Woodland Scenery, DOF and Impression of Depth.

[xpatUSA]

You are being naughty.... ...To be fair you should quote the full sentence.

I had not realized that you are apparently unable to read image EXIFs, so I do apologize for not mentioning the focal length and crop factor in the OP.

[pnodrog]

Sorry, for a minute there, I thought that the f-number includes the focal length. Tsk.

But I had not realized that you are apparently unable to read image EXIFs, so I do apologize for not mentioning the crop factor in the OP.

Yes Ted, at the moment I am traveling using someone else's computer that does not have any EXIF software on it. Your slightly demeaning answers are not what I expect from you.

[xpatUSA]

Yes Ted, at the moment I am traveling using someone else's computer that does not have any EXIF software on it. Your slightly demeaning answers are not what I expect from you.

Sorry you felt demeaned.

Responses edited. Please edit the quotes in yours to match when you get a minute.

[Cantab]

Well, Bruce, I have the advantage of knowing the title of the post in the other forum: "Home of the Giant Woodpecker". So the subject was actually the big holes in the tree in the middle ground. My pathetic point of the question being that everything is in focus front to back which makes the subject a tad less obvious, LOL.



I wondered about the trees leaning outward too. Perhaps if the 'path' is upward and the camera was therefore pointing upward?

Ted, once I knew what I was looking for, I eventually saw the large woodpecker holes. There are no giant woodpeckers in my part of the world so I googled them and saw some references to their possibly being extinct. So I at least understand why someone took a distant photo of a tree with woodpecker holes, presumably dating back many years.

Turning to the photo as simply a woodland photo, it works reasonably well despite the usual difficulty of taking woodland photos. They always seem to have a very different feel in real life compared to any attempt to capture the feel of the place photographically. Or at least that's my experience.

[pnodrog]

Sorry you felt demeaned.

Responses edited. Please edit the quotes in yours to match when you get a minute.

I never felt demeaned just disappointed.

[xpatUSA]

<>
Turning to the photo as simply a woodland photo, it works reasonably well despite the usual difficulty of taking woodland photos. They always seem to have a very different feel in real life compared to any attempt to capture the feel of the place photographically. Or at least that's my experience.

My experience too!

I had a go at applying some lesser DOF at less than hyperfocal distance in my neck of the woods and found it much harder than I naively thought. First tried f/5.6 and bracketed short focus down from there. Then tried hyperfocal length and bracketed f-numbers downward. Results sucked, basically. Beaten by the lens only going down to f/3.2. Changed to an f/2.8 and then the sun started going in and out of clouds, always at the wrong moment.

Will try mañana or whenever the lighting behaves or a better scene presents itself.

Thanks for your comments.

[William W]

. . . So I'm also wondering if woodland shots such as the above should be made at a lower f-number to get sharper details at the plane of focus.

No. I don’t think so – not for scenes “such as the one above”. I think that is an important phrase, even if you didn’t mean it to be interpreted literally.

If you follow the link to that Photographer’s gallery (in the other forum) you’ll note that his style (and vision) are quite prescriptive and also well defined. Also note on that (other) thread he mentions that he chooses to use two defined camera settings and also particularly chooses that camera for this type of photography; and he mentions that using a camera with a fixed lens, one gets used to seeing what to look for in scene (obviously for the outcomes that he wants) which are understandably in concert with his particular style and his vision.

It occurs to me that the (other) Photographer was (and is) strategically looking for a particular type of scene (and also the lighting and the camera viewpoint) to fit his style and vision.

In that regard, it also occurs to me that one criterion of his vision is, he wants to capture and then convey the ‘enormity’ of the forest / woodland in one image. That is - to create a sense of the viewer being ‘inside it’.

To this end, I expect that the Photographer wants the image be viewed “BIG”. That’s what I did. On my Studio Post Production Monitor and then even bigger - I had a squiz on a very large curved “Smart TV” Monitor and I then had a play with the 'image enhancement features'. Wow! WOW! It is a monster of a scene and it really does work when it is viewed “BIG”.

*

On the other hand -

I would be interested any comments and examples that Members may have to offer.

If the Vision of the Final Image (and maybe also the Style) were to be different; then we can get something like this below, by using: a telephoto lens; creating a more shallow DoF; and waiting about 2 hours for the side lighting . . . :



My point for posting that sample is - something similar could have been achieved to make a (different) image of the “Woodpecker’s Holes” whilst still using a 30mm Lens on an APS-C Format camera – but - that was neither the idea nor the aim of the other Photographer.

