Aperture, DOF and background rendition for flowers

[GardenersHelper]

There was some discussion in A few from Wensum Park about using small apertures to get nicely out of focus backgrounds when photographing flowers. I have started a new thread about this because I wanted to post a number of examples but didn't want to hijack John's thread.

I generally like to get as much of a flower in focus as I can. This suggests using a small aperture to get plenty of DOF. However, this will tend to bring the background into focus, and I like out of focus backgrounds so the flower can stand out nicely against the background. This suggests using a large aperture to throw the background out of focus, but this will reduce the amount of the flower that is in focus.

In practice, I have found that depending on the circumstances I can use quite a variety of apertures to get effects that I like for both the subject and the background. I think that what aperture gives the (to my eye) most pleasing result depends on several things: the distance between the subject and the background, the direction I am shooting/the angle on the subject, the magnification, how much of the frame the flower occupies, the colours and shapes in the background and how they respond to changes in aperture, the illumination, and quite possibly some other things too.

Of course, the question of how much to throw the background out of focus is very much a matter of personal taste, as is the question of how much of the subject to have in focus. A lot of people like having just a thin slice of the subject in focus, much less than I go for. And a lot of people like extremely plain backgrounds, whereas I'm happy to have some variation of colour and shape in backgrounds as long as it seems to complement rather than "argue with" the subject.

This post has examples ranging from f/4.5 to f/20. The next post has examples from f/22 to f/32.

EDIT, these were captured with a 55-250 lens on a Canon 70D, which is an APS-C camera with a crop factor of 1.6. I have annotated each image with the 35mm equivalent focal length used to capture it. Bear in mind though that for most of these images there was probably a Canon 500D closeup lens on the 55-250. A few probably used the bare lens and one or two might have used the more powerful Raynox 150 closeup lens. I'm afraid I have no way of telling which setup was used for particular photos.

f/4.5, focal length 134mm (35mm equivalent)

0751 01 F4.5 0726 65 2015_05_20 IMG_3009 LR 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

f/5.6, focal length 134mm (35mm equivalent)

0751 02 F5.6 0725 023 2015_05_19 IMG_2760 LR 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

f/7.1, focal length 160mm (35mm equivalent)

0751 03 F7.1 0726 56 2015_05_20 IMG_2941 LR 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

f/9 , focal length 234mm (35mm equivalent)

0751 04 F9 0726 68 2015_05_20 IMG_3029 LR 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

f/11, focal length 187mm (35mm equivalent)

0751 05 F11 0726 61 2015_05_20 IMG_2992 LR 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

f/14, focal length 234mm (35mm equivalent)

0751 06 F14 0726 60 2015_05_20 IMG_2949 LR 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

f/16, focal length 216mm (35mm equivalent)

0751 07 F16 0725 022 2015_05_19 IMG_2733 LR 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

f/20, focal length 203mm (35mm equivalent)

0751 08 F20 0715 46 2015_04_22 IMG_0055 LR 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

Continued in next post ....

 

[GardenersHelper]

Continued from previous post ...

f/22, focal length 298mm (35mm equivalent)

0751 09 F22 0713 166 2015_04_17 IMG_8742 LR 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

f/22, focal length 400mm (35mm equivalent)

0751 10 F22 0569 30 2014_05_20 Session 5, creative shots by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

f/25, focal length 285mm (35mm equivalent)

0751 11 F25 0564 08 2014_05_19 Session 2 12pm to 1,30pm IMG_2317-Edit PS1 PSS3.43 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

f/25, focal length 298mm (35mm equivalent)

0751 12 F25 0713 015 2015_04_17 IMG_8596 LR 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

f/25, focal length 112mm (35mm equivalent)

0751 13 F25 0547 18 2014_04_02 IMG_0471-Edit PS1 PSS3.35 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

f/29, focal length 353mm (35mm equivalent)

0751 14 F29 0559 01 2014_05_09 IMG_9707-Edit PS1 PSS3.63 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

f/29, focal length 355mm (35mm equivalent)

0751 15 F29 0547 16 2014_04_02 IMG_0426-Edit PS1 PSS3.10 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

f/32, focal length 288mm (35mm equivalent)

0751 16 F32 0718 15 2015_04_28 IMG_1079 LR 1300h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

 

[DayDreamer]

Nick great informative post - thanks so much.

 

[GardenersHelper]

Nick great informative post - thanks so much.

Thanks John.

 

[Phal]

One of the main reasons I rarely go past F9 or thereabouts is down to available light (To be able to use apertures past there you either need a tripod and no wind or a flash). Just something else to consider

 

[IanClark]

An excellent series of shots showing the differences between distance, angle and aperture relationships. Lots of nice shots here too.

F/5.6 has retained some lovely background detail whilst maintaining love OOF detail too.

F/20 is just absolutley gorgeous. Wonderfuly detail, exposure and creamy background.,

F/22 for the same reasons as F/20. It also looks particuarlyl rude

I'm very surprised at how well the image at F/32 has worked. Nice and sharp with a lovely soft background.,

 

[GardenersHelper]

One of the main reasons I rarely go past F9 or thereabouts is down to available light (To be able to use apertures past there you either need a tripod and no wind or a flash). Just something else to consider

Yes, it's tricky, especially as I live in a windy location and never use flash for flowers. There are lots of compromises to be balanced.

I raise ISO more than some people will, which impacts the post processing requirements. I sometimes use fairly slow shutter speeds hand-held, which raises the failure rate. The frequent breeze also ups the failure rate as well. Because of the failure rates I do a lot of repeats and spend time sorting through sometimes large numbers of images.

I'm happy using a tripod (I have a rather strange one that lets me get at odd angles), but I rarely use it in classic hands-off (with IS off) mode with a remote release. I usually use it hand-on (with IS on), which lets me use slower shutter speeds than would otherwise be possible and helps keep the framing steady as I try different angles, exploring the effects on backgrounds, and do repeat captures. For several months now I've been having a rest from using a tripod, enjoying the flexibility and speed of working hand-held, but I expect I'll be using a tripod again before too long.

I think my most used apertures are probably around f/13, but I don't track that sort of thing, and I bounce around a lot between apertures, exploring the effect on backgrounds and on subject coverage.

 

[GardenersHelper]

An excellent series of shots showing the differences between distance, angle and aperture relationships. Lots of nice shots here too.

Thanks Ian.

F/5.6 has retained some lovely background detail whilst maintaining love OOF detail too.

I think that's one where views may differ a lot. For example, based on previous conversations I suspect Bryn @Tintin124 might regard that as a cluttered and distracting background. As you can see from these, my preference with flowers is for a bit of mild clutter in backgrounds.

F/20 is just absolutley gorgeous. Wonderfuly detail, exposure and creamy background.,

That is one of my favourites. I'm really glad you like it. It was a strange shot, I had the camera jammed against the ground, at a very awkward angle, pointing sharply upwards. It is the sort of shot that would be more or less impossible using the viewfinder, but with the articulated LCD it (just) worked). The flowers were quite small and would have been fairly close to the camera (not sure how close - that depends on which achromat I used). The camera was (I think) pointing up at a branch on big old tree, and the subject to background distance was very large compared to the camera to subject distance.

It was the way the light worked which made it for me. That's the sort of effect I can only discover by experimentation. Sometimes something magical comes into view, and the angle can be very specific indeed. I have had occasions when (stupidly) before trying to capture a shot I have tried to improve the effect, only to lose it completely and not be able to get it back again because I couldn't rediscover the precise alignment. And of course the light can change very quickly too, especially when you are working under a canopy of moving foliage, although I don't think that was an issue for this shot.

F/22 for the same reasons as F/20. It also looks particuarlyl rude

Well, now you mention it ....

I'm very surprised at how well the image at F/32 has worked. Nice and sharp with a lovely soft background.,

Well, as you know Ian, I have a thing about what can be done with small apertures. More so with invertebrates of course, for which I almost always use minimum aperture, but it applies to flowers too. I think that increased DOF can create an impression/perception of greater sharpness and overwhelm the diffraction sharpness loss issues.

One serendipitous thing I noticed about this shot that I found amusing was that it is the shot with the smallest aperture, but happens to be (I didn't plan it this way) the one with the smoothest background (along with the first of the f/29 shots).

 

[Jwar1976]

Thank you ever so much for creating this thread Nick, lovely photographs & a lot of extremely useful information for newbies like myself

 

[Tintin124]

f20 is my personal favourite, interesting thread was different zoom lengths used in the shooting of these as there are various factors which effect the background not just aperture... larger zooms compress the backgrounds more which allows them to blur easier.

But still a highly interesting thread.

 

[GardenersHelper]

was different zoom lengths used in the shooting of these as there are various factors which effect the background not just aperture... larger zooms compress the backgrounds more which allows them to blur easier.

Good point. I have added the 35mm equivalent focal length along with the aperture. However, as noted in the EDIT note I've added above the first image, there is also the issue of which achromat, if any, was used for each shot, and I have no way of knowing that as I don't keep notes about setups while I'm shooting. (I've tried occasionally, but it destroyed the creative flow, so I quickly stopped. I never managed more than a few minutes before giving up.)

