azzo Posted July 15, 2012 Share #41 Posted July 15, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) When viewing a portrait not long ago, the plane of focus was so thin that it looked as though the person's face was cut and pasted onto the rest of the head from a second image of the same person. ... IMO, it looked awful ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 15, 2012 Posted July 15, 2012 Hi azzo, Take a look here wide open look. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
40mm f/2 Posted July 15, 2012 Share #42 Posted July 15, 2012 I do not understand the wide open look idea. For me the attraction to the M system is about small lenses with high resolution. I owned once a Summilux 75mm - but I used it rarely at 1.4 . I understand the photographic utility of a shallow depth of field but I see to many examples of pictures where open look means only ignoring the background because it is "out of focus". Ming Thien has on his website an interesting statement about: Incorrect use of depth of field Common photographic mistakes by beginners, amateurs and pros – and how to avoid them – Ming Thein | Photographer Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted July 15, 2012 Share #43 Posted July 15, 2012 I've been shooting with my 75mm Summilux and flash stopped down to f11 just these last few days. The detail is just mind boggling, really quite astonishing. It really is medium format quality. I find that kind of detail fascinating. It would be wonderful for it to be that sharp wide open. As much as I love shooting wide open with these lenses, I think I would actually get less bored shooting stopped right down. That detail is heavenly and fascinating. It is treating each picture individually and thinking about what works best for the image, the story. If you want to show everything or just give an impression. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianv Posted July 15, 2012 Share #44 Posted July 15, 2012 Thin DOF in portraiture is nothing new for photography, one can certainly find reference to it in literature. "Lenses in Photography", 1951, Rudolf Kingslake- "depth in portrait" covers the topic, find it in the index. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jager Posted July 15, 2012 Share #45 Posted July 15, 2012 I'll just add that medium format (and, even more, large format) photography has less inherent depth of field than 35mm. Just as those of us who love street photography are often influenced by the greats who came before - HCB, Brassai, Atget, Koudelka, Davidson, and the like - we are likewise influenced by a lifetime of iconic portraiture and other commercial images that, before the advent of digital, were more often than not taken with a larger format system. The vast majority of images taken during the first 75 years of photography exhibited limited depth of field. We've now gone to the other extreme. The sheer ubiquity of small-sensor cameras and cell phones means we're flooded with images where everything is in focus. Personally, I have a bias towards some degree of subject isolation. I prefer that as a starting point for analyzing the compositional needs of a frame, than the oftentimes very busy compositions where everything is in focus. I actually think it is much harder to find a composition that is strong and coherent and works well when there are numerous layers and elements that must be accommodated. The reality, of course, is that we shouldn't be beholden to either extreme. As others here have noted, depth of field is one of the primary tools a photographer has for shaping an image. We should use that tool knowingly, and with clear intent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alun Posted July 17, 2012 Share #46 Posted July 17, 2012 I do feel quite strongly about the lens-wide-open approach to photography. If I read a post that begins, "Love fast glass and always shoot wide open" I know I don't need to read any further or look at any of the poster's pictures. This is because a zillion-dollar lens that renders OOF areas exquisitely still has one inherent failing: it cannot make dull pictures interesting. So, as regards shallow DOF, my view has always been: if it is appropriate to the subject, if it enhances the picture, and if it makes an already interesting picture more powerful, more interesting, more memorable -- then it's right. If it doesn't, then it isn't -- it's just a picture of what a 'lens can do'. Of course, if none of that interests you (and as a number of posters have pointed out, this is all pretty subjective stuff), then fire away as you please. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelly Posted July 17, 2012 Share #47 Posted July 17, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Originally Posted by nelly001 I do like wide open shots especially from the nokton 1.1 care to explain what you like about them?: Kanzir I was just expressing that in my opinion the Nokton 1.1 can sometimes render out of focus areas often very artistically with pastel like colour and even though this lens is often called too soft wide open I personally like the feeling in certain shots. I would not of course choose to shoot wide open for every shot but in some portraits I find the isolation can complement a picture. In the two portraits of my son below and I like how the narrow depth of field conveys the mood and colors of autumn in the first photo and in the second shot I like how the background flowers have rendered in a painterly way. Neale Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/183240-wide-open-look/?do=findComment&comment=2064530'>More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted July 17, 2012 Share #48 Posted July 17, 2012 Interesting and healthy the difference of opinions here. With this awful weather I find a lot my pictures are at low light in the evening indoors, so fast glass is very helpful. To my untrained eyes there is a look about Leica, part pure peformance and resolution, part sensor characteristics on digital as this has been seemingly maintained from film, and part lens 'character'. They simply don't look like most DSLR pictures, at F8 they do however look a lot closer than at F2. When the transition from in to out of focus is gradual, charistmatic and brings the viewers focus into what the photographer intended I am a happy bunny indeed. Super sharp everywhere is perfect for archietcture and the like but for me with people shots misses the atmosphere somehow. Take a wedding shot where the people are in front of say a green bush, I personally would be much happier if the leaves were softened and not sharp ? I do agree too much can be a little cliche or even pretentious. But I dont want too many uncharismatic microscopic detail shots thanks If they made a Noctilux with a one choice aperture, F0.95 I'd be interested, not sure I would want to lug the Noctilux around stopping down to F4 or 5.6 (Not that I have tried) Can I have both please given the occasion, but for me I want more with shallower DOF than sharp all over Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil U Posted July 17, 2012 Share #49 Posted July 17, 2012 I think it a tragedy when so many photos of peoples' children growing up are shot in purely portrait style with fast lenses wide open. The reason I say this is that whilst you get the lovely dreamy portrait of the child's angelic face, you deprive future generations from looking back with laughter and amazement at the horrendous shirts and haircut that granddad was sporting at the time, or the equally vile sofa, curtain or carpet patterns that were the fashion of the day. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianv Posted July 17, 2012 Share #50 Posted July 17, 2012 That's what Sound Super-8 was for when my nieces and nephews were growing up, and what video is for now. If you do it right, you can have a nice income in your old age to keep them off of youtube. "Hey Kids, want to see movies of Mom and Dad when they were your age!" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpalme Posted July 17, 2012 Share #51 Posted July 17, 2012 Originally Posted by nelly001 I do like wide open shots especially from the nokton 1.1 : Kanzir I was just expressing that in my opinion the Nokton 1.1 can sometimes render out of focus areas often very artistically with pastel like colour and even though this lens is often called too soft wide open I personally like the feeling in certain shots. I would not of course choose to shoot wide open for every shot but in some portraits I find the isolation can complement a picture. In the two portraits of my son below and I like how the narrow depth of field conveys the mood and colors of autumn in the first photo and in the second shot I like how the background flowers have rendered in a painterly way. Neale Those are great. I just couldn't seem to get that nice of quality from the copy I had. Maybe I should try another copy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelly Posted July 17, 2012 Share #52 Posted July 17, 2012 I think it a tragedy when so many photos of peoples' children growing up are shot in purely portrait style with fast lenses wide open. The reason I say this is that whilst you get the lovely dreamy portrait of the child's angelic face, you deprive future generations from looking back with laughter and amazement at the horrendous shirts and haircut that granddad was sporting at the time, or the equally vile sofa, curtain or carpet patterns that were the fashion of the day. Believe me I have a multitude of shots showing the chaos of childhood! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted July 17, 2012 Share #53 Posted July 17, 2012 Believe me I have a multitude of shots showing the chaos of childhood! My choice of shirt, sofa and girlfriend 20 years ago are better blurry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelly Posted July 17, 2012 Share #54 Posted July 17, 2012 My choice of shirt, sofa and girlfriend 20 years ago are better blurry Likewise.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted July 17, 2012 Share #55 Posted July 17, 2012 Believe me I have a multitude of shots showing the chaos of childhood! Me too. Variety is a good thing — different lenses and apertures describe things in different ways. Wide open is useful, but the same wide open look for every photo would be boring. Best to use them all! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlet Posted July 18, 2012 Share #56 Posted July 18, 2012 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? It certainly hasn't been the norm, imho. At least the photo journalistic roots of Leica will not support this. I am tired of what I call the "maximised bokeh" look which means the seemingly perpetual flow of imagery of anything from picket fences to babies to tulips to cats created under conditions to enable shooting at the widest possible aperture to make the subject, and gosh I hate the word, "pop". Ridiculous. Personally I employ the aperture to try to separate the subject from the background in an appropriate manner, depending on the circumstances, but this does not mean using the widest aperture. I typically shoot between 2.8 and 4, and sometimes higher, all depending on the circumstances, including what I wish to achieve and, often, how much time I have to make the shot to capture the moment I am after. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avatar Posted July 18, 2012 Share #57 Posted July 18, 2012 I find shooting wide open to be often overdone..Of course it's appropriate sometimes too. As a street photographer, I find it harder to take an interesting picture stopped down (sometimes)...and that's not 'fair' either..There are no absolutes here of course and the use of light is what we're doing and all about anyway. There are times when I shoot at slower shutter speeds to create blur or show movement, that can be over done too. It really depends on the picture and how it's done. But yes, in general anything can be 'overly techniqued' and mask a photograph that really doesn't have that much interest on it's own merits.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomB_tx Posted July 19, 2012 Share #58 Posted July 19, 2012 Perhaps there are really two issues: "Wide Open" shooting and the current rage for ultra-ultra fast glass. Back in 1969 I was looking for a 50 for my M4, and a dealer in Chicago had a new Noctilux f1.2, which sold for under $700 - which was more than I had paid for my Leicaflex SL. The Noctilux tempted me for about 5 minutes. I'd used 1.4 and 1.2 lenses on my Pentax and Canon SLRs, but almost never used them at max aperture. I got them for the SLRs for ease of focusing on the ground glass. I also realized I could get the shots I wanted with an f 2.0 lens (or even 2.8) and have a smaller, lighter, and more practical lens. So I ended up getting Summicrons in 35 and 50 in the next year. I still have them and they are still my primary lenses. I do use them wide open some, but normally stopped down. Yes, I have 1.4 lenses now in 35 and 50, but the Summicrons are used a lot more. Expensive ultra-fast glass doesn't tempt me at all, as I've found 2.0 gives me all the speed and subject isolation I need, and usually I want more "context" from stopping down farther. No doubt many can use the faster lenses to better effect than I can, but I'll bet many of us are happy at moderate apertures. (However I do have the 50 1.1 Zunow LTM to try when it gets back from repair. It was given to me a long time ago with a jammed focus. I doubt if it will convert me.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlet Posted July 19, 2012 Share #59 Posted July 19, 2012 Back in 1969 I was looking for a 50 for my M4, and a dealer in Chicago had a new Noctilux f1.2, which sold for under $700 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted July 19, 2012 Share #60 Posted July 19, 2012 Perhaps there are really two issues: "Wide Open" shooting and the current rage for ultra-ultra fast glass. Back in 1969 I was looking for a 50 for my M4, and a dealer in Chicago had a new Noctilux f1.2, which sold for under $700 Altman Camera? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.