# Aperture question



## Rollei12 (Feb 4, 2015)

I was out on a shoot and tried to take a picture of a tree.  It was a mid-up (middle to top of tree) shot with mountains in the back.  I figured I could work the settings like a do when shooting things close up and want a nice blurry background...open the aperture up wide.

So I shot the tree (200 feet away or less) at F3.5 (after zooming in some) and set everything else accordingly for a correct exposure.  When the photos from the roll came back from the developer everything in that shot was in focus.  Nothing was blurry.  What did I do wrong?  How can I "throw" the depth of field further ahead?  Say a tree or some object is 200-500 feet away.  How can I have that in focus but the background out of focus?


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 4, 2015)

This really isn't a film question (unless the issue is with the film), but more a lens question.

What focal length were you using?


----------



## photoguy99 (Feb 4, 2015)

That is going to be pretty hard.

I would suggest focusing on something closer than the tree. If you focus on one thing, stuff closer and further away is still pretty sharp, right? The amount of stuff that's sharp is your depth of field.

Put the tree at the very back of the stuff that's pretty sharp. So stuff up real close is sharp. You're focused, maybe, halfway between yourself and the tree, and the tree is still pretty sharp too, but after that it starts to get soft. If you're lucky the mountains will be a blur.

Experiment. Take a lot of shots. Bits are free.

You were probably shooting at what's called hyperfocal distance (you can just look that up on Wikipedia where the explanation will be better than what I can dash out)


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 4, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> ....... Take a lot of shots. Bits are free........




Ummmmm.......



Rollei12 said:


> ...........  When the photos from the roll came back from the developer .........


----------



## Light Guru (Feb 4, 2015)

Rollei12 said:


> I shot the tree (200 feet away or less) at F3.5



Your too far away.


----------



## Ysarex (Feb 4, 2015)

Simple answer is you can't. Your tree is too far away and the magnification is too small -- the background will be in focus.

Let's say you moved up to an 8x10 camera -- that'll help with the magnification problem. Then if the tree isn't too tall  at 200 feet you could frame it with a 360mm lens. That lens is going to be wide open at f/5.6 -- you've still got 300 feet of DOF. Want to move up to an 11x14 inch camera?

Joe


----------



## photoguy99 (Feb 4, 2015)

Good point about the bits. Film is not free 

Let me amend that. Get a digital camera of similar characteristics to your film camera, and experiment with that! Bits are free!


----------



## photoguy99 (Feb 4, 2015)

Fussing around on dofmaster suggests strongly that you're not going to get the mountains to be a blur no matter what. You can make them look, I think, distinctly soft, but they'll look mildly out of focus, not actually 'a blur'

It's optics and it's complicated. Depth of field gets bigger pretty fast as distances increase.


----------



## Rollei12 (Feb 4, 2015)

Ysarex said:


> Simple answer is you can't. Your tree is too far away and the magnification is too small -- the background will be in focus.
> 
> Let's say you moved up to an 8x10 camera -- that'll help with the magnification problem. Then if the tree isn't too tall  at 200 feet you could frame it with a 360mm lens. That lens is going to be wide open at f/5.6 -- you've still got 300 feet of DOF. Want to move up to an 11x14 inch camera?
> 
> Joe



Thanks.  The question is about taking what I can do with a flower and putting that towards something far away.  If I can take a photo of a flower and have bushes in the background blurry, I wanted to put that towards a tree 200 feet away and have the mountains behind that blurry.  I guess I can't do that now


----------



## weepete (Feb 5, 2015)

You should be able to do it but probably not at the distance you want. It sounds to me like you need to think about it slightly differently and use a wider lens to get closer to the tree which in theory could keep the same framing but throw the background out of focus. Or you could always blur the background more in post. You may also need a larger aperture than 3.5 depending on the situation.

What focal length were you using?


----------



## compur (Feb 5, 2015)

Depth of Field isn't only dependent on aperture. It also decreases with lens focal length and increases with lens distance to subject.


----------



## Ysarex (Feb 5, 2015)

Rollei12 said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > Simple answer is you can't. Your tree is too far away and the magnification is too small -- the background will be in focus.
> ...