But still a highly interesting thread.

Thanks Bryn.

 

[Jwar1976]

Well today I done an experimentation of the different aperture settings with centre point focus only, at the local Plantation gardens & here are the results

https://www.flickr.com/photos/123892097@N03/sets/72157654312030984

 

[Paul Iddon]

I like the simplicity of the tulip.

Paul.

 

[GardenersHelper]

Well today I done an experimentation of the different aperture settings with centre point focus only, at the local Plantation gardens & here are the results

https://www.flickr.com/photos/123892097@N03/sets/72157654312030984

I think it is a great idea to do experiments like that. I think the images show clearly that using small apertures can reduce the shutter speed to the point where it can be difficult to get a sharp image. Apart from the last half dozen or so, the captures at small apertures like f/20 to f/29 are generally not sharp, whilst the captures with small apertures like f/2.8 and f/4 have very fast shutter speeds and are sharp, but only in a very narrow band. Finding the right balance of shutter speed, aperture and ISO, so as to get a good combination of sharpness and depth of field, is a bit of an art I think.

 

[Jwar1976]

I think it is a great idea to do experiments like that. I think the images show clearly that using small apertures can reduce the shutter speed to the point where it can be difficult to get a sharp image. Apart from the last half dozen or so, the captures at small apertures like f/20 to f/29 are generally not sharp, whilst the captures with small apertures like f/2.8 and f/4 have very fast shutter speeds and are sharp, but only in a very narrow band. Finding the right balance of shutter speed, aperture and ISO, so as to get a good combination of sharpness and depth of field, is a bit of an art I think.

Yes I agree with you 100% there, as every location is different not to mention the weather. It seemed strange switching to the centre focusing point after doing quite a lot of shots under the expanded zone, but I will continue to use that for the time being and see which subjects get the best results on the different focusing points. Also you are correct it is an art as you can be so creative when taking a photo with or without things like lensbaby & before PP where you can indulge in the likes of HDR if you wish.

 

[LCPete]

Really interesting Nick as always and very interesting that the focal length and distance from the background seem to have more of an effect on background smoothness than the aperture
As you say the F32 shot has the smoothest background
It also shows that there is a big advantage in having a zoom rather than a fixed lens for close ups in that you seem to be able to choose the background effect that you want
As already said it can be difficult to use a small aperture tho I often can't go past F8 and get a decent shutter speed
Really nice set too Nick

 

[GardenersHelper]

Really interesting Nick as always and very interesting that the focal length and distance from the background seem to have more of an effect on background smoothness than the aperture
As you say the F32 shot has the smoothest background
It also shows that there is a big advantage in having a zoom rather than a fixed lens for close ups in that you seem to be able to choose the background effect that you want
As already said it can be difficult to use a small aperture tho I often can't go past F8 and get a decent shutter speed
Really nice set too Nick

Thanks Pete.

Interesting point about using a zoom lens. I stay in one place and use the zoom to alter the framing/magnification, and alter the background by altering the aperture (which obviously also affects the DOF, and those two aspects can conflict of course). What I don't do is to alter the distance to the subject and use the zoom to get back to the same framing. This should alter the background while leaving DOF unchanged. Hmmm..... I need to experiment with that. Thanks Pete.

On the shutter speed front, am I perhaps using higher ISOs and slower shutter speeds than you? With slower shutter speeds, especially as I'm not using a tripod at the moment, I take multiple shots to try to get one that is sharp (enough). Often this multiple shot approach is tied in with waiting for a flower etc to stop moving, or at least slow down its movement, and that applies just as much when using a tripod as hand held. But it addresses the hand held camera movement issue too. You just need to be prepared to wade through loads of shots looking for a good (enough) one. I'll sometimes take several tens of shots of a scene from a particular angle trying to get one that works, especially in breezy conditions.

 

[chris malcolm]

Very helpful post! Thanks! I've been meaning to try these kinds of experiments for months, nearly a year in fact. You've confirmed my hopes for tiny apertures at close distances. I've suspected for some time that the effects of aperture size are much more relative to other parameters than the conventional wisdom of the bokeh hounds suggrests. I've noticed from my own experiments that the softening due to diffraction, unlike that due to camera (or subject) movement, sharpens up nicely in pp. I shall get out stalking wild flowers as soon as summer arrives

 

[GardenersHelper]

What I don't do is to alter the distance to the subject and use the zoom to get back to the same framing. This should alter the background while leaving DOF unchanged. Hmmm..... I need to experiment with that.

I was thinking about this while trimming the hedge (using a nice new toy, a trimmer on a pole. Makes things much easier). Most of the time I have an achromat on whichever camera I'm using. Achromats have a (more or less) fixed working distance, so you can't alter the distance and zoom to reframe. So the only time I could use this technique is when I'm not using an achromat, which pretty much means when I'm using the bare 55-250 on the 70D for flowers. It doesn't really apply for large insects such as butterflies, dragonflies etc, because I'm generally trying to get as close as I can to maximise the magnification.

 

[GardenersHelper]

Very helpful post! Thanks! I've been meaning to try these kinds of experiments for months, nearly a year in fact. You've confirmed my hopes for tiny apertures at close distances. I've suspected for some time that the effects of aperture size are much more relative to other parameters than the conventional wisdom of the bokeh hounds suggrests.

This is one of several subjects on which I have periodic .... discussions ... in which I seem to be out of tune with the conventional wisdom.

I've noticed from my own experiments that the softening due to diffraction, unlike that due to camera (or subject) movement, sharpens up nicely in pp.

Absolutely. And what's more, the doubling of DOF you get with each two stops decrease in aperture can give an overall impression of greater sharpness even if the sharpest areas are not as sharp. In my "discussions" I sometimes use this example (larger version and full size versions of the individual images here).


Wasp composite by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

In this post at dpreview (taken from this thread, which was rather more restrained and polite than some of these discussions) I illustrated the point with smallest available aperture shots from

• APS-C dSLR: 70D+55-250
• Micro Four Thirds: G3+45-175
  
• Bridge cameras: FZ200, SX10 and S3
  
• P&S: SX240

I shall get out stalking wild flowers as soon as summer arrives

Still no flowers where you are?

I don't use very small apertures nearly as much for flowers as I do for invertebrates. I almost always use the smallest available aperture for invertebrates (unless the subject is small in the frame for an "environmental" shot). I have to work quite hard to find minimum aperture examples with flowers. On APS-C I tend to gravitate around f/9 to f/14 for flowers, but I go as far as I can in both directions from time to time, whatever camera I'm using.

 

[nass]

I've been asking myself much the same question recently, but I went into the low aperture/creamy background tent. But tricky, because dof is so small that the subject is also not always fully in focus. One thing about these tests though is that they're not testing the same thing - ie the distance cam <-> subj matters but also distance subj <-> background, which differs in some of these examples. I think it'd also be useful to have a test at all apertures for the same shot - that's how I've been testing my own preference.

 

[GardenersHelper]

I've been asking myself much the same question recently, but I went into the low aperture/creamy background tent. But tricky, because dof is so small that the subject is also not always fully in focus.

Yes, it's a balance isn't it. I range right over all the available apertures on a shot by shot basis. I quite often take shots with different apertures and decide later which one(s), if any, to use. I don't do that so much now. I don't know if that is because I'm getting to know better what I like and am better able to recognise it when I see it on the camera LCD, or because I'm becoming lazy and/or falling into habits. A bit of both perhaps.

One thing about these tests though is that they're not testing the same thing - ie the distance cam <-> subj matters but also distance subj <-> background, which differs in some of these examples. I think it'd also be useful to have a test at all apertures for the same shot - that's how I've been testing my own preference.

Ah, these weren't intended as test shots to show how backgrounds vary with changes in aperture. I was initially intending simply to illustrate the fact that you can in some circumstances get nice backgrounds even when using very small apertures, but I extended the post(s) to show that you can, depending on the circumstances, get nice backgrounds with apertures from the smallest to the largest. I mentioned in the OP that one of the (several) things the look of the background depends on is the distance between the subject and the background. The distance between the camera and the subject isn't something that I can vary much when using achromats (usually the Canon 500D for flowers), although obviously for a particular framing of the subject I can, since I use a zoom lens, offset working distance against focal length when using a bare lens.

Good idea to use the same framing with different apertures to illustrate the effect on the look of backgrounds (and on the DOF coverage, or not, of the subject). I'm sure I've done that before but I don't think I can find a link to it now! I'll do another one, although the most suitable flowers for such an exercise are mostly or even all over now. I'll see what I can do. (Or perhaps you would like to share one or more of your test series? That would be good if you were so inclined.)

 

[nass]

Ahhhhhh, I totally misread the point of the thread then . Already binned all mine!

 

[GardenersHelper]

Ahhhhhh, I totally misread the point of the thread then . Already binned all mine!

Not to worry Johan. I think it's a really good idea and I've done an exercise this morning. I'll try to write it up later today. I'll put it in a separate thread as those who have already looked at this thread probably won't return to it.