Depth of Field is not a subject.  Go take me a picture of a "Depth of Field".  DOF is an element, method, technique used to emphasize, isolate or encompass your subject. WE

_________________________
Profile - Top 24 - All Images



Nikon D300 -  Nikon D70 - Nikkor 20mm  - Nikkor 50mm - Nikkor 24-120mm - Nikkor 28-70mm - Nikkor 85mm - Nikkor 80-200mm - Nikkor 70-300mm - Sigma 400mm

It certainly is an important element in a photo now isnt it?...it can be used to convey many things so in order to cut my incessant rambling down to a minimum here then,,,,

as far as this and any other pic is concerned what one sees is what one sees and not necessarily what another sees.   So lets take 5 Pros for ex.  they may all see the larger DOF space and to two this may appeal  and to three it may not right?...or as far as the pro is concerned there IS a rule of thumb?

I may not always be wRIGHTbut I am never wrong  Profile - Top 24 - 

send couch asap...

No I just wanted to know if that is what other people see in the DOF...DOF was one of my first lessons too lol.. just exploring its worth at the moment..

I kept more in to use it for depth in this pic , so now just seeing if it was effective.. ..

that's all....

kids are home gotta boogie...thank you all for the conversation..

I may not always be wRIGHTbut I am never wrong  Profile - Top 24 - 

I absolutly agree. Maybe I useed the wrong word. Maybe objective is a better word. All I am trying to say is, when you create a photo you know what you want to show and say with it. The viewer has to determine/identifying it. The examples DOF on Wikipedia from the link are very good. They show very good of what I was trying to explain. You have an blurred area in the forground that is leading to the sharp part of the photo and one that is leading away. Otherwise it may looks like that your object is floading.

I hope that this was more understandible.

Blog - Photo Infos

Oboy's Profile - Top 12 - Images - My Website

I was slightly off on my own def. of DOF...heh heh..

that was a nice long article with much to absorb on wikipedia..didnt finish all of it yet but I did not relate DOF to the way it was explained in this article..Yes I was on target but then again, I was off...

now at the risk of being a dork which..no worry I prob. already am lol,,but I was relating the term to the background , and it's placement/focus and not the subject.  So when I would see dof I thought background but it is actually where the subject is in it's surroundings and was it captured at optimal dof ... Okay still didnt harm anything thinking of it that way , I think but it is clearer now...

see I told you guys I gots to keep goin with it till it clicks  Thanks O!  and everyone.

I may not always be wRIGHTbut I am never wrong  Profile - Top 24 -