Today, I bring you what has been called by many (meaning one friend) a “thrilling discussion on depth of field.” Let’s begin.

The aperture size used for this picture was ƒ/5.6, which is a relatively large aperture size, hence the small depth of field. This, by the way, is one of my problems with photography. Everything seems to be opposite, which is tough for me to get a hold of. The bigger your ƒ-stop number, the smaller your actual aperture size. The smaller your aperture size, the greater depth of field you have. A great depth of field means less of a blurry background/foreground by the way.

DOF is a great way to add interest or focus one’s attention on an area of a photograph. Here, the depth of field extends from being sharp in the middle, to blurry on the top and bottom. Alternatives could be sharp on top and blurry on the bottom, or vice versa. I probably should have shot the aforementioned alternatives to match them against one another in a fight to the death, but alas, it did not come to mind at the time.

My main beef with THIS photo is that the blurriness on the bottom seems sudden. I’m not sure how it happened, but there doesn’t seem to be much of a transition between the sharp oats and the blurry oats, at least towards the bottom. Oh well.

Exposure: 0.033 sec (1/30)
Aperture: f/5.6
Focal Length: 300 mm
Exposure Bias: 0/6 EV
ISO Speed: 200
Exposure Program: Shutter priority