Why shoot wide-open?

[raizans]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Using a lens wide open became a trend in the digital era because large sensors and shallow depth-of-field became signs of status. It was not driven by artistic reasons, and I have yet to see much contemporary work (barring modern wet plate photography) use very shallow depth-of-field in a creatively exciting way. Most lenses in the 28mm to 50mm equivalent range produce harsh, bright ring bokeh at wide apertures, leading to jangly, sometimes swirly, distracting backgrounds. Billions of photographs would have looked a little nicer (IMO!) if people had stopped the lens down two or three stops. This is all the more regrettable since digital has less noise, and it's more practical to raise the ISO and still permit using smaller apertures in low light. The misconception that shallow depth-of-field by itself will isolate the subject, without considering perspective and foreground/background relationships, leads to lazy, ineffective composition. Our descendants will recognize photographs from this period by noticing the cluttered, anxiety-coated backgrounds. I despair for this lost generation. 😂😭

Edited January 15, 2023 by raizans

[M Street Photographer]

vor 36 Minuten schrieb oldwino:

... Pretty much all lenses start to look the same when stopped down a bit (f4-5.6), so when you’ve spent a ton of money on that f0.95 Besonderlux, you want to see where your money goes. 

I'm sorry that I have a different opinion. Of course, photographers compare their 0.95 and 1.0 lenses to justify spending a lot or a little. Basically, I would expect the "expensive" lenses to openly show better than cheaper ones. The expensive ones should have a more pleasant bokeh and max. open a good sharpness, over the entire photo. You can then judge whether the compromise is very small and whether you choose cheaper lenses.
In my opinion, the high qualities of a premium lens only become apparent when stopped down to 2.x to 5.6. The transitions and gradients are visibly different, more pleasant, more balanced, finer, with a bokeh that is still soft but not exaggerated. Color and contrast, especially the micro-contrasts, often determine the evaluation of the technical recording.

vor 19 Minuten schrieb pippy:

Just to tie-up this loose-end once and for all...

Here is a copy of one print which I made at the time and was what I chose to be the final crop;

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!

Nothing like the Steichen shot at all.

Unfortunately......

Philip.

Philip, a basic resemblance can be assumed if you know both photos. However, I can not imagine that you wanted to copy it on purpose.
Can it possibly be that you have seen a similar photo at some point in the past and that it is present in the subconscious?

We know such effects from the field of deja vu (memory deception). To have seen something at some point unconsciously, to have seen a scene in a film, and when we are then in a similar or the same place, or the scene repeats itself in a similar way, we think we have been there before, or experienced the same thing before to have.

I sometimes feel that way about certain recordings because I love and know the 3 films "In the Mood for Love".
Sometimes I catch myself in a similar scene, which I have then implemented the mood and color scheme, or would like to implement consciously.

And honestly, I don't care if there is a resemblance or if someone speaks of a copy effect, because the unique mood of my recording is more important to me. It will never be a 1:1 copy, but it may be recognizable as to what inspired me. I don't have to earn my money with it, but if it's paid for anyway, that's fine with me. However, I am also not a celebrity photographer.

It's also no shame that one "copies" famous pictures or recordings at the beginning of one's work in order to eventually find one's own style. This has been common practice in painting for centuries. And some of the students were so good and painted for the masters that it is no longer possible to tell whether the master himself or his student drew the picture.
The same is true of signatures. How often have students or secretaries signed documents, signed books or pictures. Of course, this had a different reason than imitating or copying pictures or photos in order to find one's personal style at some point.
And then there are those who can afford to hire photographers who edit and expose the photos, just as the master actually does it himself. And then the question arises, is the picture really from XY or did he "only" take the picture, which is his art and leave the rest to others?

[Advertisement]

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

[Pyrogallol]

2 hours ago, pippy said:

Yes; that's all very well and is understood completely and as I have already said a few times in this thread; I do shoot wide-open. Believe me; I understand the concept very well.

I can see that you have missed the point of the thread. The question asked in the OP (as opposed to the thread title) was;

"...how many of the genuinely 'Great' photographs taken over the last 190 years have been captured when the lenses were set wide-open?".

Philip.

Yes, I would imagine that the majority of “great” photographs were recognised as great because of their content not the lens aperture used, which was probably not even recorded. In the early days adding an aperture wheel or moving diaphragm to a lens to lengthen the exposure time  and increase depth of field would not have been an important feature when a more sensitive faster emulsion would be wanted to shorten the exposure time. And it is only since the 20th century that small negatives have led to large enlargements that depth of field has become a discussion point. In the 19th century contact printing was normal with the print being the same size as the negative or not greatly enlarged. It’s all become a 21st century subject.

[tom.w.bn]

Photography took the wrong turn when people started to make the out of focus parts the main subject of a photo. 

Edited January 15, 2023 by tom.w.bn

[willeica]

1 hour ago, Jeff S said:

As you might know, Edward Weston made his own f-stops and eventually decided to make an f/240 to shoot his iconic Pepper #30 ( with an exposure over 4 hours) with his view camera.

https://petapixel.com/2017/08/15/famous-pepper-photo-edward-weston-4hr-exposure-f240/

Some do a lot with ‘primitive’ methods/gear; others struggle using the best.

Jeff

Fair Play to Weston, although I think the cataract in my right eye has got me down to about f240 by now.  I have used a sister lens to the one with the f72 stop and which is from 1875. I have shot with it 'wide open' at f14.4, but the depth of field was paper thin. I wasn't looking for 'bokeh', I just did not have any washers which fitted that lens. I was very pleased with the results, though.

1 hour ago, pippy said:

When I typed 'Great', William, I put it in inverted commas and both italicised and capitalised the 'G' to signify that it was not one's own personal opinion based on individual aesthetics which was important in the matter of it's 'Greatness' but the place such an image occupies in the popular perception of Photography as a whole. Examples of 'Great' images would include the likes of Karsh's portrait of Churchill; HCB's Puddle-Jumper and so on.

I strongly doubt whether anyone would ever question that these images deserve the accolade 'Great' regardless of whether the viewers actually liked the images themselves.

As far as the f72 stop is concerned; I'm sure they would be delighted to have a member with such a small aperture stop to play with!

Philip.

I bought a Nikkor lens at auction today, which is one of the early O Models. I got it at a low price and I believe it is very good wide open, better than its f1.4 equivalent. It won't work on any of my many Leicas, but I have a Nikon F and an F2 that it should work on. I did not buy it for the wide open thing or the bokeh, I just thought it was it was an interesting early F lens.

https://casualphotophile.com/2017/06/19/nikon-nikkor-o-35mm-f2-pre-ai-lens-review/

Philip, I was only teasing about the 'great' bit and I was relating it to all the cat and bokeh pictures that we see here after someone has bought a new Megalux lens. That said, my 50 Summilux is as good as any lens that I have ever used, but I have never terrified a family cat with it. 

Finally for those who are happy with normal fast lenses, would f0.3 appeal ?

 

I'm not sure if I can follow all the tech talk in this, so I have sent it to a friend who is an eminent professor of optics for his comments. I have sent some of my friend's writings to Peter Karbe who was impressed with them. 

A more interesting topic on the 'great' photo aspect is whether anyone here has seen a 'great' photo taken with a digital camera or has all that 'greatness' gone with the digital turn?

William 

 

[oldwino]

26 minutes ago, M Street Photographer said:

I'm sorry that I have a different opinion.

no need to be sorry!

Of course, photographers compare their 0.95 and 1.0 lenses to justify spending a lot or a little. Basically, I would expect the "expensive" lenses to openly show better than cheaper ones. The expensive ones should have a more pleasant bokeh and max. open a good sharpness, over the entire photo. You can then judge whether the compromise is very small and whether you choose cheaper lenses.
In my opinion, the high qualities of a premium lens only become apparent when stopped down to 2.x to 5.6. The transitions and gradients are visibly different, more pleasant, more balanced, finer, with a bokeh that is still soft but not exaggerated. Color and contrast, especially the micro-contrasts, often determine the evaluation of the technical recording.

I think you are referring more to the latest designs, where, yes, they are designed to be used wide open (or nearly). I don’t have nearly the experience with these modern lenses as you do, I think  

I was referencing the generalities of the whole history of photo-optical design - remember, there were fast lenses made very early on, and they were made to extend the shooting envelope, not for bokeh or focus transitions. The appreciation of those qualities came later. 

