[Click images to view larger in a lightbox.]

Yesterday I mentioned that I like how macro photography allows me to really play with depth of field to craft interesting images. In most of my photography, I want as much of my subject in focus as possible, with top priority—in bird and wildlife photography, as well as in portraiture—going to the subject’s eye. In macro, the depth of field (the plane in front of the camera that is considered acceptably sharp) can be so razor thin that to get all of your subject sharp takes some extra work: focus stacking, as I did yesterday; reducing the hole in your lens; adding flash, etc. But it’s also fun to embrace the blurriness of a shallow depth of field and see what you can come up with.

A couple days ago, I took photos of a rose in a vase in our living room. The rose is now past its prime, but it’s all the more lovely for it. In both images I pumped in some light with an off-camera flash, diffused in a softbox. But in the first photograph, I kept the hole in my lens fairly large (f/5.6), giving me a shallow depth of field and a lot of blurriness (called bokeh). In the second, I made the hole in my lens tiny (f/22) to get as much of the flower in focus as possible. Which is the better image? There may not be a right or wrong answer, but I can tell you I’m partial to the first. While only the the folds of the flower closest to the lens are sharp, I like how the rest of it is cloaked in mystery, up to the imagination.

IMAGE #1

Location: Silverton, Oregon

Exposure: 1/200 second, f/5.6, ISO 320

Focal Length: 105 mm

Gear:

• Camera: Nikon D850

• Lens: Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM Macro Lens

IMAGE #2

Location: Silverton, Oregon

Exposure: 1/200 second, f/22, ISO 320

Focal Length: 105 mm

Gear:

• Camera: Nikon D850

• Lens: Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM Macro Lens