How to capture depth?

[dlambert]

I was shooting some photos at a local conservatory, and came across a fantastic weeping cherry (I believe) in full bloom (see attached). I got some nice macro-like shots of some of the blooms, but when I was walking around the tree, I was struck by the fantastic number and depth of the blooms -- the canopy was just amazing.

I tried to capture the "they go on and on and on" feel by shooting straight up with a narrow DOF to try to show the distance a little bit, but it just didn't come out with the sensation of depth that I was hoping for:



Any idea how I could have captured this a little more effectively?

[inkista]

Just me, but I would pull out my fisheye and lie down on the ground.


Canon XT/350D. Sigma 8mm f/3.5 EX DG Circular Fisheye
iso 400, f/13, 1/320s.

But I am weird.

[dlambert]

Ahhh.... it's an equipment problem, then.

[nemesis256]

you definitely have the "get close" part right, but I think it would've helped if the closer flowers were in focus instead (like the ones on the branch on the bottom right) of the faraway ones.

[inkista]

Ahhh.... it's an equipment problem, then.

Well, I don't think you need a fisheye. But a wider lens would help you a) get more of the FoV (presumably covered in blossom),


Canon XT. EF-S 18-55 kit lens. @18mm, f/3.5, iso 100, 1/800s.

I wish I'd stopped down on this one, but I took this when still a newb and in that "shoot-wide-open-all-the-time" phase.

[CurlyCorry]

I was shooting some photos at a local conservatory, and came across a fantastic weeping cherry (I believe) in full bloom (see attached). I got some nice macro-like shots of some of the blooms, but when I was walking around the tree, I was struck by the fantastic number and depth of the blooms -- the canopy was just amazing.

I tried to capture the "they go on and on and on" feel by shooting straight up with a narrow DOF to try to show the distance a little bit, but it just didn't come out with the sensation of depth that I was hoping for:



Any idea how I could have captured this a little more effectively?

no fish eye lens needed... in my opinion. All you needed to do was find a better spot where the blossoms were not quite so in front of you. Your focus is past the first bloom.. i would have tried to stretch beyond that point to get a few more a bit further away, but not so far as to focus on them... hard to explain.... lol BEAUTIFUL SHOT as it is.... love it

[JFSanders]

Look up how DOF operates with minimum focusing distance and hyperfocal distance. I think you were just standing in the wrong spot. Although the fisheye is wonderful at giving the viewer a vertigo fit.

[dlambert]

Thanks, everyone -- I think I've got a good idea how to attempt this if I get over there again (and it hasn't lost all it's blooms). I did try the "focus close" approach, which worked well (I thought), but also didn't show a ton of depth:



I can see where something sort of like this, with a larger DOF, maybe shot from my back under the tree would give me my best shot at capturing the look I was going for. Maybe next year, right?

[inkista]

... Maybe next year, right?

I say that EVERY year...

[jojonac]

One of the common rules when trying to show depth in an object by using depth of field is to set your focus point on the second closest thing to the lens. In this case I would say you should have focused on the smaller bloom in the middle right portion of the photograph.

The photo you have does show depth, but what you want is to have the foreground out of focus, the middle in focus, and the background out of focus. I think that may have gotten you the look you were going for.

I hope you get back there and give it a try, I would love to see the results.