Shooting at f/32 and I'm still frustrated with DOF/ Focus

[vinny]

as I said earlier and victoria showed above, using the movements god gave your camera is a really good idea. How many times do you need to hear it?
if you posted an example as others asked, it would take a lot of guess work out of it, don't you think?

[John Koehrer]

He's tilting the camera down. What effect will this have on DOF and would he be better off aligning the standards to vertical?

IDK just a question

[Bill_1856]

4x5, 210mm, f:32, focus=5 1/2', DOF is 4'8 to 6'6 (approx 1'9.6). Less than 2'. (Using coc of 150 micron, which is pretty small).

[Nathan Potter]

Bill, that's about right. In my example somewhere above I assumed a COC of 50 µm and I think lens to subject distance of 72 in. but I made a math error. (Shouldn't do these estimate fast and sloppy). That should have been DOF of about 9.5 in., not about 1.0 in.

Using a COC of 150 µm yields about enough DOF (about 2 ft. as you point out) so that camera movements should not be required.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Gary Sommer]

The camera is often pointed downward to the model.

I think this is your problem. If your camera is neutral, or zero movements when it is horizontal and you tilt the whole camera down, the plane of focus is parallel to the standards. If you tilt the camera down say 45 degrees the plane of focus would run through your scene at 45 degrees. If you make the standards parallel after you tilt the camera down, then f32 would probably be enough.

[kevs-2323668]

Thanks Ken, nice shot of the father/ son. But question: what if the father was sitting on the ground and the son was sitting right in front of him, and you are pointing a bit downwards. If you focused on the father, then the son would be very out of focus right?. I don't know. I have recent shot where one eye is in focus, the other is out at f/32, so I'm still puzzled.

Victoria, nice, you are shooting with 150 or 90?

Thanks Nathan. So you think 150 would help?

Gary, are you saying then to try to get the camera lower to the ground so as not to point it down?

What does getting the standards parallel mean? I have everything zeroed out tilts/ shifts wise is that not having everything parallel? Is being at d/32 good? I think it is but I have to say, the Tmax 100 looks better on skin to me than the TMY 400.

[Gary Sommer]

Kevs, if you zero out movements when the camera is level, then tilt it down, the camera movement are no longer at zero. If you tilt the camera down 45 degrees, you need to tilt back the standards 45 degrees so that they are vertical. Then the plane of focus is vertical in the scene. Then the movements are now zeroed again. I really don't think that you can do what you are trying, with out some knowledge and use of at least the tilt on the camera. I believe that on the first or home page of this site is an article about view camera movements.

Good Luck
Gary

[Ken Lee]

Thanks Ken, nice shot of the father/ son. But question: what if the father was sitting on the ground and the son was sitting right in front of him, and you are pointing a bit downwards. If you focused on the father, then the son would be very out of focus right?.

Right.

Also note that some lenses exhibit focus-shift: if you focus them wide-open and then stop down before shooting, your subject will be out of focus.

Perhaps more importantly, human subjects move around, even when you ask them not to. To them, a few inches may seem inconsequential but will be enough to spoil a close shot.

If you want to find out for yourself, take the people out of the equation and shoot some stationary subjects at different f/stops.

[Drew Bedo]

There is a lot of good technical information posted to this thread.

I have little experience in portrait photography, but do work with still-life compositions in both 4x5 and 8x10. My approach would be to treat the portrait session as a "real-life still-life"


One of the things I have done to get the focus right is to put a target into the composition and move it around to check on how sharp an area of the image will be. Usually tjhis is a bar code panel from some retail purchase. The bars on the tag snap in and out of focus. A rolled up piece of tape on the back of the tag helps hold it in place temporarily. Unless the background detail is important, the back edge of acceptable focus will be just at the back of the subject . . .with most of the in-focus space to the front.

For a full-face head shot, the sharp area can stop just behind the ears. for a head and shoulders composition, the sharp area can end behind the shoulders. If ithe sitter ts at an angle to the camera, the area of sharp focus may end behind the far shoulder. Moving the target around will help with setting the rear limit to maximize the area in sharp focus in the space visible to the camera.

Before you burn up any more film, why don't you do a dry-run with a dummy. large doll or mannequin?

[kevs-2323668]

Ken, another question I forgot, so you don't think getting the 150 or using the 90 is the answer. The only problem is I'm shooting at f/32 and I have a shot of a guy 1/2 body profile and his right eye is tack sharp and his chest is out of focus, which is only a few inches away. That was the worst of the bunch, but real frustrating. On some others shots I see different part both in focus up to a foot away from each other. I do focus wide open and then stop down. We have to do that because at f/32 you can't see anything. Why Ken do you say this results in bad focus? What does this mean? "Also note that some lenses exhibit focus-shift: if you focus them wide-open and then stop down before shooting, your subject will be out of focus. " That is always why I guess, I can't really know if everything is in focus corner to corner, because at f/32 one cannot judge anything at all.

Thanks Gary, ok got it. Will look into that. But as I stated above, I have a shot that is pretty straight on and the guys chest is blurry and his eye is sharp and the camera is on a heavy tripod, and his is not moving really!

thanks Drew, the testing and dummy is a good idea, but I just remembered, that yeah, I can't see anything really at f/32 or even f/22. I have to focus wide open, and then trust at those f stops.