So, what I am getting to is: If you (Ted) want to make images of your woodland, then I think that you have to start with the Vision that you want for the Final Image. It doesn’t matter if it not a solid vision and it doesn’t matter if you throw several visions away; but I always think that we do need start with an idea of what we want in the Final image.

I would caution about being so prescriptive as to have any technical formula to suit all “Woodland Scenes”.

WW

Image © AJ Group Pty Ltd Aust 1996~2016 WMW 1965~1996

[loosecanon]

The most underused part of most DSLR's is that button on the front that stops the lens down do you an see an impression of the depth of field.

[Brev00]

it seems to me that the photographer accomplished what he set out to do: create an image of the woodlands with front to back clarity. You are correct that true front to back clarity will create a two dimensionality but that becomes the point in an image such as this. There is an abstract quality to natural scenes that this sort of photography induces. Another way to get it avoiding the possibility of diffraction would be to use focus stacking. You could then shoot at the optimal f stop for your lens. If you want to produce a sense of depth, then finding some lines to the horizon would help. From a foreground object to your misty background elements. But, here, we have a subject-free scene (with some woodpecker holes as accents) so no real depth desired, I don't think. Out of focus elements in a backlit wooded scene can result in ca distortion as well as some unpleasant blurring of leaves and branches. I tend to shoot from f 8 - f 13 in similar scenes with the smaller f stop used when foreground elements I want clear are also close. If I wanted to create more depth, I would use a more open aperture rather than varying focus distance and find something close in the scene to emphasize. F 8 is typically sufficient for most scenes for me. I did crop out some empty pavement in the foreground and a bit on each side. I think the leading lines give a sense of depth.

[xpatUSA]

it seems to me that the photographer accomplished what he set out to do: create an image of the woodlands with front to back clarity.

Yes, that was indeed his intention. My post was more about "what if" it had just a tad less DOF - would there be a greater impression of depth? Most here seem to think not.

You are correct that true front to back clarity will create a two dimensionality but that becomes the point in an image such as this. There is an abstract quality to natural scenes that this sort of photography induces. Another way to get it avoiding the possibility of diffraction would be to use focus stacking. You could then shoot at the optimal f stop for your lens. If you want to produce a sense of depth, then finding some lines to the horizon would help. From a foreground object to your misty background elements. But, here, we have a subject-free scene (with some woodpecker holes as accents) so no real depth desired, I don't think. Out of focus elements in a backlit wooded scene can result in ca distortion as well as some unpleasant blurring of leaves and branches. I tend to shoot from f 8 - f 13 in similar scenes with the smaller f stop used when foreground elements I want clear are also close. If I wanted to create more depth, I would use a more open aperture rather than varying focus distance and find something close in the scene to emphasize. F 8 is typically sufficient for most scenes for me. I did crop out some empty pavement in the foreground and a bit on each side. I think the leading lines give a sense of depth.

Thank you for the further help on how to get an impression of depth.

Since my last post, I have taken a good few woodland shots and found that it is most difficult to even come close to what I thought would be a contributory DOF. Bearing mind that just about anything do with an image, e.g. re-sizing, affects apparent DOF; not forgetting one's selection of CoC - the value of which in the literature varies with the direction of the wind

These and other considerations imply to me that the easiest approach to this kind of scene is indeed to shoot at the hyperfocal distance or beyond.

[Brev00]

I used to be convinced that I needed f 13 or smaller to get front/back clarity. Looking back on many of the images I took over the past two or three years where I attempted such clarity, I found most of such photos were taken at f 8. It seemed to be enough especially if no major foreground detail was all that close (<8' or so). Even in a cluttered scene. Now, as I said above, there are several tricks to get a sense of depth even with decent front/back sharpness. Many of my images include leading lines as I shared above. Another trick is framing. In the following image, I used the dark, surrounding branches to create a frame with the distant house as the subject. Although the house is dark, it is surrounded by snow in the wintry scene. So, the tonality combined with the framing, I think, gives a sense of depth. The next image uses leading lines, framing, and scale to give a sense of depth. There seems to be some softness, too, at the back of the shot. Again, f 8. So, my conclusion is that I rarely need to close down as far as f 13 or even f 11 to get the sort of clarity the photographer got in his scene. At least, with a dx camera.





While i have taken the sort of very natural type shots of the photographer. Subject free studies. I find that most of the time I find a compositional element, particularly leading lines, to have a sense of direction in the image. Here is one of the natural study types shot at f 13 (to get the near flowers somewhat clear):



I hope these are relevant. I don't think purposely adding softness to the distant detail is something I have done.

