Shallow DoF

[mca]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

(I am not sure if this is the correct folder to post this topic to but as it is not related to any specific lens I didn't put it in the M Lenses folder. please move it if it's wrong, thanks)

 

One thing that most photographers go after is very shallow DoF and Leica shooters are no exception, maybe they are even one of the most enthusiast in this regard.

 

But it's something that bothers me a little when used to exhaustion (and it often is) and I would love to hear your views on the subject, suspecting that most of you will not agree with me but I am looking for new points of view anyway

 

I know most people would just die for a very very shallow DoF but I am one of those who thinks it is an over used thing, meaning I don't like shots where 99% of the image is out of focus including 90% of your subject. Like photographing a man writing on a piece of paper and just have 10% of his finger in focus and loosing the person, the pen and even the paper. What is the point then?

 

One thing is to isolate a specific point in your image using a very wide aperture, guiding your viewer's eye to that specific point, when that point is indeed fulcral to your 'message' and the rest is secondary. Isolate the primary from the secondary sort of thing. If done right, it can be amazing. Another thing is to lose most of your picture just to use that shallow DoF with no apparent taste or motive in choosing the focused point. Most of the shots I see at wide apertures seem to be just "I do it because I bought this super expensive lens and must always shoot at wide apertures". Specifically many noctilux shots I see fall into this category, but the same is valid for summilux lenses of 50mm and above.

 

A bit like HDR, when done right it can be great but most people just abuse it to create non-pleasing images, IMHO. They go for the technique and not for the final image, if you understand what I mean. The same goes for f/0.95, f/1, f/1.1, f/1.2 and f/1.4 images on focal lenghts like 50mm and above, I feel that most people just abuse it for the sake of bokeh and no apparent 'sense' or reason in what they are chosing to focus on.

 

So for me these kinds of apertures would be most useful to shoot at a certain distance with very little available light and not so much to create completely out of focus images like many we see at f/0.95.

 

What are your views on this? Many of you do shoot at these apertures (I only have f/2 lenses). Do you feel the same as me when looking at other people's images or I am really not getting the point?

[tobey bilek]

Another fad that will pass.

 

There are some uses such as to reduce attention to a busy background. Problem being if you try to go too extreme, only a small portion of the subject will be in focus. I dislike when this happens.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jaapv]

You are right. Overuse will turn an effect into a trick. As everything in photography: only use an effect when you want to express something.

[pgk]

One thing that most photographers go after is very shallow DoF.....

Not in my experience. I recently gave a talk to a camera club where only 3 out of about 50 members actually owned an f/1.4 lens (I wouldn't call f/2 fast personally).

 

Shallow depth of field is relevant where its relevant. Its just another technique which like any other can be misused.

[Steve Ash]

You need to be a more advanced photographer to make use of the whole depth as more parts in the frame need to be considered.

[TomB_tx]

When ASA 100 was very fast film, shallow DOF was the compromise one had to accept to get reasonable shutter speed in "available light." We stopped down fast lenses when practical to get normal DOF and better overall image, only using f1.5 or so when really needed. Yes, the wide-open look can be used to good artistic effect, but IMHO is way overused today.

With even the M9 sensor I'm happy with f2.5 or 2.8 lenses, and usually stopped down.

[Michael Hiles]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Unless there is a clear need, I avoid shallow DOF. The geometry of the elements of the picture are far more important in determining how the viewer's eye takes in the image. I rarely want to isolate some element from the overall scene.

[spydrxx]

Like many others stated, shallow DOF is one of many techniques to express artistic intent. Some people chase it thinking it, and famous the lenses producing it, will affirm their status as "photographers" who have arrived, but I think most juduciously employ the technique when it will enhance the vision of the shot. Personally, years ago, I owned and tried the Canon f/0.95 and the Noctilux f/1.0 for about a year each and eventually sold them. In my case I wasn't achieving my desired results, and found that the extra expense of ownership and weight of the lenses themselves, worked against most of what I shot anyway. I still have some memorable shots of family members with these lensess wide open, but all said and done, I was much happier with my Summilux and Summicrons. I do think it is great for photographers to get a chance to try out the razor thin DOF shots and determine if they really like incorporating the technique into their developing styles, or if they come to see it in a different light after trying it for a while.

[farnz]

I find it interesting that I hear this same drum beaten quite often yet I don't recall the same criticism levelled at macrophotography although the same applies there. So often it's a tiny portion of a flower in focus against a massive sea of out of focus green yet with judicious use of a tripod with a small aperture, and perhaps focus-stacking in some instances, deeper depth of focus could be achieved.

