PDA

View Full Version : #3 - Controlling the DOF with your flash



jerryph
04-02-2008, 08:01 PM
We all know that a picture has a depth of field. As a photographer, we use depth of field (or DOF), as a way of zooming in the attention of the viewer to a broad area or tiny specific part of the picture to enhance it's effect. Normally, the subject will be in sharp focus, and other things fade into a blur. This blur is normally referred to as "bokeh".



Here is an example of a picture with a very deep DOF. Note that both characters are in perfect focus. This kind of DOF is controlled with the aperture. Using a small aperture (numerically higher number like F/16) will result in a deep DOF:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2379/2230616818_813c6220fc.jpg

This is an example of a picture with a very shallow DOF. Note that now, only one of the characters is in perfect focus, but the other is very blured. The main topic of the picture is in focus. This kind of DOF is controlled with the aperture. Using a large aperture (numerically smaller number like F/1.4) will result in a shallow DOF:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2089/2229823445_bb83fde52f.jpg

This concept can be extended to the off-camera strobe world, but not so much to control bokeh, but light. This time, instead of just controlling shutter speed, ISO and aperture, we add another ingredient to the mix, and that is light intensity via off camera strobe.

By controlling this trio of parameters (ISO, aperture and shutter speed), we control the depth of field, but if we add the control light intensity, we easily control the depth of field of the picture, though not with bokeh... but background lightness and darkness.


Allow me to demonstrate with a very basic example:


In this first picture, we have a subject (a card reader, how interesting... lol). Note that we have used a light amount of bokeh to try to remove the background and keep it from distracting from the main point of interest, but in the back we have what appears to be a wall unit or cabinet of some sort, and a really distracting bowl of sweets that is taking away from our master piece. Our goal, using basically light alone, is to reduce the "presence" of not just that bowl, but the entire backgound. In this first pic, manual flash at 1/16th power output was used and simply bounced upwards (kinda sorta).
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3177/2383301920_d967fd9572.jpg

In the picture below, all I have done is focus the strobe so it is just on the subject that I want to bring attention to, but it is now set to 1/32nd power output. Note that the background is eliminated (darkened), but that bowl is still a distracting element in the background.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2165/2383301744_2f65be457e.jpg

Ok, now we are again a little closer to reaching our goal, but not quite there. The strobe is now set to 1/16th power output
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2075/2383301592_4f854359f2.jpg

Now in this one we are almost there! You can see now that the offending bowl in the back is almost hidden! The strobe is now set to 1/8th power output
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3186/2383301440_086af2d039.jpg


If I wanted to complete the exercise, I would have taken yet one more picture with flash intensity increased to 1/4th output and the bowl in the background would have been hidden in darkness, but I think the point has been made, right? We have just demonstrated how to use a strobe to control our visible depth of field.

Ok, so in what ways could this info be used? Easy, let me give you a great example. Let's say you have a picture to take in the house, it's evening, and your home ambient lighting is barely ok but not enough to get the shot that you want. We can use a camera mounted flash and get the picture, yes? Yes, you can, but how will it look? Filled with strong shadows and with very bright well exposed and FLAT appearing subjects.

What if you wanted to take a picture of a complete room? Why not lower shutter speed a little, increase ISO a little and then slowly start adding some small amounts of broad, white, diffused light into the room (usually bounced for best effect) until you get the amount of light needed. You will likely be surprised at how little light is needed to get that shot. Without the flash, what will it look like? Well, without flash, it will be dark (lol). Ok, what if I raise ISO? At high too high an ISO, it will look too grainy.

Solution? Set ISO to lower levels (around 200-400?), and add a little flash to the room to raise it to just the minimum that you need to get the wide expanse of the well lit room... but do NOT raise your shutter speed to 1/250th, set it to something between 1/60th to 1/125th. By keeping your shutter speed relatively slow, you get a well lit subject and a slow enough shutter speed to capture the local ambeint light as well. Like this, you get a very natural picture PLUS you can use a smaller aperture for greater visual DOF!

How about the inverse? Now we want to highlight the subject, but not show that ugly painting on the wall behind them, perhaps? Of course we could use bokeh and blur it out, but what would be even better is get the light source closer and crank up the power of the strobe much more. This means that we will need to increase shutter speed (to our max sync speed), and/or decrease aperture (higher numerically!), and the effect is that we will get a darker background (you will likely need to very strategically aim the flash more at the subject instead of bouncing in this case!), the effect would be hiding that horrid painting from being in the picture (ok, maybe its not that horried, but we want a way to lessen it's distracting presence in the picture). This is a great way to do just that!

Another example... where have we seen these ideas effectively used in concepts in manners that are familiar to us? How many of you have taken a picture of a strong light source behind our subjects? Many, I bet. What was the effect? A silhouette... or if your settings were "off" a little, a subject that was close to being hidden in shadow and poorly visible. If one took that same scenario, and lit the subjects via an off camera flash aimed and poweed to expose the subjects properly, we would have a well lit background (thanks to the seting sun in the background), and subjects that are clearly visible (thanks to our flash).

The concepts of using bokeh to hide the background or increased intensities of light sources and smaller apertures may initially be a little confusing, but with a little practice, you have just added another tool to your tool box, and as we know... variety is the spice of life!

