F stops make no diff for me .

[jujitsu1]

Just took these shots at try and get a blurred background but dont think it works as all 3 shots seem to be the same . Heres the 3 photos I took to show you. First is f8

This one is F5

This one is F3.3

I cant see any difference in them can any of you ? What am I doing wrong ?

[dlaf]

Were you shooting through a screen door? If so, that might have something to do with it (but I'm not smart enought to tell you why?! ).

[Canadian Mum]

There doesn't seem to be much difference at all. hmmmm...
I think shooting through a door (if you were as dlaf suggested) that your camera is taking that extra surface and using it to help focus... which could explain why everything behind it is the same each time.

[lputman]

If I've got this right, you have to consider the distance that your subject is from the background. You might try your test with a subject that is moveable and see if that's makes a difference. The further away from the background, the more "blurred" the background will be. Also, the focal length of the lens might be a factor in your results. I don't know that with a 16 mm focal length, you'll get the bokeh that you are looking for.

[Elmo]

With a PnS the DOF is so large it will be hard to notice, especally at that distance. This is due to the small pixel size on the sensor.

Try doing it this way and you might notice a slight difference. Set it to its maximum Focal length. Get as close as possible to something as it will focus. And it is possible you will see the difference.

[private]

Also, what is your camera focusing on? Is it something in your background or foreground. I think you need to focus on an object that is close to you - plus the sreen, like others have said may be hindering you.

[jdepould]

I can see a difference between f/5 and f/3.3, but it's pretty subtle. The small sensor size on your camera has a lot to do with it. Zooming in and putting distance between your subject and background will help give you more bokeh.

[Taallyn]

As some others mentioned there are a few things to consider here:

1) The distance between your subject and the camera is about the same as the distance between your subject and the background. Get closer to your subject and zoom in. The further the background is from the subject relative to the camera, the better chance you have of blurring the background..

2) The Depth of Field on point and shoot cameras is a lot bigger than on DSLRs due to the much smaller sensor size. Some point and shoots can have a 35mm equivalent of f65 for their apeture sizes. That makes for a huge depth of field diffference. When trying to blur the background with a point and shoot, you need to do more than just change the aperture. You need to get close and zoom in as that accentuates the differences in subject to camera distance vs. subject to background. Also, some people have had success shooting with the macro-mode on point and shoot cameras.

[porterd2nz]

Looking at the EXIF of the three posted images:

DSCF1881 - f/8, 0.007 sec (1/140), ISO 800, 16.7 mm
DSCF1882 - f/5, 0.003 sec (1/350), ISO 800, 16.7 mm
DSCF1883 - f/3.3, 0.001 sec (1/800), ISO 800, 16.7 mm

In simple terms: While you're changing the aperture (f/ number) the camera is compensating for the extra light by shortening the exposure time.

[Matthias099]

Originally Posted by porterd2nz

Looking at the EXIF of the three posted images:

DSCF1881 - f/8, 0.007 sec (1/140), ISO 800, 16.7 mm
DSCF1882 - f/5, 0.003 sec (1/350), ISO 800, 16.7 mm
DSCF1883 - f/3.3, 0.001 sec (1/800), ISO 800, 16.7 mm

In simple terms: While you're changing the aperture (f/ number) the camera is compensating for the extra light by shortening the exposure time.

Call me crazy, but isn't that what you expect, if you change the aperture? Otherwise the only result would be over- or under exposure of the photo. I don't think shutter speed has anything to do with DoF. Or am I wrong?