In-depth, depth of field question. Weirdness. PLEASE reply.

Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
3,393
Location
Jupiter, FL
Real Name
Andy
If everything stays the same except the car,
If you move the camera between shots "everything" does not stay the same.

Disregarding the technical side of DOF for a moment, you could say it this way: when you move the camera, everything about the composition changes, not just the subject, but the FG and BG as well. The various testing ideas given by both me and others have one theme in common: take away variables so that the test result is easier for the eye to digest. I think moving the camera between shots is an enormously significant variable.
 
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
3,393
Location
Jupiter, FL
Real Name
Andy
Just adding one more thought (which I think I mentioned before):

There's really no need to do this at full scale. A smaller exercise, while not as rewarding as shooting a car, will suffice, and be much easier than moving a car around. It was pretty tedious nudging that rented Camaro back and forth a dozen times to line it up for the second shot - and it still wasn't exactly perfect, as you can see.
 
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
4,106
Location
Missouri
If you move the camera between shots "everything" does not stay the same.

Disregarding the technical side of DOF for a moment, you could say it this way: when you move the camera, everything about the composition changes, not just the subject, but the FG and BG as well. The various testing ideas given by both me and others have one theme in common: take away variables so that the test result is easier for the eye to digest. I think moving the camera between shots is an enormously significant variable.

I don't see it that way.

Composition means nothing here, I was shooting in a perfectly lined parking lot against a flat brick wall 90° from it.

The foreground did not change (in any significant way), as I used the grid lines to place the tripod.

The background wall did not change (in any significant way), as it was flat.

I absolutely agree that moving the camera is the biggest variable, but with how careful I was it's super minimal, much more minimal than the differences in pictures would suggest.

Even without moving the camera at all, you can see how the dof doesn't appear to be normal.

I maintain that this is about optics, not camera movement, but I'll humor you with my next test :)
 
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
3,393
Location
Jupiter, FL
Real Name
Andy
Composition means nothing here, I was shooting in a perfectly lined parking lot against a flat brick wall 90° from it.
Wasn't the wall perpendicular to the car, but angled with respect to the focal plane? If so, that's pretty much my whole point.

I maintain that this is about optics, not camera movement, but I'll humor you with my next test :)
LOL - don't do it on my account! But if you do, I must confess to being very curious to learn the solution to this mystery.

Incidentally, I had to look up "Brenizer," which is the term for a clever post-production technique that (for me) had no name attached to it. So that is one mystery solved.
 
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
4,106
Location
Missouri
Wasn't the wall perpendicular to the car, but angled with respect to the focal plane? If so, that's pretty much my whole point.


LOL - don't do it on my account! But if you do, I must confess to being very curious to learn the solution to this mystery.

Incidentally, I had to look up "Brenizer," which is the term for a clever post-production technique that (for me) had no name attached to it. So that is one mystery solved.

Yes, angled with respect to the focal plane, but angled in the exact same way, at the same height, from the same distance from the other side. Mirror images.

Brenizer shots are fun, it's just wide-angle shallow, which you just can't get any other way. Like a 15mm f1.0 without the distortion.
 

Attachments

  • 212962817_10222380732899851_1526638044812678976_n.jpg
    212962817_10222380732899851_1526638044812678976_n.jpg
    241.2 KB · Views: 11
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
5,224
Location
Columbia, Maryland
Real Name
Walter Rowe
I'll use my old D800 + 200/2 combo to show everyone that the effect is the same; the right side of the frame is always more oof at the far end than the left side.
Another good example here.

F7939BE4-D0DB-4A57-A072-94F799B0A415.jpeg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Is this the same 200/2 lens as the used with your other images but on a different body? If so this makes me think there is a misaligned element within the lens causing left-right shift.
 
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
4,106
Location
Missouri
Another good example here. Is this the same 200/2 lens as the used with your other images but on a different body? If so this makes me think there is a misaligned element within the lens causing left-right shift.

That's the D810 + 135/2

I quit using the 200/2 for auction shots in December of 2017 in favor of a lighter lens. It was stupid of me to use it on auction shoots anyway, not just for the weight and working distance but something could have happened to it!

I'll get some shots this weekend with the 200 on the D800 and D810. I think the effect was less pronounced with that lens anyway.
 
Joined
Nov 15, 2007
Messages
322
Location
Seattle
I may have missed it, were examples shared of the original uncropped images with the focus point included? For example, here are some examples of a car I helped sell for my brother in law. These were snips of the images from NX Studio.

Focus_Point.jpg
 
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
4,106
Location
Missouri
I may have missed it, were examples shared of the original uncropped images with the focus point included? For example, here are some examples of a car I helped sell for my brother in law. These were snips of the images from NX Studio.
Yes, I posted uncropped pictures, and stated the focal point (manually focused) was the headlight washer. I don't use NX studio, but don't see it as a need.
 
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
4,106
Location
Missouri
I haven't been out to test yet, but the effect is evident from these shots I took on Tuesday. The far/back right side of the frame is always more oof than the left. This is with the D810 + Zeiss 135/2 again. I'll do some testing with the D800 + 200/2 this weekend.

VEP_5069.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


VEP_5075.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


VEP_5079.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
4,106
Location
Missouri
Shoot location was in a parking lot 90° from the trees.

