The 28 Summilux and Shallow DOF: Why the newfound malice toward Bokeh??

[Herr Barnack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There is a trend that I have noticed of late on the forum:  There appears to be a surge of malice toward images where the photographer has utilized maximum aperture to produce shallow DOF and bokeh in the background. 

 

It seems that it has become trendy to lambaste images where shallow DOF has been utilized as a compositional tool.  Given that one of the M system's great strengths is fast glass which produces outstanding image quality - the Summilux line of lenses in particular - I find this new malice toward shallow DOF to be quite a curious phenomenon.  To be honest, I cannot make sense of it. 

 

As I recall, back in 2009 when the Noctilux 0.95 ASPH was released, this negativity toward shallow DOF and bokeh was not nearly as prevalent as it is today; it was pretty much a non-issue back then.  That is not the case today, however. 

 

There seems to be a dislike for shallow DOF shots that has come to the surface of late; it seems to have coincided with the release of the 28mm Summilux ASPH lens.  I do not recall this jaundiced outlook regarding shallow DOF and/or bokeh in 2010, when the FLE version of the 35mm Summilux ASPH was released.

 

I am left wondering if this sour grapes attitude toward shallow DOF is a result of the current ragged state of the world economy coupled with the high price of the 28 Summilux.  Non Leica users have hated Leica for decades based on the prices of the cameras and lenses.  Is this malice beginning to leach into the worldwide fraternity of M camera users?

 

What gives??

[edwardkaraa]

I think it gets boring really quickly to see all these meaningless shots that are only meant to show blurred backgrounds. I know I have a very low threshold for such shots. I only can look at 1-2 per day

[Advertisement]

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

[pieter.h]

nothing wrong with shallow DOF. it's especially useful in portraiture.

but i agree with edwardkaraa that most often it is just a boring trick.

 

(with your signature in mind, i do not recall any shallow DOF pictures by HCB.)

the most interesting photographs, in my opinion, often have large DOF and contain multiple 'interrelating' subjects in different layers in space.

[Herr Barnack]

nothing wrong with shallow DOF. it's especially useful in portraiture.

but i agree with edwardkaraa that most often it is just a boring trick.

 

(with your signature in mind, i do not recall any shallow DOF pictures by HCB.)

the most interesting photographs, in my opinion, often have large DOF and contain multiple 'interrelating' subjects in different layers in space.

I would have to agree - shallow DOF was not one of HCB's techniques.  I have found that using hyperfocal DOF is a demanding way to shoot - it requires a higher level of skill and experience.  You must manage everything in your viewfinder, which is not an easy thing to do most of the time. 

 

Shallow DOF has its place in the photographic scheme of things - but like everything else, it must be used with discretion, not used universally.  One size does not fit all, whether it's shallow DOF, hyperfocal DOF or somewhere in between.  Just my honest opinion...

[jrp]

People have cottoned on to the fact that a picture of a bokeh backdrop does not usually make a (sufficiently) interesting picture.

 

Shallow depth of field is, of course, an essential part of the photographer's palette, since the object of the (photographic) exercise is normally to draw attention to something and to eliminate competing attractions (by reframing or defocusing).  But when the subject is the blur, it may be pretty enough, but it is rarely going to be any more engaging that any other abstract pattern.

[Ellie]

Shallow DOF and background blur is a part of macro photography, so it's nothing new.

[jaques]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Shallow DOF has its place in the photographic scheme of things - but like everything else, it must be used with discretion, not used universally. 

 

 

tell that to Thorsten who apparently only ever shoots wide open.

[250swb]

tell that to Thorsten who apparently only ever shoots wide open.

 

Perhaps Thorsten shoots in dark places? Dark places where the use of a fast lens is traditional and is what they were designed for. Leica did not start producing fast lenses as 'art' lenses. And you also have photographers who get shallow DOF by default due to the process they are using, such as those using wet collodian. Neither dark places or photographic process should be confused with the modern trend where shallow DOF is chosen as an off the shelf technique.

 

Shallow DOF has it's place, it can add a deep sense of unease or alienation to a scene just as it can help in making an enigmatic portrait. But all too often, by default for most people buying a fast lens nowadays (given the increase in digital ISO), it is so the photographer can take a photograph of the bokeh and not something interesting to go along with it. In many ways it's good to get that sort of thing out of their system because I would guess that the vacuous nature of such images eventually wakes up the photographer. But in the meantime we have threads which endlessly describe 'awesome bokeh' proof if proof is needed that uppermost in the mind is not what the OOF areas can do for the subject, but that it is the OOF areas that are the subject.

 

Steve

[Paul J]

People like to complain about other peoples pictures for a myriad of reasons. Who cares? You are taking photos for you and your message/expression so why should it matter what anyone thinks of that? If you are true to your self and someone doesn't like it, it doesn't matter.