It's the nature of the beast as they say. DOF distilled down is a function of magnification and f/stop. You can swap things around like lens focal length and how far away you are but in the end it all boils down to magnification and f/stop with magnification being the dominant factor. When you photograph a flower the magnification is high. Conceivably a very tiny flower can be photographed at a magnification of X1 -- in other words the image of the flower on your film is physically the same size as the flower. As objects get bigger (and film/sensors are pretty small) you quickly get into magnifications of X.0x where the image of the object on film is a small fraction of the real size of the object. As magnification decreases DOF increases rapidly. The effect of the lens f/stop only goes so far -- it is a lesser effect.

200 feet is pretty far away even for a large tree, but at half that distance (100 feet) you'll still have the same basic situation. You're likely working at a magnification of X.00x. You can increase magnification by making the film bigger, that's why I mentioned the 8x10 camera, but realistically we're all walking around with tiny little pieces of film and/or even smaller sensors. So if you're going to frame a large tree and leave some room to place it in the environment and you're using a hand camera of some type, even at f/2 it's all going to be within the limits of DOF -- DOF will reach infinity behind the tree.

Joe


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 5, 2015)

Full-frame SLR.
100mm lens @ f/3.5
Focus at 200 ft.
FOV is 72 x 48 ft.
DOF is 169-276 ft.


But that's just one possible scenario.  We'd need to know what focal length was used.


----------



## timor (Feb 5, 2015)

Rollei12, maybe time to read something. It may improve an understanding of terms you and we are using. Donald Krehbiel has nice and informative website called "Minox, Metol & Macintosh". Read it.


----------



## sm4him (Feb 5, 2015)

Rollei12 said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > Simple answer is you can't. Your tree is too far away and the magnification is too small -- the background will be in focus.
> ...



Sure you can.  You just need an ITTY, BITTY little tree, so you can get close enough to it and still have it in the frame with the mountains in the background.  I'd suggest taking a bonsai tree out with you. Set it down on a hill with the mountains in the distance, and BOOM! In-focus tree, out of focus mountains!!


----------



## Torus34 (Feb 5, 2015)

In this instance, the tree was certainly not close enough for good old DOF to work its magic.

There's another little technique which will help maximize background blur.  Focus on the nearer object that you wish to have in sharp focus.  Then use the distance scale on the lens barrel to transfer that distance to the further distance of the DOF lines on the barrel for the f-stop you're using.  That, coupled with a wide lens opening, will help get the dog walked.


----------



## christopher walrath (Feb 5, 2015)

To add to Torus' comment.  Find the DOF lines on the lens barrel that correspond to your aperture.  Set the symbol for infinity just beyond the space between those lines.  Bear in mind, though, that that far out, you just might smerge 200 feet right along with infinity.


----------



## Rollei12 (Feb 5, 2015)

The focal length of my lens is 35-70mm.  I was using my Nikon FM-2.


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 5, 2015)

That's still a lot of various FLs.  It would be nice to know what FL you were using.


----------



## Rollei12 (Feb 5, 2015)

480sparky said:


> That's still a lot of various FLs.  It would be nice to know what FL you were using.



More specifically?  I'm bad at taking notes (I'm going to start with my next new roll!).  All I did was look at the tree through the lens, zoom in on it till it gave a nice framed shot, and then took the photo.  Playing with the camera right now, I'm guessing I was roughly in the 55-60mm area.


----------



## bribrius (Feb 5, 2015)

wheres the pic?


----------



## Buckster (Feb 6, 2015)

DOF calculator says that with a full frame (35mm), f/3.6, 55mm, to get a DOF that ends at about 200 feet away and everything beyond that begins to go out of focus, you'd need to focus on something about 64 feet away from you.

I use digital laser distance measuring tools (rangefinders) for stuff like that.  You use it to get the actual distance to the tree, then use the DOF calculator, then laser distance to an object where you need to be focused to get the DOF you want.


----------



## christopher walrath (Feb 6, 2015)

Oooooo.  I likey, Buck.  I think one of those laser rangefinders just might fit in the bag with the 4x5.  Good thinkin'.


----------



## timor (Feb 7, 2015)

Buckster said:


> DOF calculator says that with a full frame (35mm), f/3.6, 55mm, to get a DOF that ends at about 200 feet away and everything beyond that begins to go out of focus, you'd need to focus on something about 64 feet away from you.
> 
> I use digital laser distance measuring tools (rangefinders) for stuff like that.  You use it to get the actual distance to the tree, then use the DOF calculator, then laser distance to an object where you need to be focused to get the DOF you want.


Good luck with focusing 55mm lens on such a distance. Maybe coupling antiaircraft rangefinder with the camera would help ?