[xpatUSA]

I used to be convinced that I needed f 13 or smaller to get front/back clarity. Looking back on many of the images I took over the past two or three years where I attempted such clarity, I found most of such photos were taken at f 8. It seemed to be enough especially if no major foreground detail was all that close (<8' or so). Even in a cluttered scene. Now, as I said above, there are several tricks to get a sense of depth even with decent front/back sharpness. Many of my images include leading lines as I shared above. Another trick is framing. In the following image, I used the dark, surrounding branches to create a frame with the distant house as the subject. Although the house is dark, it is surrounded by snow in the wintry scene. So, the tonality combined with the framing, I think, gives a sense of depth. The next image uses leading lines, framing, and scale to give a sense of depth. There seems to be some softness, too, at the back of the shot. Again, f 8. So, my conclusion is that I rarely need to close down as far as f 13 or even f 11 to get the sort of clarity the photographer got in his scene. At least, with a dx camera.





While i have taken the sort of very natural type shots of the photographer. Subject free studies. I find that most of the time I find a compositional element, particularly leading lines, to have a sense of direction in the image. Here is one of the natural study types shot at f 13 (to get the near flowers somewhat clear):



I hope these are relevant. I don't think purposely adding softness to the distant detail is something I have done.

Thanks for the additional comments, Larry.

Currently, I'm shooting a Sigma 17-50mm on my 'dc' camera. Still looking at lower f-numbers right now. f/4 is the "sweet spot" for sharpness on that camera at 28mm, the so-called 'normal' on that camera. Can go a bit wider too, 21mm is OK. I'm also thinking that a good 'flat field' lens would be better for the purpose than one with soft corners which thereby brings softness into the foreground which I think we both agree is a Bad Thing.

As to that, your thought about upping the f-number to get nearby objects within the depth of field is interesting, might flatten the field into the bargain . . .

Was thinking of trying a street shot instead of struggling with my dense undergrowth. Took this a while back:



Sharp from front to back (per the conventional opinion) although DPR's re-sampling messes with the sharpness a bit.

A good scene for comparison perhaps, although it's not really a 'woodland scene' per se. What say you?

[Brev00]

Yes, f 5.6 can be more than adequate especially considering the distance from camera to first important foreground detail. And, also, wider apertures can work well with wider focal lengths to still get good dof. I can even use my 17-70 at f 4 and 21 mm or my 12-24 at f 4 and 16mm to get plenty of dof for my purposes. I am not so mathematically based (more than in the past) so am not so concerned with finding the absolute sweet spot of a lens and staying in that zone. I have found that f 8 is a remarkably versatile f stop which can really simplify decision making in the field. In terms of this shot, I think this is more about the path and the nearly symmetrical sky above than the woods which are more of an accent or frame. It does have that naturalistic, slice of reality character. The man made aspects do play a pretty large role here with the power lines and pole, beaten path/road, and puddle. I think an image more filled with natural characteristics and with less open space would compare better to the original in terms of composition. You can do that with street photography (with manmade v natural characteristics). I look forward to seeing your results.

[xpatUSA]

In terms of this shot, I think this is more about the path and the nearly symmetrical sky above than the woods which are more of an accent or frame. It does have that naturalistic, slice of reality character. The man made aspects do play a pretty large role here with the power lines and pole, beaten path/road, and puddle. I think an image more filled with natural characteristics and with less open space would compare better to the original in terms of composition. You can do that with street photography (with manmade v natural characteristics). I look forward to seeing your results.

Thanks again. My street dead-ends into another street which might be more suitable because it has no mowed verges. The dirt road has slight curves too and, of course, the ever-present Texas power lines and bob' wahr.

Or, just as a test of concept, I could step back a lot and go wider, or even shoot with the seriously wide 8-16mm . .

[Brev00]

You have really hit on one my favorite photo themes, one that does not seem to be very popular. Many seem to find subject free photography less than compelling but it has interested me for quite a while. The idea of finding some depth or compositional interest in what is primarily a slice of reality intrigues me. It fits into my overarching thematic concern: local landscapes. The idea of taking something 'ordinary' and lifting it through various tricks and techniques into something more. Even if just representing it as it is. Here is one that is quite recent. Woods can be dark so using narrow apertures can lead to camera blur or increased noise. So, in this shot I used f 4 and 32mm. Lost some near foliage to blur but in later edits, I darkened that section to lessen its impact. I really liked the reflections I saw in the puddles so wanted to capture that within the larger scene:



Some ca's are evident, too, not as sharp with some edge detail, but those don't really affect my view at normal size.