately fills the frame. Closer if the object is stationary. Then you just take a standard panorama at your widest aperture. Generally I've found once your final image goes beyond 35mm or 50mm equivalent field of view, the panorama fails to merge or the Photoshop function starts to make wacky assumptions about distortion.

load more comments (3 replies)