by Harold M.

Merklinger
ADJUSTING DEPTH-OF-FIELD — Part II as published in Shutterbug May 1992.

In my first article (“Adjusting ple at Shutterbug cut my figure in two same as if she were at thirty feet, a
Depth of Field”, Shutterbug, October and rearranged the two scales! It’s hundred feet or seven hundred feet.
1991) I tried to raise the question of true! Ask our editor. Figure 1 of this For the longer distances diffraction
whether the tried-and-true wisdom on article shows what that original Fig- effects will cause some additional de-
depth of field is still appropriate for ure 2 should have looked like. terioration, of course.
today’s high resolution films and The other error was not strictly The traditional methods for cal-
lenses. The conclusion was that one mine either, but I should have culating depth of field concentrate on
could expect to achieve about seven checked my facts first. I stated that image sharpness. That is, things are
times the resolution usually assumed for my 200 mm Micro-Nikkor, set at measureed on the film. The image of
in that wisdom. The standard rules for f/5.6 and focused at infinity, the depth a distant person is much smaller than
calculating depth of field can be ad- of field table says the zone of accept- that of a person close at hand. Meas-
justed to account for the higher res- able sharpness extends from 1929.22 ured in the image, a lens focused at
olution standard. But when one meters to infinity. It is true that the ta- infinity produces a sharper, more de-
makes the changes, depth of field vir- ble I consulted (in a book on Nikkor tailed image, more dots per milli-
tually vanishes. And that, in turn, lenses) said exactly that. But near as I meter, the farther the subject is from
does not square with my experience. can figure, that table is really for a the camera. Measured relative to the
Setting the lens focus closer to in- 600 mm lens, not a 200 mm lens. subject, however, the case is quite dif-
finity generally yields significant im- When I calculate the number for my- ferent. If we can resolve the pupil in
provement in the resolution of distant self, I get the distance to be 215 me- our model’s eye when she is at 20
subjects. Subjects well inside the cal- ters (about 700 feet)—just like the ac- feet, we will still be able to see the
culated inner limit of depth of field, tual instruction book which came pupil of her eye at a hundred feet, and
however, seem often to be imaged in with the lens says. I should have probably also at 700 feet. We can also
a satisfactory manner. I also tried to checked the numbers. discern the pupil of her eye at ten feet
debunk some of the myths associated The fact remains, however, that or five feet. Her eye might fill the en-
with depth of field: things like the specifying any depth of field limit to tire frame at close distances, but we’ll
one-third rule, and the misleading ap- three significant figures (never mind still resolve the pupil. For the pictures
parent accuracy of depth of field ta- six) is usually excessive except in taken close up, the image will not be
bles. close-up photography. The effect sim- as sharp as it could be if we were al-
In Part 2, I would like to explain ply is very seldom that critical—as lowed to refocus, but it is still sharp
why it is that subjects inside the cal- we shall see. enough to resolve the same features it
culated inner limit of depth of field Back to the main topic at hand. In resolved at greater distances.
can sometimes be rendered accept- Part 1 it was stated that our beautiful The question is, then, how can we
ably well in our images. It does not model—1929.22 meters in front of determine what any given lens will
happen all the time. But it is quite our lens (well, maybe 700 feet)— resolve in the object space? What de-
possible to figure out when it will could walk significantly closer to the tails of the subject, what facial fea-
happen, and when it won’t. camera and we would not be able to tures, what size pebbles on the
Before we launch into the main see much difference in the image in ground etc.? For a lens focused at in-
theme, though, please let me explain the viewfinder. Or, in fact, in our finity, the answer is dead simple.
two errors in the October ’91 article. prints. A lens focused at infinity has a Look in the front of your lens and
Many readers noticed one of them; unique characteristic. The ability of close down the diaphragm to the f-
noone has yet reported the second. such a lens to resolve a particular sub- stop you are intending to use. The
Figure 2, showing the depth of field ject is the same, no matter how dis- size of the diaphragm opening you
and focusing scales for a 50 mm lens tant the subject is from the lens. Our see is the approximate size of objects
set at the hyperfocal distance for f/8, model could walk right up to our which that lens will resolve when fo-
was not right. In order to make the di- camera and our ability to discern her cused at infinity. If the working lens
agram more compact, the layout peo- features would be essentially the opening is something like three milli-

feet 100
5 5.5 6 7 8 10 15 25 50 ∞

22 16 11 8 42 2 4 8 11 16 22
5.6 5.6
1 1
Figure 1: Here's what Figure 2 from my October ’91 article should have looked like. These are the dis-
tance and depth of field scales for a 50 millimeter lens set at its hyperfocal distance for f/8.
 a) b) c)

