Shallow DoF

[Berth]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

....

 

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

 

I'm extremely confident in saying only a very small minority of photographers go after a very shallow DoF. I suspect a large majority do exactly the opposite.

[Advertisement]

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

[mca]

Very interesting discussion in my opinion and I like to put my ideas in question and see if there are other more insightful views or even see if I am being narrow minded by my own taste (or lack of).

 

Of course each person will express him or herself artistically in a different way and the use of a special technique is an individual decision that will ultimately be attributed to personal taste and not much more.

 

But I do get frustrated when I look at a good image that is spoiled by the not so great use (or even the abuse) of a certain technique, in this case the very shallow depth of field, and hence my remarks.

[pico]

[..] But I do get frustrated when I look at a good image that is spoiled by the not so great use (or even the abuse) of a certain technique, in this case the very shallow depth of field, and hence my remarks.

 

 

Making a picture with greater DOF than shooting wide-open challenges us to consider the entire frame. Such a challenge is more than most can handle, myself included.

 

 

 

Sent from my Etcha-sketch.

[Jeff S]

Making a picture with greater DOF than shooting wide-open challenges us to consider the entire frame. Such a challenge is more than most can handle, myself included.

 

For me that's the essence of photography, and painting, i.e., the task of filling a two dimensional frame with something worthy. Paul Strand provided great lessons in paying attention to everything, including the edges…no such thing as almost. The geometry of a picture matters…to me (of course there are many types of photography, e.g., documentary, etc, which include many other important aspects).

 

Jeff

[Michael Hiles]

Thinking about the whole frame is a challenge – but the alternative is relying on luck. I think that trying to improve the chances that luck will smile by replacing thinking with f1.4 is likely to be futile. I don’t believe I have made many successful pictures that did not involve thinking about what would be in the whole frame. And if I can do it…

[plasticman]

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.

 

I was going to use Sally Mann as my example as it happens, but I ran out of energy.

 

Let's face it, there's probably enough shots of a picket fence disappearing into blurry infinity on flickr to last us all a lifetime, but I have to say the self-righteousness of many of the wannabe-HCB 'I-have-a-Leica-therefore-I'm-a-serious-street-photographer' groupies on this forum does get on my nerves.

[farnz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Please excuse me if I've misinterpreted but I'm starting to sense a discontinuity with the camp that feels that shallow depth of field is overused. On the one hand primarily shooting with, say, a Summilux at f/1.4 is considered a fad and on the other hand everything in the frame right to the edges is important and presumably* needs to be in focus. (*For clarity, that's my presumption.)

 

So …

- Is it still considered faddist to shoot a Summilux primarily at f/2 where there'll still be shallow depth of field with near objects?

- Is it still considered faddist to shoot a Summilux primarily at f/2.8 with a similar depth of field as f/2?

- Is it considered faddist to shoot an Elmarit primarily wide open at f/2.8?

- Is f/8 recommended as the aperture of choice (good light permitting) to bring everything in the frame into focus?

- Is the complaint rearly about the prevalence of out of focus areas?

 

Is the matter becoming obscure? Would someone very kindly explain please?

 

Pete.

[pop]

I think this kind of question can not be answered in abstract terms. You'd just as soon posit that taking photographs in portrait or landscape orientation was an overused style element.

 

Show a concrete example and we can discuss whether it should have been in landscape orientation, in color, with a narrow DOF, focused here or there and so on. Otherwise it's just another way of asking "how high is up".

[Jeff S]

...on the other hand everything in the frame right to the edges is important and presumably* needs to be in focus. (*For clarity, that's my presumption.)

 

There are no rules. I was speaking about my own photography and tastes, and even that's by no means rigid. I've been collecting photographs as well as photo and art books for decades, and have been taking photos for longer, and the only thing that matters to me is whether the work resonates for whatever reason.

 

I do admit to having a visceral reaction to seeing background 'bubbles' and half-focused or unclear subjects in many pics these days…without other compensating qualities...and that's not the kind of resonance I mean.

 

Jeff

[kdriceman]

I appreciate and enjoy a deep Dof. IMO It takes extraordinary skill to deliver an intriguing image with depth and layers. Now, I shoot plenty of images with shallow DOF if I just need the light gathering capability of a wide aperture or if I'm stuck with a crappy background and I'm hoping to blur it away. But I don't like trying to hold focus on razor-thin DOF. I do admire those that can expertly deliver images with depth.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Steve Ash]

I am drawn by both sides. While I like the 3 dimensional effect that shallow DOF can provided , it makes me happy when I manage to shoot a complex seen with greater DOF.

[Paul J]

The problem with Shallow DOF is not in it's use, but it's misuse.

 

Editing is not something that comes easily or naturally to anyone. You first need to figure out what you want to say to know when you aren't saying it. When you discover that, you simultaneously discover when to use shallow depth of field and when not to.

[pgk]

The first rule of photography is that there are no rules. Trying to impose them is irrelevant and attempting to limit the possibilities available to the photographer.

 

Innumerable examples of the pointless use of technique exist but what has this got to do with appropriate use of technique?

[pico]

The Innumerable examples of the pointless use of technique exist but what has this got to do with appropriate use of technique?

 

 

A most provocative, and useful question!

 

May we see some examples where outcomes were technically inferior but were still engaging ?

[farnz]

… May we see some examples, perhaps where outcomes were technically inferior but outcomes were engaging ?

Since the term "engaging" is subjective it might be an idea to clearly define it to discourage handbags from being raised in abject opprobrium.

 

Pete.

[pgk]

May we see some examples where outcomes were technically inferior but were still engaging ?

Difficult because I would say that an 'engaging' photo is intrinsically technically acceptable/appropriate simply because it is 'engaging'. You'd also have to define technically 'correct' and this certainly isn't always possible IMO. (It could potentially be argued that any photo taken on an M8 is technically inferior to one taken on an M9 - which is obviously daft:D). I enjoy experimenting with 'wrong' technique to see what happens and on occasion the results iget filed away as an idea for specific subjects - shallow DoF being one of them. I'll try to dig something out as an example, but can't access the images that I have in mind for a few days.

[pico]

Difficult because I would say that an 'engaging' photo is intrinsically technically acceptable/appropriate simply because it is [...].

 

 

Again, my weak brain cannot wrap around your post to understand.

 

To me an engaging photo succeeds regardless of technology that made it so.

 

I may be off on a tangent, forgive.

[pgk]

To me an engaging photo succeeds regardless of technology that made it so.

Absolutely!

[Michael Hiles]

To me an engaging photo succeeds regardless of technology that made it so.

 

Seems right to me. Best example - wonderful pictures are being made constantly both using film and digital.

 

"Technical" can mean something else. A good image can be ruined or greatly diminsihed by poor technique. An excellent picture will be enhanced by good printing technique. I think that bad prints are unconvincing. There is no excuse, in my view, for not producing the best presentation possible. I also believe that there are some standards as to what a good print entails. It is hard to define in a universal way, but I know a good print and a bad print when I see them. And no amount of bafflegab about the artist's soul, vision, right to be taken seriously etc etc matters a damn. A bad print is a bad print and deserves to be ignored. The tempting corollary that a good print guarantees a good picture is also wrong. But a good picture doesn't achieve its best unless the technical stuff is optimized.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Paul J]

I've come to understand photography as a combination of intent, projection, search, psychology, observation, execution and chance. It's a science, a craft and potentially an art, and there is a whole lot of luck that plays within the structure we build. Any aesthetic without reason, that does not to translate something, even intangible, can be potentially pointless.

 

Lets not forget, though, something as simple as 'the light' can speak a language that there are no words for. An out of focus soup of light and colour can simply stimulate and have affect on a viewer, for what ever reason.

 

It is, at times, the unknown, the mysterious, the intangible; that is why at times it is compelling. It needs not to be explained simply experienced and appreciated.

 

You're kidding yourself if you believe you have 100% control of your photos and everything in them. When it all comes together and works, that is the magic of photography and a gift to you. Sometimes I wish I had my lens stopped down when it was wide open and sometimes I wish I had opened up when it was stopped down. That is the nature of the beast and sometimes you get it wrong. Experience, of corse, can teach you how to increase your chances. But what works does not become formula; sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

 

So with this, I could never deny or accept things singularly. Bokeh, depth, colour, black and white, whatever. When it works, it works and it needs no explaining. You just try, you experiment, you think, you dream and create, you fail, you learn and somewhere along the way you get some work that is worth some something to you. Wether other people agree with you is a whole other thing. The only place you can start and ever hope to conquer in any way is yourself. That is hard enough.