Paul J Posted May 31, 2014 Share #41 Posted May 31, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) 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. I think 'technically acceptable' is a pile of shit anyway, IMO. Technically acceptable means a repeat of what has been accepted in the past. An engaging photo transcends any sort of technical structure we have created for ourselves. Anyone that talks about technically acceptable is not looking deeper than what their, or most likely someone elses's set structure of what photography should be. Photography is limitless. Mistakes make the art. That is, when they are recognised as something valuable and adopted and reproduced in our work because it expresses something. I think we need to start recognising some our "mistakes", our personal discoveries. When we look at something in the confines of another persons "correct" we put the blinkers on to something far more valuable. Screw the 'handbook' and every other persons measure of success. Break-though and original art comes through discovery, through making mistakes and stumbling onto something no one else has. It means working on it every day and recognising magic when it's gifted to us through our search. It doesn't come from following a technical handbook and reading someone else's recipe. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted May 31, 2014 Share #42 Posted May 31, 2014 Existentialism or anarchism? The former doesn't exclude rules as another existentialist demonstrated it, Henri Cartier-Bresson. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted May 31, 2014 Share #43 Posted May 31, 2014 Many art forms are circumscribed by sets of rules, quite restrictively so at times. Of course, the rule sets change over time within a given civilization and for a given individual. Deliberate transgression is part of the game but has to be done with a purpose and not wantonly. That is, if it's art you're after. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted May 31, 2014 Share #44 Posted May 31, 2014 Historically restrictions have existed, yes, and for some, I'm sure it will always continue. Either way, our definition of art has changed a lot since these times and I don't believe any sort of restrictions apply today, none that I care for. Restrictions are put in place by other people and I don't make art for them. I think the key word from what you wrote is "individuals". Is it not individuals that create change in the first place? They have always existed and one could argue civilisation has a much in debt to certain artists such as Giotto who broke away and set the pace for the Renaissance, contributing to the levering mankind out of the Dark Ages. I make art to explore, learn and try understand, express the intangible. It's the transmuting of feeling, emotion, thought and idea into something tangible. What part of that deserves restriction? I believe it's limitless except for how we want to limit it and I guess that sums it up for me in an existential context too. Wanton breaking of rules became a process in itself long ago, think Duchamp, for example. I think it's one of the main protagonists that have stirred artists and is at times what creates a movement. Free thinking can not be constrained. There are mavericks and then there are followers. Not all mavericks will end up leading though, and the nature of the experience usually suggests they don't care to be. Not all followers remain followers either... I understand where your coming from though. I'm talking about the conscious awareness of a mistake and working it into you work with purpose and intent because it represents and expresses something from within. Not just an excuse for something that doesn't mean anything. However, I will also add to that - there are times that I know I'm on to something but not sure about it. Sometimes you have to go down a street to find it's a dead end. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted May 31, 2014 Share #45 Posted May 31, 2014 Marcel Duchamp was one of the artists of the Dada movement which was revolutionary in that artists took ad hoc control of defining art apart from critics and other gate keepers. Contrary to some myths, Duchamp's urinal piece was a protest against a non-juried exhibit: not very Dada of him. I don't know if is still up but a very good Duchamp site is http://www.understandingduchamp.com Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Barnack Posted May 31, 2014 Share #46 Posted May 31, 2014 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. How do we define overuse? Who is properly credentialed to make a valid determination about what constitutes overuse? Not trying to be a wiseass, just observing that such determinations are highly subjective and/or personal. Defining such concepts as overuse of shallow DoF is like trying to nail jello to a wall. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted May 31, 2014 Share #47 Posted May 31, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) How do we define overuse? . Consensus is not necessary. We know gimmicks when we see them Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted June 1, 2014 Share #48 Posted June 1, 2014 How do we define overuse? Who is properly credentialed to make a valid determination about what constitutes overuse? Not trying to be a wiseass, just observing that such determinations are highly subjective and/or personal. Defining such concepts as overuse of shallow DoF is like trying to nail jello to a wall. I would say misuse rather than over use. Shots where the photographer forces a focal point that gives absolutely no meaning, or says nothing in the photo. Where the viewer is forced to look at, and remain on something that is boring, uneventful and give no room for thought. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted June 1, 2014 Share #49 Posted June 1, 2014 I would say misuse rather than over use. Shots where the photographer forces a focal point that gives absolutely no meaning, or says nothing in the photo. Where the viewer is forced to look at, and remain on something that is boring, uneventful and give no room for thought. The term started as "overuse", you've upped it to "misuse", how long will it be before someone makes it even more ridiculous and calls it "abuse"? These terms are all subjective and therefore relate to people's personal preference, ie one person's misuse is another person's underuse. There is no right and wrong in this matter, only preference. To refer to your second point, no one is "forced" to look at a focal point in a photograph or "forced" to look at a photograph at all. A slight exaggeration perhaps? (I don't recall seeing anyone in a photo gallery with large men on either side twisting his arms up his back until he looks at a photo.) If the eye is directed to a part of a photograph without meaning to the viewer then I suggest that the viewer will soon look elsewhere and the photographer has failed to retain the viewer's attention, which indicates that the photograph has failed in some way. Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted June 1, 2014 Share #50 Posted June 1, 2014 The crowning matter remains: If it's personal there is no problem what so ever. If anything makes you happy do it till death do you part if you wish. However, when you shoot it, edit it and exhibit it, it becomes your statement to the world. At that instant, it becomes part of the viewers experience and open for to public scrutiny, where everyone's opinion of it is valid. If a photographer fails to communicate their point then they need to adjust their delivery. I think the point we are arguing is when there is NO point, when it's just a demonstration of lens rendering. My personal opinion of it is that it's useless. The term started as "overuse", you've upped it to "misuse", how long will it be before someone makes it even more ridiculous and calls it "abuse"? These terms are all subjective and therefore relate to people's personal preference, ie one person's misuse is another person's underuse. There is no right and wrong in this matter, only preference. That is semantics. I just looked up "misuse" in the thesaurus and it listed "abuse" as an alternative. Which part of that is so ridiculous for you? To me it means the same thing. Sorry Peter but this seems just like argument for the sake of it. Obviously it's personal preference. To the individual, there can be right and wrong and an individuals opinion is valid to them. My opinion is right for me and it's no less right because someone else believes otherwise. Vice versa. To refer to your second point, no one is "forced" to look at a focal point in a photograph or "forced" to look at a photograph at all. A slight exaggeration perhaps? Not an exaggeration at all. It's basic visual literacy. A focal point is called a focal point because it is a focal point. You use a focal point to say something, it's is the photographs punctum. When you deprive the ability to discern what remains in a frame by throwing everything out of focus then you are making a statement about that one thing which is in focus, you are forcing a focal point. If the eye is directed to a part of a photograph without meaning to the viewer then I suggest that the viewer will soon look elsewhere and the photographer has failed to retain the viewer's attention, which indicates that the photograph has failed in some way. Exactly the point I'm trying to make! Now you are agreeing with me?! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted June 1, 2014 Share #51 Posted June 1, 2014 Paul, The reason I posted is that I think the matter under discussions is at risk of becoming overstated and I wanted to draw to your attention where. I think there's a danger that in these types of discussions that dogmatism can appear (not here so far) and 'this is right' and 'that is wrong' statements can be disguised in an array of clothing. Semantics perhaps? Maybe, but I think for example the meaning of overuse and misuse are quite different. Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted June 1, 2014 Share #52 Posted June 1, 2014 Maybe, but I think for example the meaning of overuse and misuse are quite different. Sorry Pete but I don't understand what your point is. My post you quoted and argued was differentiating the very thing you also believe as different. I would say misuse rather than over use. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
euston Posted June 1, 2014 Share #53 Posted June 1, 2014 Pete, I don’t think brother Paul is going to be satisfied with the five minute argument. He’s come for the full half hour! In his opening post Luis is talking about the extreme use of shallow DoF for no particular purpose except to show off the lens. He doesn’t care for it. Nor do I. He prefers a more subtle approach. So do I. That’s our preference. I haven’t noticed anyone taking a contrary view. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted June 1, 2014 Share #54 Posted June 1, 2014 Brother Paul? lol. In some way's I suppose i'm flattered. I certainly don't expect everyone to agree with me, but I guess some have an ability and interest to discuss things more that just blatantly obvious conclusions that add nothing except an insult. It's a strange place this forum. A place that invites conversation only to shut it down as soon as it happens. It's like no conversation and can actually occur with out someone's insult or injury to ego. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 1, 2014 Share #55 Posted June 1, 2014 I would like to say that I wrote “ overuse” deliberately. Shallow DOF can be a strong expression of photographic “ language” But applied every other photograph it becomes a cliche that uses an effect for effect’s sake. Such mannerism is boring at best and irritating at worst. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted June 2, 2014 Share #56 Posted June 2, 2014 Two shots. One suffers from being shot at too wide an aperture (my fault - its a 'note' rather than a photo) and is technically unacceptable as anything other than a 'note'. The other suffers from in camera motion blur and deliberately so. Whether viewers consider it technically unacceptable probably will depend on how they accept it as an image. To me it was as I intended, so its works and is therefore technically acceptable. Shallow DoF can be used effectively but is often just a 'note' (which might illustrate bokeh even though it bores some viewers;)). 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/227658-shallow-dof/?do=findComment&comment=2602570'>More sharing options...
lct Posted June 2, 2014 Share #57 Posted June 2, 2014 I might prefer the "technically unacceptable" shot (why so by the way?) as i find flat f/16 shots boring at best personally but it's just me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted June 2, 2014 Share #58 Posted June 2, 2014 If I were to reject technically unacceptable photos I would be denying the valuable vernacular of my predecessors, and some contemporaries. Learning would cease. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted June 5, 2014 Share #59 Posted June 5, 2014 ...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... Actually HCB's photos do not have shallow DOF. "He eschews every specialized optical effect, from limited depth of field to ultra-wide angle vision." (Bob Schwalberg, The Best of Popular Photography.) Sometimes, shallow DOF is great. For example, I used a 2/35 for pictures of precision factory workers, but a fast 50 would have also been very suitable. The massive DOF of wide-angle lenses and small-sensor cameras creates too much distracting background. Of course, for landscapes that can be a boon. As others have said, it's case of horses for courses and a question of balance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted June 6, 2014 Share #60 Posted June 6, 2014 Because HCB placed more importance on photographing something that was visually interesting in the first place. He photographed the relationships between people or things and to do that a certain level of sharpness was needed front to back. In dull light you can see his aperture getting wider, but it's a long way from photographing something visually boring and trying to make it more interesting with photographic techniques like shallow DOF. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.