Figure 2: Here are three pictures of my sister-in-law taken with three different lenses: a 24 mm, a 50
mm and a 100 mm, all focused at infinity. Each lens is set for a 6 mm diameter aperture. The results
are all quite similar!
meters in diameter, we will be able to different lenses, but all set to the ject is registered on the film as a cir-
see the pupil in people’s eyes. If the same physical lens opening. And all cle of light which is larger than it
opening is larger, 25 millimeters for were focused at infinity. The three ‘should’ be. That is, the out-of-focus
example, we might be able to meas- lenses were a 24 mm f/4, a 50 mm f/8 image is larger than would be a sharp
ure the distance between the eyes, but and a 100 mm f/16. In each case that image of the object obtained by stop-
that’s about it. makes for a 4.5 millimeter diameter ping down the lens. The out-of-focus
As noted earlier, diffraction ef- lens opening. Figure 2 shows some of image is usually called the circle of
fects also limit resolution. We can in- the results. The signs she is holding confusion. If we were to measure its
deed calculate what size an object show the lens focal length (on the size and then work out how big the
must be if it is to be seen at all. We viewer’s left) and the distance (in me- object appears to be, we find that the
won’t go into the details here, but I’ll ters) from which the picture was tak- image size corresponds to that for an
give an example. For a 50 millimeter en. The camera to subject distances object at distance, D, the same size as
lens set at f/10 (that is, for a 5 milli- were adjusted to keep the image mag- the lens opening! And that fact re-
meter diaphragm opening) the small- nification equal. Apart from a gradual mains true no matter what the dis-
est object which diffraction effects decrease in contrast as lens focal tance, D, is. I know I haven’t proved
will permit us to see will have a char- length increases, I think you will the point here. But trust me; I’m a
acteristic size equal to about one- agree that the three results are very photographer!
eight-thousandth of the distance from much alike. That dot on her right Sometimes it’s easier to think of it
lens to subject. At 8,000 feet (about cheek was put there deliberately to in a different way. As Paul Rumsey,
1.6 miles) a 50 mm f/10 lens should help judge sharpness effects. (It was Shutterbug reader, observed: “Once
be able to resolve an object one foot really a black paper dot eight milli- you look at the camera as a slide pro-
in diameter. Another way to express meters in diameter.) jector and the object being photo-
relative effects, might be as follows. When a lens is focused at infinity, graphed as a projection screen, it all
From right in front of the lens to it sees the world as though it had been becomes easy to visualize!” With the
about a distance of 160 feet (50 me- painted with a brush that would just lens focused at infinity, a bright spot
ters), resolution will be limited by the fit through the lens opening. The on the film would be focused into a
size of the lens opening to objects 5 bigger the lens opening, the bigger parallel beam which shines a bright
millimeters in diameter and larger. the brush. The smaller the physical disk on any object in front of the lens.
Diffraction is not a factor. Beyond lens opening, the finer the brush. In The size of that disk is the same as
160 feet, diffraction effects take over Figure 3, I try to depict the ray geom- the aperture of the lens, no matter
and limit resolution to one-eight- etry involved. The solid lines are in- what the distance is.
thousandth of the distance from lens tended to show the boundaries of a So, the bottom line runs something
to subject. All of this is for lenses fo- light ray bundle arriving at the lens like this. In order to ensure that dis-
cused at infinity, of course. And lens- from a small light source in the far tant objects are imaged sharply, we
es having the same physical or work- distance. That light is focused to a must focus at the distance to the far-
ing diameter resolve the world in tiny bright spot on the film. A small thest object. Closer to the camera, res-
much the same way, regardless of object closer to the camera, at dis- olution is limited to objects of rough-
their focal length. tance D in this diagram, will be fo- ly the size of the lens diaphragm
To demonstrate the effect, I took cused behind the film, as shown by opening. If the smallest objects in the
several pictures of June using three the dashed lines. The small close ob- scene being photographed are larger
 FILM DIAPHRAGM
PLANE
OBJECT

LENS

LENS AXIS

f
D

Figure 3: Here's the ray geometry for a lens focused at infinity. An object closer than infinity is fo-
cused behind the film. The out-of-focus image produced is larger than if the lens were stopped down
further. The fine lines passing through the lens center show that the out-of-focus image corresponds to
the sharp image of an object the same size as the effective lens aperture.

than that size, they will be recorded things at all. For objects at three feet, we can recognize someone in a sce-
in the image. Objects smaller than the 32 feet is effectively infinity. The nic landscape shot, we say, “Wow,
lens opening will be blurred out, no sharpness of objects in the distance what a sharp picture!” If the image of
matter what the distance. will improve noticeably by focusing the person is too fuzzy to identify the
Before I understood these matters, at infinity, so I do it. If the objects in person, we say “Could have been
I all too frequently focused my lens at the foreground are five or six milli- sharper.” I have found that the magic
its hyperfocal distance. The conven- meters or so in size, I’m O. K. If the number seems to lie in the three-to-
tional rule, after all, is “to maximize close-in objects are smaller than that five millimeter range. With that size
depth of field, focus at the hyperfocal and they are important, I have only lens opening, people are recogniz-
distance...” Let’s suppose I am taking one option. I must use a physically able. With a ten millimeter opening,
a scenic picture with important ob- smaller aperture. Yet at the same people are looking decidedly fuzzy.
jects extending from three feet away time, I have to use f/8. The only solu- At 25 millimeters, we could probably
to the far distance. I’m using a 50 tion is to use a shorter focal length not differentiate between some fami-
mm lens, and need to use f/8 in order lens. If I use a 35 mm lens, objects ly members. At 200 millimeters, we
to permit a shutter speed short may be as small as 4 millimeters and aren’t even sure those lumps are peo-
enough to stop the blurring of leaves, show up distinctly in the image. A 24 ple.
traffic, people etc. due to motion. Ac- mm lens would bring this down to 3 Have you ever read that Ansel Ad-
cording to Figure 1, the hyperfocal millimeters—about an eighth of an ams often used a 300 mm lens set at
distance is about 32 feet, and the “in- inch. Blades of grass should now be f/64? Guess what! That corresponds
ner limit of depth of field” is 16 feet. clearly visible; that’s probably all I to a lens opening measuring just un-
For those objects at three feet, chang- need. der five millimeters in diameter!
ing the point of exact focus from 32 In my experience, we humans are
feet to infinity is not going to change interested mostly in other humans. If © Harold M. Merklinger, 1991