Pro Secrets: Depth Of Field, Lens Magnification, And Field Of View!

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Thanks you @Steve & @bleirer

….Compression is a result of perspective, not optics….

I gotta read it again and again, and actually test it. What is a good method I can test this?
There are a lot of easy tests and many don't involve cameras or lenses at all.

For instance look down a long line of telephone poles or trees and from your starting position notice how big say the second, third and fourth pole look in relationship to the one closest to you. Then walk half the distance to the first pole and notice how large it looks compared to those further back, then walk right up to the first pole and notice it's huge and fills your view but the others have stayed relatively normal sized. That's all based on relative distance to each element in your scene and not based on what lens you happen to capture the scene with.

Similarly go up to bathroom mirror, close one eye as stereo vision messes with this a bit and move your face closer and closer to the mirror. Notice how your facial features distort and the nose starts to get huge compared to say the ears or eyes. That's also a perspective issue and not really 'distortion' created by shooting portraits with ultra wide angle lenses as much as being very close to a three dimensional face so parts (e.g. the nose) are extremely close and other parts like the eyes are relatively farther back.

Bill said it very well above, it's all about the relative distances between individual elements in your scene.

So if you're 100' from the closest object and 110' to a slightly more distant object of the same size they'll look fairly similar with the distant object 110% the distance to the close object or IOW, the second object will look roughly 90% of the size of the closer same sized object. But now walk up close so you're 10' away from the close object and 20 feet away from the more distant object and that second object will be twice as far away and look around 50% of the size of the closer object.

The choice of lens lets you optically crop so the main image element is the size you want in the frame but it's your relative distance to each element in the scene that determines perspective or IOW, the relative size of each element in the scene to each other. That compression folks talk about with long lenses is just because we tend to work at long distances with those lenses and the facial distortions some photographers talk about with ultra wide angle lenses is just because we tend to work at very close distances with ultra wide angle lenses to get the subject size we're after. But in both cases the perspective comes from our working distance, not the lens itself though the lens does allow us to optically crop the scene so that the main elements fit or are as large as desired in the frame.

In workshops we talk about finding perspective with your feet and then framing the scene by choosing an appropriate focal length.
 
FWIW, here's an old series of images (shot with my D1H so that's gotta be around 20 years ago) that I've used in classes to discuss perspective. Notice the relative size of the tree to the background mountains. The difference in these images is that the left hand image was shot from a couple of hundred feet to the tree, the middle image from about half that distance and the right hand image from much closer. No amount of zooming from way back would make the tree loom up and over the mountains but walking in closer and then choosing a focal length to frame the scene can do that.

If you start looking for examples of perspective you'll notice them all the time while just out walking around or driving. The way the relative size of elements in a scene change based on distances to each object is something you can easily learn to see with your bare eyes without looking through a camera. The camera and lens comes in once you've found the desired perspective and want to frame the scene.



dLWYJHSOP0152-Edit.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Last edited:
Wow! Thank you so much @DRwyoming
You nailed it!
I always had that question when looking at nice nature scenes, How can I capture that so I can see it again tomorrow?
You just answered it!
I need to experiment which lens would frame what my eyes are framing. And its not always a 50mm even though our eyes FOV is about 50mm, we humans tend to look around, or at least jump the eyes from side to side.
 
Wow! Thank you so much @DRwyoming
You nailed it!
I always had that question when looking at nice nature scenes, How can I capture that so I can see it again tomorrow?
You just answered it!
I need to experiment which lens would frame what my eyes are framing. And its not always a 50mm even though our eyes FOV is about 50mm, we humans tend to look around, or at least jump the eyes from side to side.

Though, to be clear, the choice of lens is just framing. Of course framing is important, but the relative size of the different objects to each other comes about from physically moving the camera no matter what lens or focal length is used. If you stay in one place and change lenses, the relative size does not change.
 
Thanks you @Steve & @bleirer

….Compression is a result of perspective, not optics….

I gotta read it again and again, and actually test it. What is a good method I can test this?
One way I've demonstrated this in the past was to take a distant area of landscape (mountains in this case) with both a wide angle lens and a long lens. I then cropped the wide angle to the same field of view as the long lens and... no difference in compression.
 
What’s the reason a 14mm would provide so much DOF vs a long focal length?
Isn’t the long lens just like backing up with out feet?
Or its just changing the FOV with a MFD forcing us to backup to fill the frame
 
To think about it from another angle, in the hypothetical scenario where all objects are the same actual size. Whatever the distance is from the camera to the closest object then the object that same distance behind it will be 1/2 The size of the closest one. Another object that same distance away will be 1/3 The size of the closest, the next one 1/4, then 1/5 and on and on to the vanishing point.

So we can think of every scene as if the camera to foreground distance was one "unit" and all the other objects are twice that unit distance or 3 times or 4, etc. The change In the relative sizes in the image from 1 to 1/2 is a lot, but from 1/9 to 1/10 is not.

Meaning, to me, if I want the background bigger I have to be farther away from the foreground.
 
What’s the reason a 14mm would provide so much DOF vs a long focal length?
Isn’t the long lens just like backing up with out feet?
Or its just changing the FOV with a MFD forcing us to backup to fill the frame

When you reduce depth of field down to essentials you get to magnification and the size of the hole the light is passing through. Several factors impact those two things but they are the key.
 
Here is an extreme example of what Steve was showing in the video. I just saw the news item. We have an annular solar eclipse coming October 14th. In this eclipse the moon passing in front of the sun is farther away than in a total eclipse, so the sun behind the moon looks larger than the moon, making the "ring of fire."

 
Back
Top