stump4545 Posted July 6, 2012 Share #1 Posted July 6, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) i do shoot wide open a lot with the .95 and 35 1.4 and nd filters. just wondering if anyone else here is "bored" with the wide open look? is shooting wide open too over done or has shooting wide open always been the norm with many M shooters? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 Hi stump4545, Take a look here wide open look. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jamesk8752 Posted July 6, 2012 Share #2 Posted July 6, 2012 Yes, I for one. Of course full aperture images have their place, but there is a lot more to photography than an isolated main element in a sea of blur. It's easy to become trapped in one way of seeing... Regards, Jim Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted July 6, 2012 Share #3 Posted July 6, 2012 If I was to shoot in any particular manner at all times without thought to the picture yes I would get bored. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomB_tx Posted July 6, 2012 Share #4 Posted July 6, 2012 Yes - it is way overdone today, as people try to look different than all-in-focus snapshots from cellphones. DOF should be selected for the effect suited to the subject. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stump4545 Posted July 6, 2012 Author Share #5 Posted July 6, 2012 anyone find the .95 wide open look cheap or too easy? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
insomnia Posted July 6, 2012 Share #6 Posted July 6, 2012 anyone find the .95 wide open look cheap or too easy? Well, the rendition is quite "uneven" over the image. The center is super-smooth and toward the edges it gets more and more harsh, circles tend to become a weird "triangular" shape, it's interesting. Wouldn't call it cheap though. Btw. you have a hilarious collection of threads/questions opened in the forum Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted July 6, 2012 Share #7 Posted July 6, 2012 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) I bought an M9 for the Noctilux. Wide open I absolutely love the look of it. I don't think it looks cheap in the slightest. But I do understand what you are saying, I think pictures can look cheap in these sense of a one trick pony/cliche. Flickr has a billion photos normally with Canon and Nikon and because the proliferation of banal low dof images it certainly has a stigma with it. Personally I would say thought that the Noctilux effect with its incredible tonality and colour rendition is unique looking and I find it really quite refined and well expensive I suppose. The Noctilux is also incredibly beautiful f1.4 - f5.6 too. I've actually been enjoying using it stopped down to 11. It's incredibly sharp. and it's tonal gradation and colour is par excellence. Edited July 6, 2012 by Paul J 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyedward Posted July 6, 2012 Share #8 Posted July 6, 2012 If the background is indistinct, the main subject cannot always be placed in context Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted July 6, 2012 Share #9 Posted July 6, 2012 If the background is indistinct, the main subject cannot always be placed in context And that is exactly what bugs the heck out of news photography editors. Used for effect is considered bad form. Used out of necessity is not. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gjames9142 Posted July 6, 2012 Share #10 Posted July 6, 2012 Some of the blame has to be put on Michael Johnson, who in the late 90'sinvented the term bokeh, which everyone then went on to describe as +creamy." (In wine talk, similarly, tannins are always described as "silky"). I am much less interested in the out-of-focus characteristics of an image than in pictures that have some complexity. So yes, it's usually pretty boring. But I suppose if you have shelled out whatever it costs for a Noctllux, you might as well use its defining characteristic, because at 5.6 it doesn't have much over a Cron. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted July 6, 2012 Share #11 Posted July 6, 2012 In my opinion its a hugely overworked cliche that should largely be reserved for when there's really no alternative. As an effect in its own right I almost always find it outdated, dull and disappointing, and it condemns a photo to being pleasant at best, robbing it of the potential for enduring interest and relegating the subject to the status of something akin to a decorative vignette. There. That's one prejudice off my chest! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerard Posted July 6, 2012 Share #12 Posted July 6, 2012 I have a 15mm Super Heliar that I shoot wide open all the time. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianv Posted July 7, 2012 Share #13 Posted July 7, 2012 Never. I just disassembled a 5cm F1.5 Summarit and changed the spacing of the optics to optimize it for F1.5 at all distances. Interesting design compromise to deal with focus shift. The Summarit is a 51.1mm focal length lens, shorter than the Leica standard. The lens is factory set for infinity to be in proper focus at F1.5 and closest focus to be in proper focus at F2.8. At F1.5, the Summarit front-focuses at close range. The modified lens back-focuses when stopped down, but at least is consistent at all distances. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Messsucherkamera Posted July 7, 2012 Share #14 Posted July 7, 2012 This is an interesting discussion. I made a lot of landscape photographs in the past, always stopping down for maximum depth of field. That got to be a bit boring and predictable visually. Nowadays I photograph mostly street and documentary subjects and I have come to appreciate selective depth of focus. I don't always photograph wide open but do a fair amount of shooting at f/2.8 and f/4.0 with my 28 'cron and f/4.0 and f/5.6 with my 50 'lux. This gives me a recognizable background with some separation of the main subject(s) from the background. I still like the totally soft background of a portrait made with my 90 'cron at f/2.0 or f/2.8, though. Sometimes I like doing street photography with my 28 'cron set at f/11 though. Leica lenses produce such beautiful images on Tri-X that often it is not easy to stick to one style produced by one lens and one aperture. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stump4545 Posted July 10, 2012 Author Share #15 Posted July 10, 2012 has shooting wide open become overused recently with the M8-M9 or has this always been the case with M shooters? any great photographers who shoot wide open and do it well to recommend? thanks. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpalme Posted July 10, 2012 Share #16 Posted July 10, 2012 I'm not bored at all. I'm just getting going with it! Photos are art. I appreciate a photo that is beautiful just for it's crazy colors just as much as a great photo that tells a story. Flickr: The Bokeh: Smooth & Silky Pool Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kanzlr Posted July 11, 2012 Share #17 Posted July 11, 2012 The over use of shallow depth of field stems, in my opinion, from the flood of new DSLR owners in recent years. Back when 35mm film was the norm, you could do it even with a lot of compact cameras. It was nothing new. When compact cameras with slow zooms and small sensor cameras took over, shallow depth of field was, for many, a new concept when they picked up their EOS 350D + 50 1.8 Been there, too. A lot of photographs I took with my first DSLR are random headshots of friends at f1.7 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rramesh Posted July 11, 2012 Share #18 Posted July 11, 2012 (edited) I am sure you don't need to justify the Noctilux, taking wide open shots always. I am sure it's good at all f stops. After all, that's why you have that aperture ring. The M9 is great camera and you have today a tremendous choice with a variety of lens and apertures to take pictures. Over here, I see a tremendous urge from photographers to demand the fastest lens on every camera and for all photograph moments. Sometimes it feels like the hi-fi urge to use a 100k sound system to play every music source. Edited July 11, 2012 by rramesh Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted July 11, 2012 Share #19 Posted July 11, 2012 I shoot wide open, primarily when there is no alternative. By choice I stop down a little, particularly at near distance subjects, such as flowers growing in the garden. Wide open gives too narrow a depth of sharpness; stopped down a little improves that situation, yet keeps the distance less sharp. There is no general rule and we all change our views over time. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJDrew Posted July 12, 2012 Share #20 Posted July 12, 2012 The reality is that we don't always point our lenses at interesting things. Wide open, interesting things happen. The flaws in our lenses come out... I'm sorry the 'glow' There is no reason to take advantage of this as much or as little as one wants. Is this cheating? Is there somehow honor in avoiding this crutch? Nope. Shoot what makes you happy and you win every time... even wide open in broad daylight Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.