Depth of field can have some fairly dramatic effects on an image and how much of it is preferred can depend on the tastes of the viewer.
Three days ago I found a cooperative Killdeer on Antelope Island. It wandered around on top of a very large, flat rock and gave me a variety of poses and backgrounds.
1/2500, f/7.1, ISO 400, Canon 7D, 500 f/4 II, 1.4 tc, not baited, set up or called in
When it moved to the end of the rock some dried sunflower stems in the background came into play and I had to decide how to deal with them. In the field I thought their presence in the image might be interesting but they were far enough behind the bird that I knew they would be quite soft at typical apertures with my long lens and teleconverter. And that might be just fine because background elements like this are often preferred to be out of focus so they don’t compete so much with the subject.
The bird was cooperative and I had the time with it to dink around a little so I decided to experiment with aperture…
1/400, f/18, ISO 400, Canon 7D, 500 f/4 II, 1.4 tc, not baited, set up or called in
I shoot in aperture priority partly for situations just like this. I dialed in f/18 (from the previous f/7.1) to see how much difference it might make with the sharpness of the sunflowers and the overall bokeh (the visual quality of the out-of-focus areas of a photograph) of the far background and I think the contrast between the two images is fairly obvious (beyond the relatively minor difference in poses from the bird).
At f/18 I have enough depth of field to get the sunflowers much sharper. In addition, the far background is significantly less homogenous and blurred and gives the viewer a bit more of a feel for habitat. Even the foreground white rock at the very bottom of the frame has much more detail at f/18.
For those reasons I prefer the second photo over the first (even though I like the calling pose of the bird in the first shot). Perhaps this is another case of me over-analyzing images but I can’t help myself.
Once again it’s a matter of taste and perhaps others have a different preference…
Ron
Ron, I don’t think you are over-analyzing these images. I agree with you completely about which one I like better. One thing I’ve come to realize is that when things like the sunflowers are blurry but still recognizable, my eyes hurt looking at that part of the picture, whereas in photos where all you see is the color of mountains or lake, they don’t detract from the photo. If it were my photo, I’d crop out the blurry sunflowers so I could appreciate the bird more, because it is a very nice pose. It is, however, always interesting to look at the differences between the photos, because there is always something we can learn from them.
Great shots! Interesting perspective.
Charlotte
Ahh, to have the luxury of a bird who will pose long enough for us to experiment with aperture (or any other!) settings. Sometimes, it’s tough to see much difference between widely varying apertures with longer lenses, but you found a great example where there is a distinction. The second image seems to appeal to me a bit more, I guess due to the relative sharpness of the near sunflowers and a bit more detail in the background which provides a sort of “mosaic” effect.
Naturally, some of us (okay, ME!) would be quite ecstatic to obtain results similar to either of these wonderful images!
An interesting mix of opinions. Lopsided, but not unanimous by any means. Thank you all very much for the feedback!
Interesting, I much prefer the first one.
Another vote for image 2. It was an ideal chance to try this out with a co-operative bird as it’s not often bird photographers could go to f18!
Both are great, but I also prefer the second one. I wonder if the first one would get more votes if the color of the BG plants did not mesh so nicely with the color of the bird. In that case the plants might be more distracting and blurring would be preferred.
Joining the masses here. I like them both, but the second pulls me in further.
Hello Ron. I agree with you and everyone who likes #2 better. This is a great example of depth of field which is sometimes hard for beginner photographers to grasp. Having such great quality photos to use as an example helps immensely. I love the way you capture the beauty and grace of even the more common birds as opposed to just going after the more exciting and maybe more colorful birds. (i.e. raptors, song birds, etc.) Thank you, again.
As a visual artist -NOT a photographer (I am hopeless with machines) – I also prefer the second image. Sometimes the blurry bits can look a bit “arty”. I enjoy the counterpoint of objects, the way the eye travels around. In an odd way, the blurred flowers pull/distract my attention more than the non-blurred. Both are gorgeous, though.
“bokeh” – wonderful word to go along with the wonderful pics.
I prefer the first, which is good because there is no way I could ever ramp up to F/18 on my Sigma 500!
F/10 is as far as I can go.
Bruce, My 500 goes to f/45 but I don’t think I’ve ever gone more than f/18 – and seldom even that.
NICE! NICE! NICE! I particularly like the second image…the crisp detail of the bird and the seed heads. I like seeing what you see, which includes bird and context (habitat)…very nice composition, too.
Thanks very much, Patty.
I prefer the second shot over the first and think the bokeh is more interesting, as well. I so love Killdeer. Thanks for the morning comparison.
I ” think the bokeh is more interesting”.
So do I, Sharon.
Oh, Ron, I think the vagaries of what the camera picks up aperture wise is a never-ending adventure .. I love that birdie was so cooperative and you got to play. Yepper … the second shot is my favorite too.
The “vagaries” of aperture, so very true, Lois! And for me at least, so very difficult to predict with a long lens, especially since I’m always swapping out my teleconverter. Thank you.
I agree with you, I prefer the second shot to the first. Probably because the dead sunflowers are on a similar plane, although in back of the Killdeer, that I prefer them to be in focus. If they were further in the background it might not make a difference.
Great shots Ron.
I appreciate the feedback, Dick. You make a good point about the distance the sunflowers are behind the bird.