 

I am left to wonder about the reasons behind declaring shallow depth of focus with fast lenses as a fad when it's no more than a photographic 'tool' to help achieve the desired picture. Perhaps it is over-used by some but I think this becomes a matter of taste and who's to say that one's taste is better than another's?

 

Pete.

[Jeff S]

f8 and be there… versus... f.95 and be there.

 

Jeff

[lct]

You need to be a more advanced photographer to make use of the whole depth as more parts in the frame need to be considered.

+1. For an old newbie like me shallow DoF is the only way to blur subject matters i have not the time or the talent to remove or take into account in my pics.

[250swb]

One thing that most photographers go after is very shallow DoF and Leica shooters are no exception, maybe they are even one of the most enthusiast in this regard.

 

I generally agree with the broad point you make except this statement. It is far from the truth that most photographers actively concentrate on using shallow DOF.

 

The situation is rather like complaints about cameras. You hear most from the few people with a complaint, and don't hear from the majority of happy camera users. Likewise habitual users of shallow DOF like to tell everybody about it. They even have their own coded language where 'Lux and Nocti are used as signifiers in the same sentence as 'awesome creamy bokeh'. On LUF you even hear from people who declare they only use their fast lens wide open.

 

Of course there is nothing wrong with being a specialist, and each to his or her own. But generally speaking the preponderance of talk about shallow DOF is because it is easier to discuss, it is one idea, it is one technique, it is a refined but narrow means of communication. There is a very positive side to this though, if you can't think of anything better to say about a photograph it is easy to say 'nice bokeh', which tragically gets taken as a compliment, but gets you out of a hole.

 

Steve

[plasticman]

These discussions strike me as an opportunity for people to display their 'superior' photographic taste, and look down from a lofty height on the unsophisticated rabble who buy an f.1 lens and don't know 'better' than to use it wide open all the time.

 

But what if your photographic style favors that look? What if your photography happens mostly to be one focussed subject where the surroundings would be a distraction if everything was sharp?

 

I find it's just too easy for all the wannabe HCB's to look down in judgement on the plebian masses who have no idea that what they 'should' be doing is stopping-down to f.4 and getting everything in focus like 'serious' photographers do.

 

Live and let live. in my view.

[jaapv]

I see no post in the thread that justifies this reaction. Is it suddenly judgemental to discuss the use of a particular photographic technique?

Would you react the same way if we were discussing for instance the (over)use of short lenses, or crazy angles?

Edited May 26, 2014 by jaapv

[IWC Doppel]

Horses for courses, like subject matter and composition.

 

Personally I like the rendering of some lenses wide open and some stopped down. For me I tend to set up for the overall look I am after (depending on available light) and broadly what the subject matter will be then focus on the image and composition, that's enough for me

 

I have to say I don't pop the Noctilux on the camera if it's bright outside and I don't have something specific in mind with my ND filter secured. I do however love putting it on for an evening with friends

[plasticman]

I'm not as angry as you seem to think Jaap.

[jaapv]

Well, it read a bit upset, Mani...

[pico]

f8 and be there… versus... f.95 and be there.

 

As a former news photographer of the Sixties and Seventies (way before consumer digital everything), shallow DOF was what we suffered when light was miserably low, or long lenses were used. For personal work, I do sometimes use it but not out of desperation.

 

Today I just cringe when I see it used only so the photographer can caption, "Shot with Leica's f/0.95 Noctilux."

 

I still have a converted-to-M Canon f/0.95. Somewhere.

[Stealth3kpl]

I saw someones holiday photos in a famous city, posted on another forum. It was all bollards, fence mesh and isolated fence posts. Lovely Bokeh and all that, but I can't help thinking that, in 10 years time, that couple will look back through their photo memories and wonder where the hell they were.

Pete

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[250swb]

But what if your photographic style favors that look?.

 

Then it is style over substance if that is all you have on the table.

 

Which is the point people are making, shallow DOF is often a disguise for shallow work. Now if the substance of your picture is best demonstrated by shallow DOF there can be no argument that shallow DOF is the way to go; except you open yourself to being even lumped in with the insubstantial. There are photographers like Sally Mann who use shallow DOF because it provides the fastest shutter speed in a very slow process, and it isolates the subject matter. But her subject matter is contiguous, it is about something, and it is demonstrably about something. If even a good proportion of the shallow DOF images on LUF meet that criteria I will happily acknowledge I am wrong, but I'd say 'style' dominates other criteria.

 

Steve

Edited May 26, 2014 by 250swb