Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 30

Thread: 8X10 depth of field. How bad is it?

  1. #1

    8X10 depth of field. How bad is it?

    Hello friends. I live far away from camera civilization and I can't rent cameras/lenses before I buy them. So far, mainly thanks to you all, things have gone smoothly. I have an Arca-Swiss 4x5 with a Fujinon A 240/f9 lens that are super. I recently put in an order for the Arca upgrade to 8x10 and I am very uncertain as to the depth of field limitations with 8x10. I like to take pictures usually with a foreground object (rock or shrub) and the horizon etc. off in the distance - all in focus. Is it possible to obtain this with, say, a 150mm lens in 8x10? I have scoured the net for examples of 8x10 photographs. Unfortunately, the majority of the photographs seem sort of 'perspectively flattened'. The 3D look that smaller formats offer, including 4x5, whereby, for example, the viewer can believe that he or she is in the midst of a raging stream or looking down on a rock and into the distance simultaneously seems lacking in many 8x10 photographs I've seen (on the net). What could cause this? Is it that the longer lenses used in 8x10 flattens the perspective somewhat? Or is it that it can be achieved and photographers just choose a different way of rendering a scene in 8x10? Or is it due to inherent depth of field limitations? I hope you can decipher what I'm getting at. Even if not, I suppose I will find out for myself in a few months (it takes a long time for that kit to arrive!); I'm just hoping it won't be all bad news. Thank you for taking the time to read/reply. Kind regards, Rory.

  2. #2
    Whatever David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Posts
    4,658

    8X10 depth of field. How bad is it?

    I don't see any reason why you couldn't do a near/far composition in 8x10" just like with 4x5" other than perhaps that an 8x10" kit is more to carry, so maybe landscape shooters going into the backcountry where you can get really close to something photogenic and have something really photogenic in the background are using smaller formats. Also wide lenses that cover 8x10" and have room for those kinds of movements are correspondingly large and expensive in general (though there are some old style wideangle designs that cover 8x10 and are quite compact, like the 120mm/f:14 Berthiot Perigraphe and the old style 168mm ser. iii Dagor).

    Just checking to see what I have conveniently scanned from 8x10" on my website, how's this one (lower corners are a bit outside the circle of good definition perhaps due to excessive lens movements, but overall I'm not unhappy with it)--




  3. #3

    8X10 depth of field. How bad is it?

    8x10 is technically no more difficult to work with than 4x5. Yes, you have 4 times the ground glass to "evaluate" for critical focus and composition and yes, you use lenses at smaller apertures to utilize but the benefits are in the final result.

    For a 150mm lens to cover 8x10 it must be a considerable wide angle and as a result, the hyperfocal distances are much smaller. I would recommend reviewing the Schneider depth of field data for the 8x10 format below:

    http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/depth_of_field_tables/

    Judicious use of camera movements is a must with any view camera and clearly 8x10 is not unique in this regard. Take good field notes and proof everything that you shoot to learn from your experiences. When things break down, ask questions so you can learn from your success and failures and by all means, have fun.

    Cheers!

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Orange, CA
    Posts
    973

    8X10 depth of field. How bad is it?

    I've been shooting 8x10 for about a year now, after shooting 4x5 for the last four years. I don't feel 8x10 shots are any "flatter" than their 4x5 brethren, but obviously the reduced depth of field poses challenges to composition.

    Depth of field is a function of focal length, and you should be able to apply the same rules of thumb from 4x5 to 8x10. For example, on 4x5 I found that 150mm was (barely) the longest focal length with which I could achieve near-to-far (i.e., five feet to infinity) compositions without resort to movements. When using tilt, on 4x5 300mm was roughly the longest focal length with which I could achieve near-to-far compositions. The same relationships hold for 8x10, only a 150mm lens is a wide angle lens (normal on 4x5), and a 300mm lens is a normal lens (moderately long on 4x5). You can eek out a bit more DOF on 8x10 using extra small f-stops (f/64, etc.), but this really kicks up lens diffraction and reduces the “sparkle” of the image.

    Having said all that, I've become more adept at using movements or making minor compositional changes to conform to the capabilities of the format. Thus I've had no great sense of compositional loss with 8x10 versus 4x5. The only limitation I can't get around is with compositions where no movements are possible: I'm hosed if I need a lens longer than 150mm. For these cases I revert to a smaller format.

    The joy of 8x10 is, when used properly, you can make contact prints or large enlargements that have to be seen to be believed. I sometimes felt enlargements with 4x5 were not quite what I wanted them to be. Now I feel my work is fully realized without compromise using 8x10.