Using differing ratios of brightness to light our subject from side to side or front to rear, or anything in between, will give us different results. Many of these results have been used since photography first started and given names like "Rembrant", "Butterfly" and "Open Loop". In our next section, we will take a look at a few of these "standard" or established lighting methods and see how they work, and what the effects are on our "model".

Snappers
04-03-2008, 10:41 AM
Thanks Jerry for another informative article. It is so much easier to understand when you have the pictures in too.

What would be your recommendations on strobes? Best ones to buy etc?
any ideas?

dkippen
04-03-2008, 02:24 PM
Jerry - another great article even if it is over my head. Still haven't used the flash, but I do like reading your "tutorials."

jerryph
04-03-2008, 03:26 PM
Jerry - another great article even if it is over my head. Still haven't used the flash, but I do like reading your "tutorials."

Debbie, maybe if I make it clearer by using another example. Have you ever been to a play or at a concert? There are 2 scenarios that happen there that we are basically duplicating with light (just in a smaller manner).

First scenario is before the concert starts and all the lights are on in the whole building. If I represent the building lights as a flash, and I took a picture of the stage while I was standing way back at the rear of the building, what would I see if I looked at that picture? Well I would see the stage and the seats, walls and ceiling all pretty clearly, yes?

Second scenario is that now that concert has started... and they now hve turned down the house lights and leave only the stage lit. My flash is now represented by the lights focused only on the stage performers. If you took a second picture from the exact same location as last time, what would you see in that picture now? Well, the stage would be well lit, right? The difference now is that the seats, walls, ceiling would all be blacked out becuase the ratio of light hitting the stage versus the seats (for example) is vastly different.

We are doing the same thing in my example with the card reader and bowl of sweets. If the entire area is evenly lit, we see it all evenly. If I increase the light on the card reader and this is what I want a picture of, I have to do something in camera to adjust the exposure so that the card reader is not overexposed. So I may close down the aperture (move to a numerically higher value).

Now let's do that scenario again, but this time REALLY crank up the power of the light focused on the card reader. If I just took a picture without adjusting for it, the card reader would be surrounded by a small round area of white light (really overexposed) and the rear bowl would be well exposed. We don't want that, so we adjust (aperture, ISO or shutter speed, but no faster than what your maximum sync speed is, say 1/250th... above that, wierd things start to happen) to reduce the amount of light coming into the camera so that we properly expose the area where the card reader is. So what happens? Well, we cut down the camera's ability to capture the amount of light, so now the card reader is suddenly properly exposed. But what of the area ouside where the small round light ISN'T falling? Well its a little darker there, yes? The effect is that it is darker, and in the picture, depending on how much of a ratio of light difference it is, it can look like its either in a shadowed area, or in total darkness... or anything in between those two ranges, thanks to our ability to control the intensity of that light.

Does that make it easier to understand?

dkippen
04-03-2008, 03:33 PM
Much better. I'll add this to my file of techniques to try, boy, that list is getting long!!!

This weekends goal is for great outdoor shots with the grandsons.

jerryph
04-03-2008, 03:41 PM
Thanks Jerry for another informative article. It is so much easier to understand when you have the pictures in too.

What would be your recommendations on strobes? Best ones to buy etc?
any ideas?

It really depends on what you want to do. I think that just for a little fun around the house, all you need is a camera that you can set the internal built-in flash to manual or one that you can turn off the TTL on. The rest is pretty easy.

- one light stand for about 20 bucks
- one peanut optical trigger for about 20 bucks
- one battery powered strobe like a Sunpack for about 80 dollars

If one shops around it may be found for under $100, if you are lucky.

Then you just set it up and have fun!

If you are going to be doing complex pictures, you can add more flashes and expensive remote radio triggers as you learn. If you are wanting to get serious about it, you can get into the more expensive studio strobes, strip lights and umbrellas and softboxes and what not.

I have a single SB-800 and odler Metz battery powered strobes and 2 110V studio strobes and of course the flash built-in on my camera that I can play with, so am very lucky.

There is a tremendous DIY community out there for these kinds of things and it is easy to get all caught up in it. This summer I plan to do a LOT of playing with my camera, and the flash/strobe side is a big part of it. :)

jerryph
04-03-2008, 04:28 PM
Much better. I'll add this to my file of techniques to try, boy, that list is getting long!!!


I know! There are a million things I want to learn and try out in photography and have yet to make time for.

Stupid work... its cutting into my photography time! (lol!!)

dkippen
04-03-2008, 04:35 PM
Yes - stupid work.

Well, look at it this way, if I had the time to try out new techniques and go everywhere cool for photography, I couldn't afford to do it. And when I can afford to photograph and have the equipment, I don't have the time because of work.

Snappers
04-03-2008, 09:36 PM
Thanks for the advice Jerry.

LensBaby
04-03-2008, 10:37 PM
Andy as far as strobes...I really love my Alien Bees! I wish I had a little more time right now to mess around with them. Things will settle down in the next couple of weeks for me. The customer service with Alien Bees is wonderful! I am going to be buying some more stuff (now that I am in school I can get 10% off)