Why shoot wide-open?

[pippy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Any particular lens, as I'm sure we all appreciate, will show its fullest 'character' when used at max. aperture and from time to time I've very much enjoyed shooting stuff shot in this manner as, I suspect, have we all. But here's the thing; famously 'Group f64' produced some astonishing, ground-breaking, images using minimum apertures but how many of the genuinely 'Great' photographs taken over the last 190 years have been captured when the lenses were set wide-open? Off-hand, so help me, I can't think of one.

I'd love to see some examples which show that the use of 'maximum aperture' was vital to the success of a world-famous image so, c'mon folks, let's see what we can find!

Post links so we can appreciate Max. Ap. to the Max!

Philip.

Edited January 14, 2023 by pippy

[archive_all]

Off the top of my head some of Steve McCurry's portraits could have been shot wide open, although who knows for sure. A quick search will show numerous examples.

[Advertisement]

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

[stray cat]

William Albert Allard. Over his career he has photographed a lot in marginal light, especially with Kodachrome, and uses fast (usually Leica) lenses at their maximum apertures frequently. He also uses a shallow depth-of-field effect incredibly effectively to add graphic emphasis in his pictures which are universally well-designed examples of photojournalistic art. The cover photo of his "5 Decades" book is a great example (click to enlarge it): https://www.amazon.com/William-Albert-Allard-Five-Decades/dp/1426206372

Edited January 14, 2023 by stray cat

[mmradman]

Before digital there was film, fast lens was way to get the shot without a flash, nowadays it is aesthetic choice or perhaps bragging right. 

[pippy]

Yes; clearly I understand that many famous images have been shot with shallow D-o-F. Hopefully that goes without saying?

What I'm particularly interested to discover is whether certain images which we all know and love were deliberately shot at Max. Ap. and have been described as such by the photographer(s) concerned. As per the title of the thread I'm not really asking about anything shot at any aperture but wide-open.

Hope that clarifies matters? Thanks in advance!

Philip.

EDIT : just to make things perfectly clear; I really love using Max. Ap. when the image benefits from that approach and, as it happens, of the latest three images I've posted in the Forum one was shot using a 90mm Summicron wide-open (f2); one was shot on a 50mm f2 Planar wide-open and the 3rd was shot on a 50mm f1.5 Summarit at f2 but only because I was curious to compare how the Planar and Summarit performed at the same aperture.

I have also undertaken, last year, a light-hearted 'One lens; One aperture' challenge set by a forumite and selected my 50mm f1.5 Summarit used at f1.5 as my choice.

I'm not after a bun-fight; I'm just interested to know whether there were/are world-famous snappers who have proclaimed their adherence to a 'Shoot Wide-Open' ethos in comparison to the 'Shoot Fully Stopped-Down' approach of Group f64.

Edited January 15, 2023 by pippy

[stray cat]

Apologies Philip. Perhaps I, in turn, was not clear about Allard's consistent use of maximum aperture. Here is a quote from his book "William Albert Allard: The Photographic Essay":

"Most of the pictures I take,

and that I've had published, could be made with one of two or three

lenses - pretty much in the 35mm-50mm-90mm range." [. . .] It says

something about Allard's sensitivity to light and his preference for

marginal lighting conditions that he owns three 50mm lenses for his

rangefinders: an f/2, an f/1.4, and an ultra-fast f/1 lens

[. . .]. "Much of my work is done at maximum aperture," he

says, "and, even then, in the hail Mary range of shutter speeds."

I note what you really want to know is whether we know of photographers whose credo is to use maximum apertures in much the same way f64 used minimum apertures. I'm not sure I'm interested in the doctrinaire approach but I do really respect those who use the available apertures as needs must.

[rtai]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I shoot street photography and my subjects are usually moving but I don’t use flash so need high shutter speed. For aesthetics I don’t shoot when the light is harsh and I don’t use fill flash. So high shutter speed and low light with iso limited to around 6400 I need wide aperture. F1.4 is an aesthetic choice but f2.8 is pretty much normal for my shots.

 

 

[M Street Photographer]

So, unfortunately, I don't know of any prominent photographer who always photographs max openly. Above all, max. open is relative: there may be photographers who do that, but their lenses start at 4.0. Confessions would be interesting if there were someone who always photographed 1.2, 1.0 or 0.95.
For example, there is a photographer (Jim Rakete) who always shoots portraits at 1/4. In this way, he achieves a special visual effect, since the people being photographed have to behave very calmly, almost tensely.
Maybe Philip should read your question differently: Are there known photographers who photograph exclusively or predominantly 1.2, 1.0 or 0.95.

[hdmesa]

2 hours ago, pippy said:

Any particular lens, as I'm sure we all appreciate, will show its fullest 'character' when used at max. aperture and from time to time I've very much enjoyed shooting stuff shot in this manner as, I suspect, have we all. But here's the thing; famously 'Group f64' produced some astonishing, ground-breaking, images using minimum apertures but how many of the genuinely 'Great' photographs taken over the last 190 years have been captured when the lenses were set wide-open? Off-hand, so help me, I can't think of one.

I'd love to see some examples which show that the use of 'maximum aperture' was vital to the success of a world-famous image so, c'mon folks, let's see what we can find!

Post links so we can appreciate Max. Ap. to the Max!

Philip.

I think we know The Greats mostly shot stopped down. The interesting question to me is, "Why"? I think it's the opposite of what we might think. Natural human vision is focus-limited to exactly where the eye is looking, and to see a large photo of vast landscape or street scene all in focus, that is the surreal, the artistic take. The wide aperture, narrow focus photograph reminds us of our humanity, of our limitations. The same comparisons can be made between realistic painting styles and more impressionistic approaches.

Edited January 15, 2023 by hdmesa

[grahamc]

It’s an interesting point Phillip.  I know this thread is not exclusive to street photography but I’ve often thought that street photographers don’t appear to use wider apertures much (quite obvious as to why). 

Perhaps Saul Leiter is one that favoured larger apertures ?

Could it be a case of the better you get, the less you need to obliterate things out of the image ? I’ve pondered that too 😂

Edited January 15, 2023 by grahamc

[NZDavid]

Light, Lens, and Landscape by British photographer Brian Bower (a Leica photographer) talks specifically about using larger apertures where maximum DOF is not essential in order to use a faster shutter speed, therefore permitting handheld pictures in lower light without necessitating the use of a tripod. Many images in this book were shot on Kodachrome 25 or 64 -- the era of on-the-fly ISO speed changes had not yet arrived (and "fast" films of higher than 400 ISO were distinctly grainy).

Edited January 15, 2023 by NZDavid

[grahamc]

Reflecting on a recent trip where I took many photos and 4 lens choices, the real reason from my point of view is:

- Practical : when shooting at anything other than wide open won’t enable a fast enough shutter speed to be confident in a shake-free image. Giving your question some thought I realised I didn’t shoot 3 out of the 4 lenses wide open for any reason other than this  

- Artistic : when shooting a lens that has a character we particularly enjoy wide open.  For me that was just one of 4 lenses taken on the trip, and shot that one exclusively wide open 

I know that doesn’t answer your questions of famous images etc, and realise your question is tongue in cheek... but all my wide open uses seem to fall into one of those 2 scenarios. 

Edited January 15, 2023 by grahamc

[hdmesa]

Street at f/1. Forces the viewer to look where you were focusing.

CV 50 f/1

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!

[hdmesa]

f/1 landscape, same lens

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!

[mmradman]

In a world with billion pictures taken daily, mostly with phone cameras which equates small sensor and equivalent 28mm lens we have many images with sharp depth of field and large noses (typical selfie).  One is driven to try something different, an aesthetic choice if you like, also making a statement “I am using fast lens”.

Couple of recent examples, first with 50mm and second 28mm both at f1.4 by choice. Edit, other way around, 28 before 50.

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!

Edited January 15, 2023 by mmradman

[Aryel]

I don’t know any but seeing this photo and reading this made my day https://time.com/3393856/the-photo-that-made-me-william-albert-allard-pyrenees-1967/

will definitely look for more!

Thanks @pippy, @stray cat

[fil-m]

I've experienced both extremes of shooting wide open and with minimum apertures, and I believe that the purposes are quite different.

With time, I'm converging on the idea that wide open is not a necessity to capture a great scene in which the photographer has frozen an interesting moment in time with specific dynamics. The subjects, the geometry, the expressions, the lighting play a primary role at making the scene interesting; together they convey a certain feeling or pleasure when we look at the final result. In this context, using a large but not too large aperture like f2 or f2.8 could (and I say could) add "value" to the scene, without too much interference, through more subject isolation which sometimes help by attracting the viewer's attention and putting more focus on the main subject.

When shooting with a very fast lens like f1-f1.4 I believe we are more into an artistic context with a very specific intentions, and with more control on the image. Artistic context in the sense of capturing something that might look trivial in "reality", but which becomes special when strongly isolated and "put out of context". Could also be interesting for portraits or to give mood to an image. The pronounced effect of bokeh becomes (when successful) the photographer's intention to interfere with the image and force us to look differently at things. The camera and the lens play an important role in this context, with the photographer.

So tu put it simply, I generally prefer the middle ground approach of setting my 35mm lens to f2-f2.8 for some subject separation on the street. I like the light bokeh effect. I close down when I have to be more practical as per Grahamc's earlier comment. When I go on a trip with my very fast lens, the intention is different, it is more about trying to make something artistic (and that's quite tough), than being in the mood of capturing the street with less interference.

 

  

 

[SiggiGun]

I see there 3 reasons “for”

-esthetics

- composition

- technical (if you want to see the difference between a simple and a sophisticated high end lens, you should use it wide open)

“Against” at least 1 reason:

On the other side, if you are a documentary photographer (ex war), you will use it mainly closed to 5.6 to “see” and “understand”.

[LocalHero1953]

Not intending to be didactic here, just my immediate response to the question......

The best images (whether paintings drawings or photographs) have a composition that is complete: it shows no more and no less than the subject matter that is needed for a composition that draws you in and repays contemplation. Every element of the composition is important and necessary for the whole. In a painting or drawing, the artist can pick and choose what to include in their final frame. They don't even have to use a rectilinear frame, but can leave white spaces around the edges (e.g. of a typical watercolour still life). Photographers have to take what the scene gives them; unless they do a lot of manipulation in Photoshop they cannot pick and choose what is in the frame or not.

The photographer has to use such talent as they have to create a composition out of what is in front of them. The ideal solution is that every element in a scene contributes to the composition, even the colour and structure of items in the corners and background. Few of us can make this work. One common solution is to shoot in B&W, eliminating the compositional problems caused by colour that can work in opposition to graphic structure (e.g. a red pair of trousers or skirt, drawing the eye away from a face).* Another solution is to imitate the painter and choose what goes in the photo: this is the studio portrait, or a still life.

A solution many of us adopt (and I include myself) is to shoot wide open with a shallow depth of field, thereby reducing the compositional impact of elements at a distance from the main subject; a natural or post processed vignette adds to the effect. It simplifies the composition, making it easier for those of us with lesser talent.**

NB There is an analogous technique in painting, which is to draw the less important elements in a composition in less detail. Old Masters sometimes painted only the faces or perhaps the main figures themselves, leaving the background to the studio apprentices in less detail.***

 

* A question for another thread. Why do photographers see B&W photography in such a positive light, when painters always use colour, and pencil drawing is seen as the artistic poor relation?

** I have a book of photos by Tony Ray Jones: he seemed to be able to magically compose a complex and involving image out of the random movements of the people in his scenes, all in full focus.

*** Constable and Canaletto are examples of painters who used their lenses stopped down, with every element in their paintings shown in detail, but the composition working perfectly as whole.

Edited January 15, 2023 by LocalHero1953

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Pyrogallol]

If I use my 12 inch Wray lens on 10x8 then wide open is f11.

On the other hand the smallest aperture on my 50mm Xenon is f9.

Edited January 15, 2023 by Pyrogallol