 

You learn how to use it, to say what you want, the more you experiment with it. Focus on what you like and don't listen to the monkey chatter if you don't agree with it. It's your journey, its organic. How are you ever going to find your voice, learn your vocabulary if you don't experiment because you are too worried what people might say on a forum board?

[Peter H]

People like to complain about other peoples pictures for a myriad of reasons. Who cares? You are taking photos for you and your message/expression so why should it matter what anyone thinks of that? If you are true to your self and someone doesn't like it, it doesn't matter.

 

You learn how to use it, to say what you want, the more you experiment with it. Focus on what you like and don't listen to the monkey chatter if you don't agree with it. It's your journey, its organic. How are you ever going to find your voice, learn your vocabulary if you don't experiment because you are too worried what people might say on a forum board?

 

Well, whilst it's expressed in rather negative and aggressive terms, I do agree that you should follow your own ideas and try to avoid playing to the crowd. 

 

On the other hand I think there's nothing at all wrong with people expressing their opinions about photos, particularly on a forum like this.  In fact I'd like to see far more people engaging in conversations about photographic ideas, which I find far more interesting than the interminable squabbles about camera parts.

[Ai_Print]

It seems that it has become trendy to lambaste images where shallow DOF has been utilized as a compositional tool.

 

Well, that is likely because many of the resulting photos often look like a lens test rather than a great photograph with a clearly defined subject, mood or motive. This is not unique to Leica but most certainly is unique to the digital / internet / gear enthusiast age. 

 

A great photograph should make the factor of "Bokeh" about as important as the peppercorns on a phenomenal steak.

[Joshua Lowe]

I think it's just the inevitable backlash that comes with any technique or effect that is overused and obsessed over.  See: HDR.

 

It's still the best (IMO) way to isolate a subject, I'm not going to worry about what someone on the Internet has to say about it unless that someone happens to be a person whose opinion I respect.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Joshua Lowe

[Herr Barnack]

I recall reading somewhere (can't recall where now) that in western cultures, people tend to look at the elements in a photograph that are in sharp focus and consider them to be the most important parts of the photograph, while discounting the significance of the OOF elements or even considering them to be irrelevant or without value.  However:  In eastern cultures, every element of the photograph is looked at as being equally important, regardless of whether it is in sharp focus or is out of focus. 

 

These are two fundamentally different and diametrically opposed ways of viewing, evaluating and understanding photographs.  It should be noted that a person who is born and bred in a western culture may or may not adhere to the westernized way of viewing and evaluating photographs; the same is true for those born and raised in eastern cultures.

 

I think this dichotomy of ways of seeing has an effect on whether a person likes or dislikes OOF elements in a photograph and whether they value bokeh or consider it a waste of real estate in a photograph. 

Edited July 14, 2015 by Carlos Danger

[Joshua Lowe]

Besides cultural differences I think experience also has a great influence on what we find appealing.  We become more critical and discerning as we become more educated and (hopefully!) skilled.  We can identify subtle elements that the casual observer might not be aware of, both good and bad.

[hiepphotog]

I recall reading somewhere (can't recall where now) that in western cultures, people tend to look at the elements in a photograph that are in sharp focus and consider them to be the most important parts of the photograph, while discounting the significance of the OOF elements or even considering them to be irrelevant or without value.  However:  In eastern cultures, every element of the photograph is looked at as being equally important, regardless of whether it is in sharp focus or is out of focus. 

 

These are two fundamentally different and diametrically opposed ways of viewing, evaluating and understanding photographs.  It should be noted that a person who is born and bred in a western culture may or may not adhere to the westernized way of viewing and evaluating photographs; the same is true for those born and raised in eastern cultures.

 

I think this dichotomy of ways of seeing has an effect on whether a person likes or dislikes OOF elements in a photograph and whether they value bokeh or consider it a waste of real estate in a photograph. 

 

But if you treat the oof elements as irrelevant, would you then more likely make it boring/mundane/(insert any more derogatory comment here)? I am not sure anyone here is a wedding photographer, but any competent wedding tog would utilize an oof element well, whether to complement the bride's eyes color or to not distract the viewers from the newly wedded couples' expression. I saw one of Jerry Ghionis's wedding shoot videos, and he utilized f/1.2 on his Canon 85 really well.

 

I guess most here are street togs so bokeh shot might seem to be irrelevant/boring. But would you guys ever consider challenging yourself making a memorable shallow DOF shot? I recently lost my interest in taking the typical flower shots that I used to do in the early day. They all look the same to me, but I occasionally would go out of my way and try to find another angle, another way of taking flower macro that others rarely see (like UWA flower macro). So far I failed miserably , but that wouldn't stop me from trying.

 

A recent flower shot with the ZM 15

 

[gpwhite]

But if you treat the oof elements as irrelevant, would you then more likely make it boring/mundane/(insert any more derogatory comment here)? I am not sure anyone here is a wedding photographer, but any competent wedding tog would utilize an oof element well, whether to complement the bride's eyes color or to not distract the viewers from the newly wedded couples' expression. I saw one of Jerry Ghionis's wedding shoot videos, and he utilized f/1.2 on his Canon 85 really well.

 

I guess most here are street togs so bokeh shot might seem to be irrelevant/boring. But would you guys ever consider challenging yourself making a memorable shallow DOF shot? I recently lost my interest in taking the typical flower shots that I used to do in the early day. They all look the same to me, but I occasionally would go out of my way and try to find another angle, another way of taking flower macro that others rarely see (like UWA flower macro). So far I failed miserably , but that wouldn't stop me from trying.

 

A recent flower shot with the ZM 15

 

 

Lovely.

 

Did you bracket down to f/4?

[run23]

I agree with some of the comments above that the backlash comes from using it for no artistic purpose to show off a lens. I've certainly been guilty of that myself with the Summilux - taking shots of boring subjects just to play with the 1.4 aperture.

[Joshua Lowe]

 

I guess most here are street togs so bokeh shot might seem to be irrelevant/boring. But would you guys ever consider challenging yourself making a memorable shallow DOF shot? I recently lost my interest in taking the typical flower shots that I used to do in the early day. They all look the same to me, but I occasionally would go out of my way and try to find another angle, another way of taking flower macro that others rarely see (like UWA flower macro). So far I failed miserably , but that wouldn't stop me from trying.

 

A recent flower shot with the ZM 15

 

I wouldn't say "irrelevant/boring" but I would say it's often considered a luxury and a risk.  Hardcore street photographers often pre-focus at a small aperture so they can catch those fleeting "moments" before they're gone.  I was "taught" about this by a street photographer who uses a 35mm lens pre-focused to 12 feet at f11 - hyperfocal distance.  So everything from 6 feet to infinity was reasonably in focus.  Made it much easier to get a shot off in a hurry, and he knew his lens well enough to where he could quickly pull focus back to 3 feet with one precise movement. 

 

During the one street photography workshop I've participated in, I used a Summilux 50/1.4 ASPH with a 3 stop ND filter so I could shoot as close to wide open as possible in daylight.  I got some pretty good shots with nice subject isolation.  But I missed a few excellent opportunities because I was too slow to focus.  Since that workshop I've switched to the setup used by the instructor, a 35 at 12ft/f11, when I want to go out and focus on traditional "street photography"... whatever that is.  But that's a topic for a whole other thread.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Joshua Lowe

[hiepphotog]

Lovely.

 

Did you bracket down to f/4?

 

Thank you . This was at WO. I did the same shot at f/5.6, but I didn't like the result.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[hiepphotog]

I wouldn't say "irrelevant/boring" but I would say it's often considered a luxury and a risk.  Hardcore street photographers often pre-focus at a small aperture so they can catch those fleeting "moments" before they're gone.  I was "taught" about this by a street photographer who uses a 35mm lens pre-focused to 12 feet at f11 - hyperfocal distance.  So everything from 6 feet to infinity was reasonably in focus.  Made it much easier to get a shot off in a hurry, and he knew his lens well enough to where he could quickly pull focus back to 3 feet with one precise movement. 

 

During the one street photography workshop I've participated in, I used a Summilux 50/1.4 ASPH with a 3 stop ND filter so I could shoot as close to wide open as possible in daylight.  I got some pretty good shots with nice subject isolation.  But I missed a few excellent opportunities because I was too slow to focus.  Since that workshop I've switched to the setup used by the instructor, a 35 at 12ft/f11, when I want to go out and focus on traditional "street photography"... whatever that is.  But that's a topic for a whole other thread.

 

I'm not a street photog so I guess I don't understand enough. I know the concept of hyperfocal since I use it all the time for landscape. However, to use hyperfocal just to catch those fleeting "moments" seems like "playing it safe." Jeff Ascough, a Leica wedding shooter, also caught those fleeting moments on his Leica with plenty of bokeh as well. I keep bringing up wedding stuff because I believe those very good togs have to master variety of fields to catch those once-in-a-life-time moments, which sometimes would benefit greatly with shallow DOF.

 

Now if a street photographer is using hyperfocal to establish the settings, putting the subject in context, etc. then I would agree that as a more skillful way to execute. Otherwise, I think by using shallow DOF while still telling a story would set you apart from the crowd.