Photo1Q1.4: Depth of Field

Distance Between Photographer and Subject

~4 feet from subject | f/3.5, 1/60, 800 | 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

Aperture is probably my favorite part of the exposure triangle to play around with. It is arguably the only part of the triangle that makes "sense" for the different types of photography one is attempting to capture. If you're a landscape photographer, you're probably gonna be dealing with a lot of light. Fortunately, a higher f/stop number doesn't mean a brighter image, and it also means more stuff is in focus. I stick to very large apertures (f/1.8-3.5) because I do enjoy that blur, but I've recently been trying to experiment with the gritty and raw aspect of just using a smaller aperture. There was once a photo shoot that I did where choosing the right aperture mattered, and it was interesting to see the effect it creates. In the image above and below, the background is sharper (above), while the background is very blurred in the other (below). Even the hanger is nearly unable to discern without close inspection. I used a Canon Rebel T5 to capture all of the photos in this post.

~5 inches from subject | f/3.5, 1/30, 800 | 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

Zooming In and Out

~5 feet from subject | f/3.5, 1/400, 100 | 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

Zooming in and out actually changes your aperture to, I guess, "compensate". Sometimes it's helpful, sometimes it's not, but as one can see in this image (although I did move slightly), the zoom creates a more "combined" image. Things in the background take up so much more space as you're obviously zoomed in. The kit lens I used allowed me to go from 18mm to a max of 55mm.

~5 inches from subject | f/5.0, 1/400, 100 | 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

Use of Aperture Settings

~6 inches from subject | f/1.8, 1/160, 100 | 50mm f/1.8

In my opinion, using aperture to change your depth of field just makes sense to me. Zooming in is just lazy and can eliminate wanted items in the picture, and moving closer might be difficult (or even restricted) for certain types of photography (though, I would prioritize moving first as it might strengthen one's creativity. In the images above and below, there is a very clear difference in the depth of field, as the objects begin to turn into blurred circles in the first image (and the extremely shallow depth of field even affects the phone), while it's much easier to see the background in the second image.

~6 inches from subject | f/22, 1/8, 800 | 50mm f/1.8

Situations that would be most appropriate for a large aperture (besides portraiture) is really anything that begs attention. If you want to isolate the subject of a photograph (product photography makes the most sense here), you're gonna want a large aperture so that there's nothing else that catches the viewers attention other than the product themselves. Wedding photography might also require this, but that's a subsection of portraits.

On the other end of the spectrum, a large aperture is useful when you want everything in the picture to be in focus; as much detail as possible. Group photos, astro photography (because of the immense detail needed in the picture because of there being so many stars and whatnot), and especially long exposures. It's simply non-sensical to use a wide aperture when you're leaving the shutter open for a very long duration in almost all situations of long exposures.

Of the three techniques to change depth of field, I believe that moving is the best way to nurture one's creativity, while straight up changing the aperture makes the most sense and provides the much freedom. Overall, actually finding the right subjects to show depth of field was kinda difficult, but since I've worked a lot with the exposure triangle so much, it wasn't too much of a struggle.

Also, #11:59pm squad because I forgot to post this haha sorry Mrs. Takemoto