----------



## Buckster (Feb 7, 2015)

timor said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > DOF calculator says that with a full frame (35mm), f/3.6, 55mm, to get a DOF that ends at about 200 feet away and everything beyond that begins to go out of focus, you'd need to focus on something about 64 feet away from you.
> ...


He focused on the tree at 200 feet away.  Why couldn't he focus on an object 64 feet away?


----------



## timor (Feb 7, 2015)

Buckster said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...


I want to see that lens. And that camera.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 7, 2015)

timor said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > timor said:
> ...


He said it's a 35-70mm on a Nikon FM2.  So why can't that lens and camera be focused on something 64 ft away?


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 7, 2015)

Pray tell... how do you know you're focused at 64 feet on that lens?  It's somewhere between the marks for 15 feet and infinity.  But let the rest of us cretins know how to do so without somehow focusing at 135 feet or 32.338 feet or 1,732¼ feet.


----------



## photoguy99 (Feb 7, 2015)

More to the point, dof calculators are no good at telling you what 'out of focus' will look like.

In this context the mountains are going to look 'kinda soft' but not blurred out, if you do what buckster (and before that, I) suggested.

The OP might find that satisfactory but that is not my impression.


----------



## timor (Feb 7, 2015)

It is only small format. At 10 times enlargement everything gonna look kind of soft. Even faster, if OP used TX or HP5 and develop in something like D76. Did he use a tripod ? MLU ? Wait, FM2 doesn't have it. Point is, that shakes may have influence which might be mistaken for focusing or processing problems. Anyway at the distance of 64 and 1000 feet the CoC are very much of the same size with 55 mm lens (or 70 for that matter) so basically everything past 30 feet mark will be equality sharp or unsharp in the frame. One gonna have to enlarge it 15 to 20 times to stert to see the difference. (If the quality of the film will be good enough).


----------



## Buckster (Feb 7, 2015)

480sparky said:


> Pray tell... how do you know you're focused at 64 feet on that lens?  It's somewhere between the marks for 15 feet and infinity.  But let the rest of us cretins know how to do so without somehow focusing at 135 feet or 32.338 feet or 1,732¼ feet.


Same way you focus on the tree or anything else. What's the mystery?

Laser measure to something 64 ft away, focus on it, then recompose without refocusing.


----------



## timor (Feb 7, 2015)

How ? With no markings on the lens beyond 30 feet and tiny focusing screen. Plus aperture of 3.5 is too dark for much of precision. But solution would be to hire you I guess.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 7, 2015)

Good gravy!

Stand 64 ft from something. Car, tree, anything you can focus on. You can tell when you're 64 ft away because you have a LASER measuring rangefinder.

Focus on it.

Then go back to the shooting spot, compose the scene, and shoot.

You guys really have to have that explained to you?


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 7, 2015)

Buckster said:


> Same way you focus on the tree or anything else. What's the mystery?
> 
> Laser measure to something 64 ft away, focus on it, then recompose without refocusing.



This is silly. Why drag along a laser rangefinder, measure 64 feet to the tree, then just turn the focus ring until the tree is in focus?

Why not just turn the focus ring and focus on the tree? 64 feet is as meaningless to this discussion as much as whether it was a pine trees or an oak tree.

What purpose does the rangefinder serve? What good is knowing the distance of 64 feet do me?


----------



## Buckster (Feb 7, 2015)

It's not 64 ft to the tree that's measured.

"Dragging along" a little handheld rangefinder isn't the chores your wording suggests.

Read my first post in this thread to understand the 64 ft. It's about answering the OP's questions.


----------



## photoguy99 (Feb 7, 2015)

I think you can also focus on the tree, and then look at your lens closely as you refocus, moving the center point over to the far-limit mark for the aperture you're using.

In this context that will be an extremely small movement but I think the method is generally useful.


----------



## Dave442 (Feb 7, 2015)

My first thought is that the final result with blurred mountains is not going to make the shot that much better. But if it needs to be done then I like Buck's solution. Not having a laser rangefinder I find something that looks to be the 65 feet away and focus on that and then recompose. Would probably also hit the DOF preview, but probably would not show much change at the wide aperture.  The other option is to zoom in and then make a pano shot and stitch in post, that should give a smaller depth of field.


----------



## Rollei12 (Feb 7, 2015)

So here is the picture.  If anyone is still wondering what process I did, I believe I zoomed in on the tree, focused on the tree (opened at 3.5) and took the shot.  I didn't mean to cause any arguments...


