Comments on: Alligatorlily: If At First You Don’t Succeed … https://www.birdsasart-blog.com/baa/2021/07/10/alligatorlily-if-at-first-you-dont-succeed/ The blog of bird photographer Arthur Morris Fri, 07 Mar 2025 15:35:48 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8 By: Ryan Sanderson https://www.birdsasart-blog.com/baa/2021/07/10/alligatorlily-if-at-first-you-dont-succeed/comment-page-1/#comment-1845960 Sun, 11 Jul 2021 15:24:10 +0000 http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/?p=75106#comment-1845960 I’m not fully convinced that the 600mm image has more DOF than the 840mm image. If depth of field is defined as the width of the area in focus in front of and behind the plane of focus, then the addition of a 1.4X teleconverter and the resultant decrease in the aperture by one stop should have no effect on depth of field if the distance of the subject to the sensor is not changed.

In your photo, the 600mm photo was at f/8 and the 840mm photo was at f/16. The “equivalent” aperture in the 840mm shot should have been f/11 to get the same depth of field as the 600mm combo, but the 840mm shot was stopped down further to f/16.

You also increased the distance between the subject and the camera for the 840mm shot. This also should have increased depth of field. At the end of the day, all the teleconverter is doing is magnifying the image that is already produced, so if the relative aperture stays consistent (one stop smaller than the non-TC image) and the distance from the subject to the camera stays the same, there should not be any change in depth of field.

Output size can theoretically affect depth of field if all we’re looking at is how much looks sharp to the eye in the final output. Because the flower is smaller in the frame in the 600mm image, less detail on the flower may allow more of the frame to look sharp. This could be the explanation for perceived greater depth of field in the 600mm image.

]]> By: Elinor Osborn https://www.birdsasart-blog.com/baa/2021/07/10/alligatorlily-if-at-first-you-dont-succeed/comment-page-1/#comment-1845855 Sat, 10 Jul 2021 23:07:07 +0000 http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/?p=75106#comment-1845855 1-Shutter speed on @1 was 1/125. On #2 it was 1/30 so you wanted to make sure all vibration had stopped on #2 before the slower shutter activated.
2-More DOF in #1 because of no 1.4 teleconverter.
3-f16 would make the camera see more detail in just fractions of inches in front of and behind subject. And might make the background more lumpy depending on how close it was to the subject.
I like #2 because of the lighter background with more colors with subtle transition between them. Also having the flower cover more the frame makes it more eye catching. The lines of the flower have more impact.

]]>