C&C and/or focus / depth of field question

trican

Hi all,

I'm having a whole lot of fun using film cameras, but I'm seeing out of focus parts to my photographs more regularly. Whilst the camera is a manual focus, I think its more a problem with incorrect aperture choice by me. But in the first two photos I can't imagine how it would have exposed properly on such a sunny day if i had used an excessively wide aperture (btw used a Nikon FE with a top shutter speed of 1/1000s with ISO200 film). At other times the photos are tack sharp, i.e photo 3. And the lens itself, a 50mm f/1.4, seems to gives great performance on a digital body, photo 4.

Any thoughts or suggestions (or even C&C on the photo's) would be most appreciated!

Thanks

Oh btw - the film I used was that free film they're giving away in Unicare pharmacies

1. Top of the church looks soft - As a photo it still kinda works though???


2. People are out of focus - photo is poor due to this I think


3. Check out that class bumper sticker!


4. Yet another church

Mr. Grieves

Don't forget that, for a given aperture and field of view, the depth of field will be shallower for film or full-frame digital than for a crop sensor, due to the larger area that the image is projected onto. Having said that, pics 1 and 2 look very strange so I'm not sure there isn't something else going on.

trican

of course - definitely forgot about the impact of the "full-frame" versus crop on the dof

stabo

Really like that affect in pic 2.

Mycroft H

What arpeture were you using on 2? If you were using, lets say, f4, the depth of field my not have extended from infinity to 6 feet from the camera.

trican

Alas no exif data for no. 2 :-) but doing some quick calculations (on the basis of sunny 16 rule) it might have been possible that the aperture was 5.6 -though I think that's the lowest it could have been and still be properly exposed

melekalikimaka

looks like your focus points are a tad off for framing...maybe move ap up to 8-11 for more detail overall

Zillah

Number 2 is confusing the hell out of me. At first it looks exactly like motion blur, but it's clearly way too bright for such a long exposure.

It's almost like you used a ND filter and came here to confuse us

Seriously though, the steps just behind the lady in the foreground look pretty sharp, but she herself is extremely blurry. I'm confused.

Er, could it be a printing error?

trican

Zillah wrote: »

Number 2 is confusing the hell out of me. At first it looks exactly like motion blur, but it's clearly way too bright for such a long exposure.

It's almost like you used a ND filter and came here to confuse us

Seriously though, the steps just behind the lady in the foreground look pretty sharp, but she herself is extremely blurry. I'm confused.

Er, could it be a printing error?

Hi Zillah, alas no, I didn't have a grad filter or tripod with me.

DaireQuinlan

Zillah wrote: »

Number 2 is confusing the hell out of me. At first it looks exactly like motion blur, but it's clearly way too bright for such a long exposure.

It's almost like you used a ND filter and came here to confuse us

Seriously though, the steps just behind the lady in the foreground look pretty sharp, but she herself is extremely blurry. I'm confused.

Er, could it be a printing error?

looks to me as though the focal point was on the church or infinity, and everything else is gradually more and more out of focus approaching the camera as you'd expect. The problem is in the OP, where trican seems to imply that she/he is shooting at as wide an aperture as possible. If you want stuff from near to far in focus then stop down to f/16 and focus at the hyperfocal distance. Checking out the ever useful DOFMaster site (http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html) for a 50mm thats about 17 feet, and everything from about 9 feet to infinity will be in acceptable focus.

Otherwise you just ahve to start making compromises with what you want in focus and out of focus ...