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 7, 2015)

Me, I'd forget the rangefinder and just do a bit of focus bracketing.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 7, 2015)

480sparky said:


> Me, I'd forget the rangefinder and just do a bit of focus bracketing.


That's a lot more fun with digital. Not so much when burning film

Rangefinders are very handy tools for lots of things, not very expensive, and take up very little room.


----------



## photoguy99 (Feb 7, 2015)

If you've got an older MF camera like the OP it has a built in dof calculator so you can ditch the rangefinder and separate dof calculator.

Plus you'll see the futility of it in this particular case.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 7, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> If you've got an older MF camera like the OP it has a built in dof calculator so you can ditch the rangefinder and separate dof calculator.
> 
> Plus you'll see the futility of it in this particular case.


When did a Nikon FM2 become a medium format camera? Mine uses 35mm film. Did I get ripped off?

Eta... Oh you mean manual focus. Lol.


----------



## christopher walrath (Feb 7, 2015)

I am sorry.  But going back through the last 20 posts or so and the breakneck give and take, this thread is kind of really funny.


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 7, 2015)

Buckster said:


> That's a lot more fun with digital. Not so much when burning film........



Experience keeps one from using an entire roll of 36x.  Given the information I've garnered from this thread, 3 frames should do it.



Buckster said:


> ]When did a Nikon FM2 become a medium format camera? Mine uses 35mm film. Did I get ripped off?
> 
> Eta... Oh you mean manual focus. Lol.



No, FM stands for Format, Medium.


----------



## timor (Feb 7, 2015)

Rollei12 said:


> So here is the picture.  If anyone is still wondering what process I did, I believe I zoomed in on the tree, focused on the tree (opened at 3.5) and took the shot.  I didn't mean to cause any arguments...


looks like everything is blurry. But I would attribute it to shake of the hand.


Buckster said:


> Good gravy!
> 
> Stand 64 ft from something. Car, tree, anything you can focus on. You can tell when you're 64 ft away because you have a LASER measuring rangefinder.
> 
> ...


the sharpness of something at 64 feet in the focusing screen will be the same like sharpness of something at 80 feet away. On the barrel of the lens there is no markings for that, so setting the lens would be only a guess. Laser rangefinder is pointless IMO. But , do you carry a real spotmeter ? That might be more beneficial. If someone wants tree at 64 feet sharp, but mountains in the backdround 2000 feet away blurry I recommend 8x10 view camera with at least 12 inch lens. That should do the trick.


----------



## timor (Feb 7, 2015)

christopher walrath said:


> I am sorry.  But going back through the last 20 posts or so and the breakneck give and take, this thread is kind of really funny.


Agree. I try to contribute to it.


----------



## Rollei12 (Feb 7, 2015)

I guess for right now I'll keep things simple.  Just have landscapes all in focus


----------



## compur (Feb 7, 2015)

timor said:


> MLU ? Wait, FM2 doesn't have it.


Actually you _can_ lock up the mirror on an FM2. Just use the self-timer and the mirror locks up for release.


----------



## timor (Feb 8, 2015)

compur said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> > MLU ? Wait, FM2 doesn't have it.
> ...


Thanks. OK, so it has mlu. In specs mirror is listed as not lockable.


----------



## timor (Feb 8, 2015)

Rollei12 said:


> I guess for right now I'll keep things simple.  Just have landscapes all in focus


Lens as an optical system can focus only one distance. Having all "in focus" is a physical impossibility so this term "all in focus" is wrong. I know, everybody repeats it, it doesn't make it right of true. It is a nonsense which actually doesn't help with understanding the idea of depth of field and perceived sharpness.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 8, 2015)

Hyperfocal.


timor said:


> Rollei12 said:
> 
> 
> > I guess for right now I'll keep things simple.  Just have landscapes all in focus
> ...


Hyperfocal.


----------



## photoguy99 (Feb 8, 2015)

Timor is trying to distinguish between 'in focus' and 'sufficiently close to in focus to look sharp'. These are different and a technical understanding of dof demands that you understand this.

Hyperfocal distance, being a special case of dof, is just another example of the latter.