    So Rory, at least based on my experience (such as it is!).....it only gets better!

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    4,589

    8X10 depth of field. How bad is it?

    Hyperfocal distance on a 150mm 4x5 lens at f:16 and a 300mm 8x10 lens at f:32 are both about 46 feet.
    Wilhelm (Sarasota)

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Massachusetts USA
    Posts
    8,476

    8X10 depth of field. How bad is it?

    One of Ansel Adams' better-known images is Mt. Williamson from Manzanar, Sierra Nevada, Califorina. It's a good example of the classic "near-far" composition to which you refer.







    According to http://www.hctc.commnet.edu/artmuseum/anseladams/details/mtwilliamson.html, the photo was made with an 8x10.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Orange, CA
    Posts
    973

    8X10 depth of field. How bad is it?

    According to "The Making of 40 Photographs", Adams' Mt. Williamson photograph was shot on 8x10 with his Cooke Series XV lens, whch he describes as "a 12 1/4 inch triple convertible with components of 19 and 23 inch focal lengths." He does not explicitly say which focal length was used, but if we infer from his wording that he used the 12 1/4, it would be equivalent to a 311mm lens.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,219

    8X10 depth of field. How bad is it?

    The usual formula used for the hyperfocal distance is the square of the focal length divided by the product of the f-number and the diameter of the circle of confusion. You should use twice the circle of confusion for 8 x 10 than for 4 x 5 because you only have to enlarge half as much. To maintain the same angle of view, you have to double the focal length. That produces a factor of 4 in the numerator and a factor of 2 in the dnominator. If you keep the same relative aperture, the net effect is to double the hyperfocal distance. So you get less depth of field for the same angle of view and the same aperture. In particular, taking focal lengths 150 and 300 and cocs of 0.1 and 0.2 mm respectively, and relative aperture f/16 in both cases, you get

    150^2/(16 x 0.1) = 14.0625 meters ~ 46 feet for the 4 x 5 case

    and

    300^2/(16 x .2) = 28.125 meters ~ 92 feet for the 8 x 10 case.

    One way to think about this is that you have to stop down two additional stops to get the same depth of field with 8 x 10 as you would with 4 x 5 if the angle of view is the same, i.e., the 8 x 10 focal length is twice the 4 x 5 focal length. But you can also stop down two additional stops without encountering serious diffraction. So the total range of usable f-stops is the same. The problem is that since everything is shifted by two stops to smaller apertures, you have to compensate by using significantly slower shutter speeds if you don't want to sacrifice depth of field. That can be a problem if there is signficant subject movement.

  9. #9

    8X10 depth of field. How bad is it?

    Well, I'm somewhat relieved. By the way, that's a glorious photo David G.

    I'll certainly have to test the theory that you can get a shot like the Mt. Wiliamson photograph by Ansel Adams with a 300mm lens! Well, 240mm specifically, although I see that camera movements may be a bit tight with the Fujinon A. Speaking of that Cooke lens, I see Robert White, UK is offering an 'improved' version. Anybody here try it out? Are there disadvantages to using this type of lens? Humm...so many questions. Thank you everybody.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Massachusetts USA
    Posts
    8,476

    8X10 depth of field. How bad is it?

    The 240 A was probably not designed for 8x10, but I have used mine for both 5x7 and 8x10 - especially for close work. (At infinity, lenses will give their smallest circles of coverage; at closer distances, coverage improves).



    There are other lenses which provide wider circles of coverage than the 240, and which were designed as "wide-field" lenses for 8x10. Some are shorter than 240, so on 8x10 you can get a rather wide angle of view if you like. See this guide for some examples. Many older lenses will do just as well for your needs.



    I use a 450 Fujinon C as my 240A-equivalent in 8x10. It takes the same size filters: 52mm. Hard to beat that: C stands for compact.



    Hey, it's nice to hear from Professor Evans - making difficult things, much easier to grasp ,as always !

Similar Threads

  1. Depth of Field, Depth of Focus, and Film Flatness
    By steve simmons in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 7-Jan-2006, 19:30
  2. Depth of Field, Depth of Focus, and Film Flatness
    By robc in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 6-Jan-2006, 14:44
  3. Depth of Field calculation in the field
    By Don Wallace in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 31-Oct-2004, 16:54
  4. Depth of Field - 4x5
    By Scott Mittelsteadt in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 1-Dec-2000, 16:37
  5. How are depth of field and depth of focus related?
    By Jeffrey Goggin in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 16-Nov-2000, 23:21

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •