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

[cpclee]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

and oftentimes even f2.8 if already enough to "get rid of" your background

 

 

 

 

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!

[cpclee]

lastly, with today's cameras' high ISO capability, the need for a super wide lens is quickly dwindling (f2.8).

 

there will always be a place for the bazookas (and I own the 35/1.4 ASPH FLE and 75/2 AA myself), but for me it has been rare when I feel compelled to have to go fully open.  it's a different story if I'm shooting film

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!

[Herr Barnack]

...Some times for isolating the subject:

 

 

 

In the beginning wider aperture was made for darkness and most wide aperture lenses were really bad wide open (but could get the shot), then designers began optimizing them for wide open use. Leica being one of the few that had the knowledge to do so and the customers willing to pay for it. Peter Karbe (who made the Noctilux said, "Never stop it down. Aperture is not for light control but control of depth of field." by which I think he meant that is was designed for wide open use, and you would only stop it down if you actually wanted something more to be in focus (like a group portrait). 

I don't see a problem with isolating the subject in a photograph.  I would not do it in every photograph from now till hell freezes over, but it does have its place in the photographic scheme of things IMHO.

[edwardkaraa]

Well, Thorsten shows how to take a tasteful shallow dof shot. He is however somewhat guilty of the tasteless trend when he personally advised on his blog that Leica lenses should always be shot wide open never stopped down

I'm not going to show examples here but if you go on Flickr you will find tons of meaningless shots which only purpose is to show off the expensive lens: shallow espresso cups, shallow empty plastic espresso cups, shallow spoon, shallow espresso cup's handle, the girlfriend drinking espresso with only one of her eyelashes in sharp focus, the girlfriend drinking espresso with only one of her fingernails in sharp focus, the girlfriend drinking espresso with nothing in sharp focus (missed focus on this one), so I guess you see the point. Thank you Thorsten for starting this tend

[MarkP]

I'm not going to show examples here but if you go on Flickr you will find tons of meaningless shots which only purpose is to show off the expensive lens: shallow espresso cups, shallow empty plastic espresso cups, shallow spoon, shallow espresso cup's handle, the girlfriend drinking espresso with only one of her eyelashes in sharp focus, the girlfriend drinking espresso with only one of her fingernails in sharp focus, the girlfriend drinking espresso with nothing in sharp focus (missed focus on this one), so I guess you see the point.

 

   

[gpwhite]

Well, Thorsten shows how to take a tasteful shallow dof shot. He is however somewhat guilty of the tasteless trend when he personally advised on his blog that Leica lenses should always be shot wide open never stopped down

I'm not going to show examples here but if you go on Flickr you will find tons of meaningless shots which only purpose is to show off the expensive lens: shallow espresso cups, shallow empty plastic espresso cups, shallow spoon, shallow espresso cup's handle, the girlfriend drinking espresso with only one of her eyelashes in sharp focus, the girlfriend drinking espresso with only one of her fingernails in sharp focus, the girlfriend drinking espresso with nothing in sharp focus (missed focus on this one), so I guess you see the point. Thank you Thorsten for starting this tend

 

I think you must have a rather shallow experience of Thorsten's work. But no problem, as most camera set ups will do quite well at f/8 (some even shoot at f/16). BTW, you can get both eyebrows in focus at f/1.4 if you compose properly. 

[Exodies]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Edwardkarra says Thorsten's work is tasteful. His smiley moderated objection is that Thorsten's influence has spread the technique but not the art.

But maybe you just wanted to fit "shallow" in in a different context?

[edwardkaraa]

Thank you Exodies I'm just trying to be humorous here, I thought it was obvious, and I'm a big fan of Thorsten's work so please don't misunderstand me gpwhite.

[Overgaard]

I wouldn't speak badly of others photos. I would make some myself.

 

That's a good rule. 

 

The premise of this thread of course is based on a generality, so we will never agree. Not even that we disagree 

 

For me selective focus is a style I use a lot. A sort of composition in the 3rd dimension. That's how I see the picture before I take it, and thus there is no reason to change the focus (mostly) for me. Others use wide angle and tilted lines for drama. Some tilt the whole horizon and always have the ocean and the mountains tilting.

 

We're all different and should come up with different messages and styles. While I can't stand tilted lines in my own photos, I can admire them in others were it is part of the composition and aesthetics. And if some scholar wrote a whole book that it was bad or good, it wouldn't be true for all photographs. 

One thing I am working with though is that HCB said that "unsharp backgrounds are displeasing in color photos". I find that an interesting statement and have done several experiments with sharp vs unsharp backgrounds in colors to see if I could agree or see what he could mean.

[Keith (M)]

One thing I am working with though is that HCB said that "unsharp backgrounds are displeasing in color photos". I find that an interesting statement and have done several experiments with sharp vs unsharp backgrounds in colors to see if I could agree or see what he could mean.

 

 

Hmmm, much as I admire HCB, that statement is another one that has to be applied carefully and could hardly be regarded as applying in every case.  After all, a sharp background in the image below would have seriously affected its impact (and purpose).  M240, Summilux-M ASPH 50mm.

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!

[Peter H]

I don't see a problem with isolating the subject in a photograph. I would not do it in every photograph from now till hell freezes over, but it does have its place in the photographic scheme of things IMHO.

This has never been in dispute.

[edwardkaraa]

Here's my today's contribution of shallow DOF

 

Taken with the ZM 50 Planar wide open (though f/2 is hardly considered a wide aperture):

 

M240 ZM 50/2 by edward karaa, on Flickr

[mmradman]

Edward,

 

i had had a look at your Flickr stream and most of your favourites exhibit "bokeh" in out of focus areas, don't understand what is it we discussing here, another boring weekend?

 

Planar 50mm seems pretty good in delivering nice OOF photography, f2 is wide for said lens.

Well, Thorsten shows how to take a tasteful shallow dof shot. He is however somewhat guilty of the tasteless trend when he personally advised on his blog that Leica lenses should always be shot wide open never stopped down
I'm not going to show examples here but if you go on Flickr you will find tons of meaningless shots which only purpose is to show off the expensive lens: shallow espresso cups, shallow empty plastic espresso cups, shallow spoon, shallow espresso cup's handle, the girlfriend drinking espresso with only one of her eyelashes in sharp focus, the girlfriend drinking espresso with only one of her fingernails in sharp focus, the girlfriend drinking espresso with nothing in sharp focus (missed focus on this one), so I guess you see the point. Thank you Thorsten for starting this tend

 

 

Here's my today's contribution of shallow DOF

 

Taken with the ZM 50 Planar wide open (though f/2 is hardly considered a wide aperture):

 

M240 ZM 50/2 by edward karaa, on Flickr

[edwardkaraa]

Edward,

 

i had had a look at your Flickr stream and most of your favourites exhibit "bokeh" in out of focus areas, don't understand what is it we discussing here, another boring weekend?

 

Planar 50mm seems pretty good in delivering nice OOF photography, f2 is wide for said lens.

 

Guilty as charged

 

Though I rarely shoot wide open, but with FF sensor, it's not easy not to get OOF background even stopped down a bit.

 

I guess my objection is for extreme cases. Also in my shot above, I have completely missed the lovely smile of the sales lady. It would have been much better to have the lady more defined, by stopping down to f/4-5.6, imho.

[Paul J]

Bokeh is not new. Some photographers have been using it, singularly, as an aesthetic style since the 70's. It's hard to imagine, but there was actually a time when it was far more mysterious, when the masses of people had no idea how to make it. Or even more so, didn't even know exactly what they were looking at. People use to own fast lenses and didn't even know fast lenses gave this thing now call "bokeh". It's something we have identified and learned about and spread as an idea of beauty, a way to say something. It's become an archetype, a semiotic. If you think your girlfriend is beautiful and she's drinking coffee, then what is wrong expressing and materialising your belief in that beauty? See? it's a language, and it's personal.

 

Saying I love you is quite possibly the longest running cliche. Do we stop saying it because we should say something new? We all make statements at some point in our lives. Some of these statements we hold on to, they become a part of us, others we change our minds on. Photography is an expression, it's always going to change, grow, adapt, go over old ground, make new discoveries, rediscover old ideas, etc etc etc. Sure, some will discover new ways of saying things, but that is a slow organic process that happens collectively. No one could ever predict and will most likely realised retrospectively, like bokeh.

 

Everyone has different taste and different opinions, HCB included. But nothing is ultimately right or wrong, nothing is gospel. Gospel of any kind is an old and trapping invention that has little relevance in this world. The world is so dramatically different from the 50's and 60's that it's not even really the same world. How can any one person know anything about the future? How we will perceive? What technology or idea will shape our lives? What we will like to look at? How we look at, perceive and react with the world is entirely different to what it was even 5 years ago.

 

I like Bokeh, I have found when I like to use it, in certain kinds of light, certain kinds of backgrounds, certain kinds of subjects, for certain kinds of reason. There are also times when I don't think it works, I don't like the look, when it becomes contradictory to the photo or just something I don't aesthetically enjoy. I would never have learned what these things are if I had listen to the whole "don't always shoot wide open". To me, it's sort of like saying don't always speak in French if you want to learn to speak it fluently.

[edwardkaraa]

I know it has been repeated many times here, but let me repeat it again. No one is disputing the use of nice OOF blur as a photographic tool.

 

Speaking for myself, what I am actually disputing is photos without an interesting subject, that are somehow made more interesting by using an extremely thin DOF, so that basically almost nothing is sharp in the frame.

 

I have to admit that even that can be beautiful at times, but we have seen this "trick" so overused that it gets boring at the end.

 

So think about it this way, a nice bokeh is always beautiful, but an extremely thin DOF isn't always a good idea

[Paul J]

But Edward, who are you taking photos for? If it means something to you, then that is enough. Who cares if it means nothing to someone else? Your good ideas, are someone else's bad ideas. Vice versa. You will never discover anything new for yourself, anything new about your self if you stop doing something because others tell you not to.

[edwardkaraa]

But Edward, who are you taking photos for? If it means something to you, then that is enough. Who cares if it means nothing to someone else? Your good ideas, are someone else's bad ideas. Vice versa. You will never discover anything new for yourself, anything new about your self if you stop doing something because others tell you not to.

 

I have no argument against that, Paul You are absolutely right!

 

We are just discussing a photographic trend, which entails criticizing other people's shots, unfortunately

[Paul J]

Listening to criticism is, in most cases, absolutely pointless, IMO. Photography is an individualistic expression and most criticism is just someone else vocalising, realising, actualising, what they are learning about their own work, their own perception.

 

But criticism has a great place in that stimulates creation.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[edwardkaraa]

Paul, you are opening another can of worms

 

I personally think that personal work, is just that, personal. But once someone posts his photos to the public, whether in the forum, or on Facebook, or in a gallery, the purpose becomes obviously to show his work to others, and consequently, opening himself to criticism. People push likes on Facebook, to show their appreciation, and curiously enough, such thin DOF shots receive a lot of likes from the general public, though not much from photographers. Slightly OT, but worth some thought.