This sort of thing is why I increasingly advocate for non technical explanations. Experiment and look. It's infinitely faster, it's immediately comprehensible, and ultimately it's what you need to do anyways.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 8, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> Timor is trying to distinguish between 'in focus' and 'sufficiently close to in focus to look sharp'. These are different and a technical understanding of dof demands that you understand this.
> 
> Hyperfocal distance, being a special case of dof, is just another example of the latter.
> 
> This sort of thing is why I increasingly advocate for non technical explanations. Experiment and look. It's infinitely faster, it's immediately comprehensible, and ultimately it's what you need to do anyways.


When it's all said and done, "sufficiently close to in focus to look sharp" is all that REALLY matters.

The constant picking of nits around here is ridiculous.


----------



## photoguy99 (Feb 8, 2015)

So you to advocate a non technical explanation! Good on ya. I agree!


----------



## Buckster (Feb 8, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> So you to advocate a non technical explanation! Good on ya. I agree!


I advocate imparting a practical understanding, especially to the new photographers who frequent this forum and ask questions of us.

The OP simply wanted to know why when focusing on a tree 200 ft away with a wide open aperture, the background behind it wasn't thrown out of focus as he thought it would.  My explanation to him about the DOF was that he'd need to focus closer than the tree so that the tree itself would be at the furthest practical focus area in the DOF.  Then I gave one practical way to focus on that closer place to do it, a method I myself actually use.

And then the naysayers had to jump in with their picking of nits; Naysayers who evidently haven't even tried the method themselves, since they don't have the equipment and couldn't understand for the life of them how to work it out, so they had to try to poopoo all over it, which is a whole 'nuther thing about this forum that's all too prevalent.


----------



## Dave442 (Feb 8, 2015)

So now I know going out shooting with Buck is like playing golf with my dad, every few shots and he is looking through the laser rangefinder. Now I can justify a laser rangefinder between photography and golf.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 8, 2015)

Dave442 said:


> So now I know going out shooting with Buck is like playing golf with my dad, every few shots and he is looking through the laser rangefinder. Now I can justify a laser rangefinder between photography and golf.


If you want to make the shot, use the available tools.


----------



## photoguy99 (Feb 8, 2015)

Experienced golfers just look and know. Their ability to judge distances can be eerie.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 8, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> Experienced golfers just look and know. Their ability to judge distances can be eerie.


Cool.  Now let's relate that to photography, which is what this is all about, after all.

You bill yourself as an experienced photographer.  Can you just look at a scene and say, "that tree is 200' away.  At f/3.5 at 55mm on this full frame camera, if I want to put that tree at the furthest end of my acceptable DOF, I'll need to focus at 64', which is riiiiight....  there.  Click."

I've been shooting for over 40 years, and certainly call myself "experienced", but I freely admit that I certainly can't do it, and don't personally know any photographers who can.


----------



## photoguy99 (Feb 8, 2015)

Your loins are girded for battle, buck, it no longer matters what I say, you will attack.

Bye.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 8, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> Your loins are girded for battle, buck, it no longer matters what I say, you will attack.
> 
> Bye.


It was a simple question.


----------



## timor (Feb 8, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> Experienced golfers just look and know. Their ability to judge distances can be eerie.


Experienced golfers went first through "technical understanding" of what they are doing.. Looks like photographers do not need that. Sorry, my mistake, I won't poop anymore your threads guys with such a silly ideas like self education . New mantra "Happiness By Oblivion". HBO !.


----------



## runnah (Feb 8, 2015)

Buckster said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> > Experienced golfers just look and know. Their ability to judge distances can be eerie.
> ...




You can't? What a noob!


----------



## Rollei12 (Feb 9, 2015)

timor said:


> Rollei12 said:
> 
> 
> > I guess for right now I'll keep things simple.  Just have landscapes all in focus
> ...



Impossibility?  I set the aperture to f22.  Most everything now will be in focus, granted I focused to infinity or around there....


----------



## timor (Feb 9, 2015)

Rollei12 said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> > Rollei12 said:
> ...


Unfortunately yes, impossible. You are mistaking depth of field with focus. Conventional wisdom is very often wrong. It is more projection of wishes, than facts.
Here is link with short explanation which I hope will inspire you to do a bit more of reading and studying the nature of optical image.
Depth of Field
You don't have to go far, wikipedia has many short articles about optics like this one:
Focus optics - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
From here you can explore things like depth of field, depth of focus, focus shift etc.
You will discover that setting the aperture to 22 on small format camera is not that good for the sharpness of your pictures. Especially if you are using zooms. 
Happy reading mate !


