In this photo, even though the mountain is quite a distance further than the road, it doesn't seem relatively as blurry as the backgrounds of some of the other images look (take, for example, the lamb photo or the buoy in the surfing photo). I would assume that whatever camera took this has a pretty long focal length, but I would also guess that the blurriness would "scale" with distance, to a degree. In other words, the mountain doesn't seem nearly as blurry in comparison to the road, given how much further away it is, and I can't quite figure out why. Am I just missing or misunderstanding something?
kkkhanl
I did some research and I think this is dependent on the depth of field which depends on the focusing distance. If we focused on something really close to the camera like in the last few images, the depth of field becomes very shallow, and only a small part of the image is in focus. I read some of this from https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm
In this photo, even though the mountain is quite a distance further than the road, it doesn't seem relatively as blurry as the backgrounds of some of the other images look (take, for example, the lamb photo or the buoy in the surfing photo). I would assume that whatever camera took this has a pretty long focal length, but I would also guess that the blurriness would "scale" with distance, to a degree. In other words, the mountain doesn't seem nearly as blurry in comparison to the road, given how much further away it is, and I can't quite figure out why. Am I just missing or misunderstanding something?
I did some research and I think this is dependent on the depth of field which depends on the focusing distance. If we focused on something really close to the camera like in the last few images, the depth of field becomes very shallow, and only a small part of the image is in focus. I read some of this from https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm