The aperture was too wide for what? If your goal was to experiment with isolating the tree trunk and the broken shards of wood on top of it from the background, what aperture would you have preferred using? What about it made you question the aperture? If isolation was my goal, I probably would have used an f/2 or faster lens to further isolate the stump from the background.
Mark
I would have liked to make some more pictures with different apertures so I could choose between them. This picture isn’t meant to isolate the tree stump on the foreground. The background is an essential part of the subject. It was the subject once one can say.
This lens doesn’t go below 2.8.
George
Given the closeness of the tree trunk and the distance to the background try using at last f/11 if you want everything in focus. But that is the opposite of isolation which is the topic of this thread.
Mark
It’s not a question to get it in focus. But out of focus can be in more gradients.
George
Well, I guess you will have to play with various apertures until you get results you like.
Mark
A few ways to exhibit the subject with focus layers (DoF) and …
.
warm-cold & form contrast
.
color quality & contrast
.
diffusion & color
.
subdued
.
shape & color
.
luminosity & contrast
.
stylish & color
( all taken at: 300 mm, except #5: 190 mm / #7: 20 mm )
I like the ashtray photo. Soft glass edges play well with soft focus transition, creating a kind of magic with this combination of colors.
What lens did you use?
Actually, I like just about every one
Well, I like also how #8 and #9 play together, but that’s for another topic.
So difficult to get the framing, DoF and separation when standing at the end of a line of musicians…
AF-S-Nikkor-300mm-F4E-PF-ED-VR
and
#5 → AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/4G ED VR
#7 → AF-S-Nikkor-20mm-f1.8G-ED
Thanks for info.
I had an older version, AF-S 300/4 ED, which ended up being used mostly for headshots, rather than wildlife, the intention it was bought for 
. It was also OK for semi-macro but unfortunately it pumped a lot of dust. The PF version was said to have “worse” bokeh (didn’t check), but it didn’t matter in your case.
Interesting that you would prefer a smaller aperture.
I kinda like the focus on the shards as an artistic thought. Sort of a miniature city of skyscrapers in wood, with the timber tones as a backdrop. I would have guessed that was your intent.
If the intent was to get both the stump and timber in balance than perhaps the camera was too close to the stump to show proper scale. And a smaller aperture.
All depends on your intent…
nice examples!!!
The intent was the trees in the background out of focus. But I think it’s to much. If I look at the image it hurts my eyes, like I have wrong glasses.
George
Agree that hurts my eyes too, but concluded the background tress were too “in focus” instead.
My eyes attempted to judge distance between the stump and trees from the focus fall off across the grass. But the background trees appeared “too focused” or too “near” relative to this continuous transition. Also near enough for my eyes to attempt to adjust focus - hence hurt.
A simple CL to blur the background seems to help my eyes. However, the blur from the blur tool is artificial, not natural DoF focus blur so a different dissonance.
Of course, my eyes are accustomed to looking at the DoF focus fade from longer telephoto lenses, not a 70mm. This may affect my perspective.
Used your puplished pic and lowered the background brightness locally (tree trunks, building) to keep your intention. → see VC1 gw_20181206-007.jpg.dop (44,8 KB)
I mentioned this difference in a previous post and, yes it is quite disturbing to see Gaussian blur when you are expecting Bokeh.
If I’m really forced to use it, I will sometimes add two or three CLs, progressing away from the sharp area, with increasing amounts of blur, which better mimics the progressive Bokeh that gets “blurrier” with distance.
Single CL (0 selectivity) with blur at 87…
Three CLs (0 selectivity) with various blur intensities…
Attempt to show approximate positions of the three CLs…
I think it’s a great traditional way to focus attention on a subject of interest - near or far, the only way to do it in the good old days, when photography was a matter of getting most of the variables right in the camera.
To separate the main subject in B&W drawings, the contrast (local and more global) is mainly used. There might be some slight background blurring, but contrast is still the main “tool” for that purpose, as far as I understand it. Just like lenses do it, but only to some extent. I don’t have art academy background, these are just my 2 cents coming from observations.
