How do you get depth in photos?

Discussion in 'Photography Forums' started by snerkler, Aug 7, 2013.

  1. snerkler

    snerkler
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,120
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +11,831
    I'm not talking about DOF but depth of the picture/subject. I see other people's pictures and they almost look 3 dimensional, as though you can put your hand into the picture, whereas my pictures look flat. So how do you take pictures so they show depth?
     
  2. twist

    twist
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    16,315
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +4,992
  3. snerkler

    snerkler
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,120
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +11,831
    Thanks. When you say fast, do you mean wide aperture? So FF create better 'pop' than APS-C?

    Thanks for the link :smashin:
     
  4. twist

    twist
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    16,315
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +4,992
    Yes, IMO they do, crop owners sometimes argue this point by saying they can use a longer lens etc etc bla bla bla. All I know is after owning many crops, they definitely dont create the same pop as my FF cameras.

    Yeah fast lenses = wide aperture.
     
  5. twist

    twist
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    16,315
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +4,992
    I think you said you had a 300mm lens, try at 300mm Im guessing its a 5.6, that will isolate your subject more, problem with doing it this way is distance from subject when framing. You can also get closer to your subject with your 16-50 at 50mm 2.8 and it should give some nice shallow dof.
     
  6. snerkler

    snerkler
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,120
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +11,831
    Thanks for your help. I can create shallow DOF quite well, but I just don't seem to get that great 3D look/feel that I've seen. I appreciate that you say FF can get this better than APS-C, but I have seen some great depth/3D look with APS-C's such as the Canon 7D.

    Obviously I just need to keep practising, but I just wondered if there was some 'magic' way to achieve it. I guess there's a lot of factors, with lighting being an all important one?
     
  7. Jammyb

    Jammyb
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2006
    Messages:
    4,029
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Coventry
    Ratings:
    +576
    Then wack up the clarity slider in lightroom to increase microcontrast. Not too much though as that will create a blooming/glow around things.
     
  8. twist

    twist
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    16,315
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +4,992
    Yeah, this is good advice. Some lenses offer much better contrast than others eg. my Nikon 70-200 was better than my Sigma and images did pop a bit better because of it, even though they were the same FL at same apertures.
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2013
  9. snerkler

    snerkler
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,120
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +11,831
    Wow, that's definitely more of the look I was meaning, thanks :smashin:

    Is there a way that you can create that in the actual photo (or at least to some degree) or is it always done post production?
     
  10. twist

    twist
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    16,315
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +4,992
    Lenses, get spending.
     
  11. snerkler

    snerkler
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,120
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +11,831
    :laugh:

    Is there a specification or description that will guide you on this, or is it just a case of the more expensive the lens the more it will do this?

    I thought I'd got a pretty decent lens with my SOny 16-50mm f2.8 tbh.
     
  12. twist

    twist
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    16,315
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +4,992
    The 16-50 is a very good kit lens. Get yourself a nice Zeiss 24-70.
     
  13. Dancook

    Dancook
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    Messages:
    15,239
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +5,928
    How about this? there's supposed to be a special '3d look' about zeiss lenses.. that I try to capture sometimes.. I'm not sure if I've ever done it - this might be close?

    [​IMG]
    IMG_0250 by dancook1982, on Flickr

    another one I was trying for 3d...

    [​IMG]
    IMG_4897 by dancook1982, on Flickr
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2013
  14. snerkler

    snerkler
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,120
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +11,831
    Yep, that's more the look, although that is a bit 'miniature' looking imo. Is that all Zeiss lenses, or particular ones such as primes?
     
  15. twist

    twist
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    16,315
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +4,992
    Look at the EXIF, its shot at F1.4 on a FF camera thats something like F0.95 on a cropper, Dans blurred the foreground and background with the middle being in focus creating the effect.
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2013
  16. Dancook

    Dancook
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    Messages:
    15,239
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +5,928
    MAYBE what you want is this then? @1.2 (canon not zeiss)

    [​IMG]
    IMG_4324 by dancook1982, on Flickr

    Using a wide aperture to blur the foreground and background to capture an subject in between?
     
  17. twist

    twist
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    16,315
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +4,992
    ... Nice, you still manual focusing that lens?
     
  18. snerkler

    snerkler
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,120
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +11,831
    Yep, definitely getting there :smashin: One thing I've found is that if I'm using small f-numbers part of the face is in focus and some not, I guess I'm getting too close then if you can use an aperture this wide and still get the full face and body in focus.

    I'm learning so much it's great :clap:
     
  19. Dancook

    Dancook
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    Messages:
    15,239
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +5,928
    Thankfully not :smashin: the CZ is MF only, but I did some microfocus adjustment and the 1.2 is working great.

    yup, closer you get the smaller the depth of field.
     
  20. Jammyb

    Jammyb
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2006
    Messages:
    4,029
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Coventry
    Ratings:
    +576
    A lot of it is to do with how much microcontrast they can capture. Primes will normally be better than zooms.

    spend at least a few months working on your composition and technique before you start getting carried away with buying exotic lenses. The 16-50mm is a good lens and capable of great results.
     
  21. twist

    twist
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    16,315
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +4,992
    Glad to hear, really want one but cant justify at the moment, have to spend money on other things, boo.
     
  22. Dancook

    Dancook
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    Messages:
    15,239
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +5,928
    All my money's going on my wedding this month :thumbsup:
     
  23. DolbyDan

    DolbyDan
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2006
    Messages:
    2,103
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Canvey Island
    Ratings:
    +265
    Yep it's the micro-contrast and how lenses render the transition of the DOF. Zeiss and Leica prime lenses render DOF like no others. Professional Canon & Nikon tele-prime lenses also render nicely (not Zeiss like though), but have micro-contrast like no others. Fortunately there are a few gems out there that do it too. A lens that has low chromatic aberrations whilst sharp at a lowish aperture normally equates to very good micro-contrast. My 85mmF1.8G is one of them, but doesn't have the rendering of the Leica's or Zeiss', which is why the Zeiss 100mmF2 is high on my wish list, once (if ever) my mate wants his Sigma 105mmF2.8D back.
     
  24. twist

    twist
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    16,315
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +4,992
    Zeiss 100 F2, drool.
     
  25. Dancook

    Dancook
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    Messages:
    15,239
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +5,928
    There is a new Zeiss 135mm f2 that I was starting to like .. really a shame I can't have fast AF with that though.
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2013
  26. snerkler

    snerkler
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    21,120
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +11,831
    Thanks for the feedback guys, much appreciated. I won't be going out buying any new lenses just yet, but good to know that I can get the look I want if and when I ever get good enough.

    Thanks DolbyDan for explaining what to look for in a lens to get the microcontrast :smashin:
     
  27. JSW

    JSW
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,284
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Staffs
    Ratings:
    +333
    Bright colours work well too

    [​IMG]
     
  28. JSW

    JSW
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,284
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Staffs
    Ratings:
    +333
    Sony 85mm 2.8 can be had for £100 ish SH

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  29. JSW

    JSW
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,284
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Staffs
    Ratings:
    +333
    Sigma 105mm 2.8 OS HSM is beautiful but expensive, lucky I picked one up S/H as new for great price :)

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  30. JSW

    JSW
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,284
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Staffs
    Ratings:
    +333
    Sorry btw I like portraits if you hadn't already guessed ;)
     

Share This Page

Loading...
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice