Creative photography

[rhinorick]

Want richer, deeper details in your photos?  Especially in those close-up and macro shots?

Try reducing the size of your aperture - increasing the value to a higher number.

By reducing the aperture, you are also increasing the depth of field.  In other words, more of the shot will be in focus - things closer and things further away.  That way, more of your close subject will be in focus and the details will appear more focused and vivid.

It is quite difficult at times to focus on the correct spot in a macro shot. By increasing the depth of field, more of the subject will be in focus.

See the following example:



That photo was taken with an aperture value of f/10.  Notice how the butterfly's head is focused, which should be the primary point of focus, and the rest of its body and legs are also in focus, as well as most of the blooms of the flower.  Even its antennae and wings are in focus, which are much closer to the camera compared to its head.

If I had used a larger aperture (smaller number value), the head would have been in focus, but the wings and antennae would not have been, like in the following example:



Notice in that shot that the butterfly's wing tips and antennae are not nearly as focused as is its head.  And fewer of the flower petals are in focus.

So, to increase the depth of field, and therefore the details of the subject, reduce the aperture size.

[bdery]

Just a correction (mostly of wording) : by decreasing the aperture, you do increase the depth of field, but you do not improve the details captured. That is, you will get details sharp on a broader range of distances, but what was already sharp will not change much.

In fact, and especially with Point-and-shoot cameras, decreasing the aperture too much can very well lower the sharpness, because diffraction will occurr. Each lens has a "sweet spot" where it is sharpest.

Regarding macro photography, quite often the shallow depth of field is wanted to creeate an artistic effect, and to put the emphasis on something specific. The same is true for portraits, candids, etc. In fact, the only time when I would say it's systematically better to increase the depth of field is for landscapes.

[rhinorick]

I was told that once before ... and didn't quite buy it, so I wanted to prove it to myself.  The proof is in the above example photos.

As I said above, to get the most depth of field, so that "more of the subject will be in focus", use a smaller aperture.  As I stated ... "the details will appear more focused and vivid".

Since I wanted the details of the butterfly to be in focus, I used a smaller aperture.  That way, if I was slightly off on where I was focusing, it didn't matter as much, since I had a broader (deeper) range of focus.

It just helps in getting the right things in focus.

I hope that helps explains what I meant.

Also, as you can see in the above photos, I still get the "artistic effect" of a blurred background, since it is much further away.  

One rule I have learned in photography ... there is no hard and fast rule. Play around until you are happy with the results.

[Mike54]

In fact, and especially with Point-and-shoot cameras, decreasing the aperture too much can very well lower the sharpness, because diffraction will occurr. Each lens has a "sweet spot" where it is sharpest.

This is quite true of DSLR's as well. Once past f/16 you will see a fall off in quality. When shooting macro I try not to go beyond f/14 any more for this reason.

Regarding macro photography, quite often the shallow depth of field is wanted to create an artistic effect, and to put the emphasis on something specific.

If you're talking true macro (1:1 or more) the DOF is going to be quite shallow anyway. For example, if I were to take a 1:1 image of a common fly and focused on the prominent eye, in all likelyhood the other eye and most everything else would be somewhat out of focus.

The proof is in the above example photos.

Not quite. Your two photos are each from a different perspective. Shooting the skipper from the top allowed the antenna (for example) to be in focus on either side of the head as well as giving the impression of more focused area (due to a broader plane of view at a given distance). Shooting the same from the side, even with the same real DOF, is not going to give the same impression of focus.

FTR, I agree that more DOF is better for (true) macro as long as you're not losing something somewhere else.

[rhinorick]

So true about DOF for macro photos Mike.  Thank you for confirming that.

As far as the perspective of the two photos, look at the wings.  They are at pretty much the same distance relative to the camera.  The one is in focus, the other is quite blurry.  That is the main comparison in those two photos, since the wing tips are much closer to the camera than the head.  It shows quite a difference there.  

Fun stuff to play with.

I got some awesome photos of a praying mantis yesterday using this technique.    Macro shots.  From a bugs-eye-view.    I'm glad I wasn't a bug.