pgk Posted July 12, 2012 Share #21 Posted July 12, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) IMHO its not about the 'look' its about the subject matter and composition. A really interesting photograph shot wide open will not necessarily appear to be shot wide open simply because the subject matter dominates the technicalities involved in taking it. Shooting uninteresting images wide open will tend to accentuate the fact that they are uninteresting because their technicalities outweigh their subject matter for the viewer. I have 2 x f/1.4 M lenses. For me they simply add possibilities, but I shoot them stopped down far, far more than at full aperture. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 Hi pgk, Take a look here wide open look. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
skinnfell Posted July 12, 2012 Share #22 Posted July 12, 2012 I find that if I use the bokeh to blow out both the foreground and background, the subject better be VERY interesting, or I get bored with the picture pretty soon. Most "bokeh" pictures show the subject completely out of its context. And context is exactly what I am working with as a photojournalist. So ever since I got my M8 / M9, I have started to include foregrounds and backgrounds into my composition, and found it extremely rewarding. This kind of photography is SO much easier on a rangefinder than with my canons, since they view everythuing at full aperture and focus. There are a whole bunch of other benefits - I no longer lust for ultra-expensive, ultra-large and ultra-heavy lenses. Meaning my camera set is much lighter and I can afford more lenses. Greatly improved corner sharpness and vignetting doesn't hurt either. Also, I find that I use a (small carbon) tripod more instead of lazily shooting at F2 to get shutter speeds, another feature that has slowed me down and improved my photography. I would say I nowadays shoot wide open only if I absolutely have to because of lighting conditions, and for certain detail shots to spice up a larger story. Whereas F/1.4 used to be my working aperture, its now F4. This still provides some softness of backgrounds at normal focal lengths, while still easily putting my subjects into their context. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kanzlr Posted July 12, 2012 Share #23 Posted July 12, 2012 what I usually like and try to do is to get it just right. Accentuate the subject by having it sharper than the rest of the image, but still include the context. So I use f4 more than f1.4 because I want the surroundings to not be as sharp as the subject, but still easily recognizable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelly Posted July 12, 2012 Share #24 Posted July 12, 2012 I do like wide open shots especially from the nokton 1.1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kanzlr Posted July 13, 2012 Share #25 Posted July 13, 2012 I do like wide open shots especially from the nokton 1.1 care to explain what you like about them? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobertJRB Posted July 13, 2012 Share #26 Posted July 13, 2012 Because of this topic I took a look at my all time favorite photo's, not by me but from the "real" top photographers. None of those pictures have the wide open look. They always show a nice composition where the subject, but also the for and background are in good balance. I do like to photograph wide open, but most of those pictures don't really get a second look. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianv Posted July 13, 2012 Share #27 Posted July 13, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) I tend to read the books that were current with the lenses that I like to use, from the 1930s through the 1950s. Reading through "35mm Photo Technique", H.S. Newcombe, 1948- the wide-open look is nothing new and I can see these books influenced my style. And have long before the Internet was popular and DSLR's were invented. My DSLR is 20 years old this year. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpalme Posted July 13, 2012 Share #28 Posted July 13, 2012 When I read these type of threads I think of the grumpy old men muppets. Complaining about other peoples style will not make your photos better. 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=2061710'>More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted July 13, 2012 Share #29 Posted July 13, 2012 The placement of the plane of maximum focus in the image space is one of the most important compositional devices we have for directing the viewer's attention. But we don't have to browbeat him, trying to completely wipe out everything else (which is impossible in any case, even with a long tele lens). We just need to emphasize some things and to slightly de-emphasize other things, while keeping everything perfectly recognizable. "The viewer is not known with certainty to be a complete visual idiot." (From The Collected Wisdom of Mahatma Duffel.) Last week I had to do lots of nighttime shooting across and around tables, under lighting that was often really nightmarish. I very often had to keep my 35mm at f:1.4 and had quite a bit of subject movement blur too. The central subject was extremely sharp 99% of the time however. The current 35mm Summilux ASPH is a lens to take with us when we go. But I would have worked at f:4 if it had been possible. As several posters have pointed out, anything done routinely regardless of circumstances becomes either very boring, or an irritating mannerism. I have often pointed out that sharpness does not in itself make a boring picture more interesting. I should add that neither does fuzz. The old man from the Age of Kerosene Lamps Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted July 13, 2012 Share #30 Posted July 13, 2012 This recent TOP article seems relevant to this discussion. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted July 13, 2012 Share #31 Posted July 13, 2012 When I read these type of threads I think of the grumpy old men muppets. Complaining about other peoples style will not make your photos better. True, but expressing personal opinions and preferences about photographic styles on a photographers' forum, particularly in response to a question about that very subject, seems pretty reasonable to me. No? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpalme Posted July 13, 2012 Share #32 Posted July 13, 2012 True, but expressing personal opinions and preferences about photographic styles on a photographers' forum, particularly in response to a question about that very subject, seems pretty reasonable to me. No? Reasonable yes but since it is taking a negative tone of other peoples work it is more in the territory of whining. Not much you can do about it. Fence pics,park benches,cats,dogs, bottles on the table, faces with ears out of focus....I agree they are all Boring but all artist have to start somewhere. Maybe after a few years they may grow to use fast glass in an interesting way. Do you get irritated at art shows when you see boring art? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianv Posted July 13, 2012 Share #33 Posted July 13, 2012 David Douglas Duncan photograph of Captain Ike Fenton was up at the Marine Museum, wide aperture used in broad daylight to isolate the subject from the background. I believe it was taken with a Nikkor-SC 5cm F1.5 lens. I looked at a number of the portraits in the WW-II gallery hanging at the museum, quite a few outdoor portraits with shallow DOF to isolate the subject. I like this portrait of my daughter, taken with a pre-war 5cm F1.5 Sonnar wide-open on the M9. The Nikkor 5cm F1.5 is a copy of this lens. 1936 Coated Sonnar 5cm F1.5, wide-open on the Leica M9 by anachronist1, on Flickr This is the same lens, and is a test picture that I got the focus correct after converting the lens to Leica mount. It also gives a good idea of the signature of the particular lens. These 1930s optics often vary from copy to copy. This one is quite good, and is from a test batch of coated lenses. Dewdrop, 1936 CZJ Sonnar 5cm F1.5, wide-open by anachronist1, on Flickr Nothing new, not invented with the age of the DSLR. Not for everyone, not for every photograph, but an important tool that can add to the quality of an image. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted July 13, 2012 Share #34 Posted July 13, 2012 bored enough to never by fast lenses in the first place. I don`t think I have ever seen a memorable photo with thin depth of field, If I were to replace lenses today, I would buy summarits,or at most summicrons. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianv Posted July 13, 2012 Share #35 Posted July 13, 2012 Good! When will your fast lenses be up for sale? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AB007 Posted July 14, 2012 Share #36 Posted July 14, 2012 I love fast lenses and I do not use flash at all. I shoot wide open when I feel the need for it. I do not shoot wide open all the time just because I have fast lenses. I experimented once ...the one camera-one lens experiment when I traveled out of the country. I only took my 50 Cron. I missed having my Lux or Nocti. That wasn't a smart move I know there are some people who always shoot wide open. Yes, I love the 50/.95 look too. However, I am not one of them....not that there is anything wrong with that Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
azzo Posted July 14, 2012 Share #37 Posted July 14, 2012 I experimented once ...the one camera-one lens experiment when I traveled out of the country. I only took my 50 Cron. I missed having my Lux or Nocti. That wasn't a smart move Having those three 50mm's you mention, I probably would have opted for the 50mm Summilux if I were to travel. But I bet your back didn't hurt due to heavier load. ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted July 14, 2012 Share #38 Posted July 14, 2012 .................... Do you get irritated at art shows when you see boring art? Sometimes, yes. But I tend to keep it to myself. Unless, however, someone actually asks me my opinion about it, and then I try to give a polite and honest answer, whether positive or otherwise. In my opinion, cliche is something to be avoided in art. Not all uses of wide-open fast lenses are cliched of course, but many are, and I see it as a technique to be used extremely selectively and sparingly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AB007 Posted July 14, 2012 Share #39 Posted July 14, 2012 Having those three 50mm's you mention, I probably would have opted for the 50mm Summilux if I were to travel. But I bet your back didn't hurt due to heavier load. ... Yes, I agree and that's why I stated that it wasn't a smart move it was a very bad choice. 50 Lux is my fav 50. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
azzo Posted July 15, 2012 Share #40 Posted July 15, 2012 ... ... but all artist have to start somewhere. Maybe after a few years they may grow to use fast glass in an interesting way. Very difficult to already be an artist right from the beginning. Eventually ... maybe! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.