----------



## vintagesnaps (Feb 10, 2015)

Why didn't you want the mountains in focus, aren't they scenic? Or are you just trying to figure out why you didn't get the same effect in that situation that you could get focusing on a subject that was closer with the background OOF?

The background's going to be in your composition either way, I think it's something you need to think about when you're framing and composing photos. If you wanted the picture to be more about the tree than the mountains, think about how you're framing shots to minimize the mountains and emphasize the tree.

Next time you could take more than one photo, try different ways of framing it and see what you can get. You could write down what you did (not necessarily camera settings but if you changed your vantage point, how you changed your framing, etc.) so when you look thru your photos later you could remember what you did and see how it worked.


----------



## Rollei12 (Feb 13, 2015)

vintagesnaps said:


> Why didn't you want the mountains in focus, aren't they scenic? Or are you just trying to figure out why you didn't get the same effect in that situation that you could get focusing on a subject that was closer with the background OOF?
> 
> The background's going to be in your composition either way, I think it's something you need to think about when you're framing and composing photos. If you wanted the picture to be more about the tree than the mountains, think about how you're framing shots to minimize the mountains and emphasize the tree.
> 
> Next time you could take more than one photo, try different ways of framing it and see what you can get. You could write down what you did (not necessarily camera settings but if you changed your vantage point, how you changed your framing, etc.) so when you look thru your photos later you could remember what you did and see how it worked.



I'll answer your questions one at a time! 

- I didn't want the mountains in focus at that time because I wanted to focus (no pun intended) on the tree.  In that case I thought it would look pretty cool if the background was out of focus.  And considering how far away the mountains were, there would be a ton of super-blurry bokeh.

- EXACTLY!  I wanted to treat the tree just like a flower, and the mountains like leaves and such further away being out of focus.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Feb 14, 2015)

Think about how you're framing. If you can't get the background out of focus because the subject is too large and too faraway, frame it so the background is minimized and the tree takes up more space in the frame. It won't be exactly the effect you want but could at least make the picture more about the tree.

As others have said, you may not be able to get the effect you want the way you're trying to do it with the subject and scene you're describing. I think too much is made online of having an out of focus background, think about if it needs to be out of focus. Look at photos by famous landscape photographers.

You could play around with your framing and vantage point and see what you can get. Or you'll have to do like Sharon said (jokingly), go find a smaller tree not so far away to get an out of focus background that you want.


----------



## Rollei12 (Feb 14, 2015)

vintagesnaps said:


> Think about how you're framing. If you can't get the background out of focus because the subject is too large and too faraway, frame it so the background is minimized and the tree takes up more space in the frame. It won't be exactly the effect you want but could at least make the picture more about the tree.
> 
> As others have said, you may not be able to get the effect you want the way you're trying to do it with the subject and scene you're describing. I think too much is made online of having an out of focus background, think about if it needs to be out of focus. Look at photos by famous landscape photographers.
> 
> You could play around with your framing and vantage point and see what you can get. Or you'll have to do like Sharon said (jokingly), go find a smaller tree not so far away to get an out of focus background that you want.



Thanks for the feedback.  I know a lot of landscape photography has everything in focus and it looks great.  It's a genre I like doing.


----------



## timor (Feb 15, 2015)

Rollei12 said:


> Thanks for the feedback.  I know a lot of landscape photography has everything in focus and it looks great.  It's a genre I like doing.


And again same fallacy. In every picture only something is "in focus" , the rest is out of focus but should be inside the depth of field or maybe "depth of sharpness" will be a better idea for you. And you talk here about sharpness. Sooner you will get the differences between sharpness and focus, better for you as you will be much better in command of your camera and lens. Understanding what you're doing is a key to success.


----------



## timor (Feb 15, 2015)

Buckster said:


> Disagree


Why ?


----------



## photoguy99 (Feb 15, 2015)

Squelching my urge to reply. This thread is just going in circles at this point.


----------



## timor (Feb 15, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> Squelching my urge to reply. This thread is just going in circles at this point.


Apparently "circles of confusions".


----------



## Buckster (Feb 15, 2015)

timor said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > Disagree
> ...


Already explained earlier in the thread.


----------



## timor (Feb 15, 2015)

Buckster said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...


Oh... 
No, wait. You did explain your position and believes on this. You didn't explain the physics forming optical image.
Well, doesn't matter, OP can read something and get better informed, or can stay oblivious and ask questions on forums every time he/she will meet with a problem. Or, eventually, they will make substantial improvements to digital cameras.


----------