Capture.JPG
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
3,111
Location
Winter Haven, florida
93 posts about a phenomenon that no one else but you have seen.
I think you need to have another photographer stand right next to you with their equipment- and take the exact same shot and see if they get the same results.
This looks more and more like an equipment issue.
I once replaced a wheel bearing on my race car- and the noise stayed the same. Drove me crazy. Turns out the 2nd bearing was also bad. Duplicate failures can occur and are very difficult to track down.
gary
 
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
4,106
Location
Missouri
93 posts about a phenomenon that no one else but you have seen.
I think you need to have another photographer stand right next to you with their equipment- and take the exact same shot and see if they get the same results.
This looks more and more like an equipment issue.
I once replaced a wheel bearing on my race car- and the noise stayed the same. Drove me crazy. Turns out the 2nd bearing was also bad. Duplicate failures can occur and are very difficult to track down.
gary

Someone else has seen it, they just haven't seen this thread. The worst part is that when the optical issue is identified, it won't actually change anything, I'll keep shooting the same way I always have; focus stacking the driver's side to maintain more sharpness at the far end of the subject.
 
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
3,393
Location
Jupiter, FL
Real Name
Andy
Shoot location was in a parking lot 90° from the trees.
This looks more and more like an equipment issue.
Agree 100%. The difference between the left and right side of the frame is due to a fault in your gear, not your technique. The fact that you have noticed it over the years with various camera/lens combos is only a coincidence. The cars (and trucks) are only confusing the issue. I recognize, of course, that they are the subject of your work, but if the BG is parallel to your sensor but still not evenly OOF between the left and right side, you need to resolve that first. Once you do, the rest will fall into place.
 
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
3,111
Location
Winter Haven, florida
One easy test.
Shoot an image. Without changing anything, turn the whole camera/lens system upside down and shoot it again. Upside down the right side of the lens/sensor is know shooting the left side of the scene.
I strongly suspect the out of focus changes will switch side to side, following the sensor.
If it doesn't, there is some variable here we do not understand.
gary
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
5,224
Location
Columbia, Maryland
Real Name
Walter Rowe
I haven't been out to test yet, but the effect is evident from these shots I took on Tuesday. The far/back right side of the frame is always more oof than the left. This is with the D810 + Zeiss 135/2 again. I'll do some testing with the D800 + 200/2 this weekend.
Just to refresh my memory - because we are 5 pages into this now - you experience this with two different camera/lens combos.
  • D810 + 135/2
  • D800 + 200/2
Is that right?

I have to agree with Andy (@acnomad). This has to be equipment oriented. Perhaps the sensor or lens mount is misaligned in both bodies (or a different one of these in each). That would cause the focal plane of the lens and sensor to effectively intersect with each vs being perfectly parallel, resulting in this tilt-shift (miniature) appearance.

I also agree with Andy that you should have someone else take the exact same picture with their own setup to see if the problem replicates in their equipment. I imagine it will not in which case you have a stronger argument that this is specific to your equipment.

It would be incredibly coincidental both setups would be off in exactly the same way and by the same amount. Is that what you are observing?

Are you using any filters on any of these lenses?
 
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
4,106
Location
Missouri
Just to refresh my memory - because we are 5 pages into this now - you experience this with two different camera/lens combos.
  • D810 + 135/2
  • D800 + 200/2
Is that right?

I have to agree with Andy (@acnomad). This has to be equipment oriented. Perhaps the sensor or lens mount is misaligned in both bodies (or a different one of these in each). That would cause the focal plane of the lens and sensor to effectively intersect with each vs being perfectly parallel, resulting in this tilt-shift (miniature) appearance.

I also agree with Andy that you should have someone else take the exact same picture with their own setup to see if the problem replicates in their equipment. I imagine it will not in which case you have a stronger argument that this is specific to your equipment.

It would be incredibly coincidental both setups would be off in exactly the same way and by the same amount. Is that what you are observing?

Are you using any filters on any of these lenses?

Yes, I first noticed it many years ago with my D800 + 200/2.

I can't even imagine a scenario where it's equipment related with both combo's doing the same thing. I think it's more pronounced on the 135/2 for sure, but certainly exists with the other combo.

There is no one else in my entire 40,000+ town that has a 135/2 and 200/2 with my bodies.

Both combo's exhibit the same type of characteristic; shallower on the right, but in different amounts. I first thought it was purely technique, but then later confirmed that it's not. For example, when shooting a front 3/4, you will want one long side, and one short side. I figured I was preferring the short side on the driver's side, making the rear of the vehicle further away, and the long side of the passenger 3/4 making the rear closer, and then therefore clearer. But that did not turn out to be the case.

I always use a CPL, as there is no real natural light automotive photography without one, but I can't imagine that could be the cause. And even so, the 200/2 has a drop-in, and the 135/2 has a screw-on. The examples on page 2 do not have a CPL.
 
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
4,106
Location
Missouri
This is what I mean by short side and long side 3/4 views. It gives the buyer a more clear representation. It's the same front 3/4, just a bit of a different angle. And in these shots, I purposely did the OPPOSITE of what I normally do. Do no look at the sharpness front to back on the vehicles in these pix, they have been focus stacked to maintain sharpness.

1.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


12.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

Latest threads

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom