Tell me about "Depth of Field" in photography

Hey there. I'm moving, and while going through some old boxes I found a little treat... a Kodak Retinette IA 042. It's been in the family since the 60's (it was produced from 61-63 and my Aunt got it new as a gift) and it has barely been used... it's essentially in new condition. Luckily over the years it's been stored in dry, dust free environment.

Anyways, to the point. I'm wondering how to get deep or shallow depth of field. I understand that it involved aperture and distance from the subject. I know how to adjust shutter speed, focus, and how to adjust aperture (higher number = smaller opening and vice versa)... but how does that affect DoF? I tried to read the wiki about it but it was all sciency and mathy and stuff... also the article is really long.

Is there any general rule? Just cut and dry? Like the "Sunny 16" rule?

Thanks!

A lower F-stop gives a shorter DOF, as well as increasing distance from and zooming into the subject. I don't know of a particular general rule however.

Thanks!

I just got my film developed today and scanned them into my computer, so I'll show the results. Keep in mind, I'm by no means a photographer let alone a "film photographer". I've been spoiled with auto-everything cameras. This camera's focus mechanism is an "educated guestimation" type thing. But, all considered, I'll post my favorites from this roll. I picked up 3 more rolls 'cause I think I'm in love with this camera. None of the photos are altered. Went from the roll, to 4x6, to scanner, to here. I'm gonna get the guitar and cat blown up to 8x10 or bigger 'cause they're my favorites. Not too shabby for a 50 year old camera.

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r...tte/img003.jpg
-
http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r...tte/img004.jpg
-
http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r...tte/img005.jpg
-
http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r...tte/img006.jpg
-
http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r...tte/img007.jpg

I don't think your camera has a built-in meter, I'm curious how you're guessing the exposure times?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I don't think your camera has a built-in meter

---

That's correct. It is 100 percent manual. No 'auto' anything.

Quote:

---

I'm curious how you're guessing the exposure times?

---

I guess I have good judgement of distance and lighting. For example, with the cat picture I had the 'focus range' at around 0-4 feet, with a 5.6 for aperture and then I just did 1/125 for shutter speed. For the guitar it was much darker so I did 0-4 foot focus, with a large aperture of 2.8 and a shutter of 1/60. For the tower I did infinity focus, 22 aperture, and 1/250.

It's not super difficult. For the dark picture of the person in front of the TV I did a 0 focus with a 5.6 aperture and a 1/60 shutter.

edit: Also, I'm using ISO 400.

edit2: I just realized that I didn't really answer your question. Basically, a mix of shutter speed and aperture determines exposure. If it's dark I generally choose a slower shutter speed and/or a smaller f-stop... unless I'm going for a specific effect. When there is more light, I do the opposite. It isn't cut and dry though. I can go to both extremes (low shutter speed and low f-stop or vice versa) or have high + low or low +high depending on the effect that I want.

Film photography is amazing. ISO 400 is a great choice, as it usually achieves a good balance between noise and sharpness. Generally I love shooting in the 200-800 range. I use digital cameras, but it's mostly the same.

I'm quite impressed by your ability to judge shutter speed, aperture and so on, without any real experience with cameras. The photos you posted are great, maybe a little underexposed, but overall good looking. The noise is at the right level, creating that crisp feel that all photographers love about film.

Is the film you're using very expensive, or is it not that bad? My mom was really into photography when she was young, and found that buying large amounts of raw film and then preparing rolls herself was more economical. She also made some money this way, since she sold film to other people, though this is probably not an option for you. At the same time she also developed her own photos.

Quote:

---

I'm quite impressed by your ability to judge shutter speed, aperture and so on, without any real experience with cameras. The photos you posted are great, maybe a little underexposed, but overall good looking.

---

Thank you! :) And they are a little under exposed, especially the ones of the instruments. I have no flash, so I'm working with whatever light I've got :P I kinda like the orange-ish tint on the 'close-up' of the guitar though.

Quote:

---

Is the film you're using very expensive, or is it not that bad?

---

Well the rolls these were taken with were from a small photography shop and I got some of the cheaper film. The 3 rolls that I just filled up (that are yet to be developed) were some fujifilm extra-iso 400... can't remember the exact price. I think $20-25 canadian for 3.

Also, the scans I have on here are from my crappy $100 scanner and are scans of just 4x6s. So for these next three roles when I get them developed I'll get them scanned onto a dvd at high-res in the photo place (which I didn't even know they did) so that they are higher quality. Then maybe I'll post them here!!

Give this a look. It's an online depth of field calculator, very handy for learning the basics. Online Depth of Field Calculator

Your camera has a 2.8/45mm lens, so select 35mm under film, then 45mm under focal length, and work from there.

Great work so far, by the way!

It's a shame that it isn't a single lens camera, that way you could just play around with it and figure out the difference :(