[4r36]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I might be wrong, but I believe that the pictures in the thread "Show us your Noctilux wide open shots" are those that, on average, get the highest number of likes in the whole forum. Everybody can make his own considerations about it. Personally, I'd love to shoot at f/64, it's just that my Leica lenses do not go beyond f/22. I'm fed up with Karbe's wide-mindedness. I'm seriously thinking about migrating to large format cameras and become finally a great photographer 🤣

 

[pippy]

53 minutes ago, M Street Photographer said:

I'm sorry that I have a different opinion. Of course, photographers compare their 0.95 and 1.0 lenses to justify spending a lot or a little. Basically, I would expect the "expensive" lenses to openly show better than cheaper ones. The expensive ones should have a more pleasant bokeh and max. open a good sharpness, over the entire photo. You can then judge whether the compromise is very small and whether you choose cheaper lenses.
In my opinion, the high qualities of a premium lens only become apparent when stopped down to 2.x to 5.6. The transitions and gradients are visibly different, more pleasant, more balanced, finer, with a bokeh that is still soft but not exaggerated. Color and contrast, especially the micro-contrasts, often determine the evaluation of the technical recording.

Philip, a basic resemblance can be assumed if you know both photos. However, I can not imagine that you wanted to copy it on purpose.
Can it possibly be that you have seen a similar photo at some point in the past and that it is present in the subconscious?

We know such effects from the field of deja vu (memory deception). To have seen something at some point unconsciously, to have seen a scene in a film, and when we are then in a similar or the same place, or the scene repeats itself in a similar way, we think we have been there before, or experienced the same thing before to have.

I sometimes feel that way about certain recordings because I love and know the 3 films "In the Mood for Love".
Sometimes I catch myself in a similar scene, which I have then implemented the mood and color scheme, or would like to implement consciously.

And honestly, I don't care if there is a resemblance or if someone speaks of a copy effect, because the unique mood of my recording is more important to me. It will never be a 1:1 copy, but it may be recognizable as to what inspired me. I don't have to earn my money with it, but if it's paid for anyway, that's fine with me. However, I am also not a celebrity photographer.

It's also no shame that one "copies" famous pictures or recordings at the beginning of one's work in order to eventually find one's own style. This has been common practice in painting for centuries. And some of the students were so good and painted for the masters that it is no longer possible to tell whether the master himself or his student drew the picture.
The same is true of signatures. How often have students or secretaries signed documents, signed books or pictures. Of course, this had a different reason than imitating or copying pictures or photos in order to find one's personal style at some point.
And then there are those who can afford to hire photographers who edit and expose the photos, just as the master actually does it himself. And then the question arises, is the picture really from XY or did he "only" take the picture, which is his art and leave the rest to others?

Thank you for the well thought-through reply.

The circumstances under which I snapped the 'Veil' pic were such that my input was, I'm sorry to say, very much secondary and my influence on the initial 'concept' was Nil so neither conscious nor subconscious thought held sway - at least for the majority of the shoot.

My 'sitter' had, with her, the silk scarf. When I was setting up the lighting / camera (a Hasselblad to begin with) she was playing with the scarf and at one point lifted it over her head and let it fall. When I saw it cover her face as it was on its descent I 'saw' the image which I (thought I) wished to take and the action was repeated. During a pause in the shooting (changing backs) she let the veil sit on her head with the longer part falling over her face and I knew in an instant THAT look worked better than the falling-scarf images. I put the Hasselblad to one side and recomposed the shot - as posed latterly - on a Sinar and shot 4 sheets; two Ektachrome 64 and two Plus-X.

I had never previously seen the Steichen otherwise I'd have (probably) 'referenced' it more closely! It is possible, of course, that I had seen a similar situation in some film / book / other but there's certainly nothing which springs to mind.

And yes; I fully agree that by studying the technique of 'The Greats' one learns an ENORMOUS amount which can be used to further one's own art. We even had assignments where shooting in the style of 'XYZ' was the whole point of the exercise. Trying to de-create Karsh's portrait of George Bernard Shaw was my choice and, boy, did Karsh know what he was doing!............

Philip.

[pippy]

47 minutes ago, willeica said:

...I bought a Nikkor lens at auction today, which is one of the early O Models. I got it at a low price and I believe it is very good wide open, better than its f1.4 equivalent. It won't work on any of my many Leicas, but I have a Nikon F and an F2 that it should work on. I did not buy it for the wide open thing or the bokeh, I just thought it was it was an interesting early F lens.

https://casualphotophile.com/2017/06/19/nikon-nikkor-o-35mm-f2-pre-ai-lens-review/

Philip, I was only teasing about the 'great' bit and I was relating it to all the cat and bokeh pictures that we see here after someone has bought a new Megalux lens. That said, my 50 Summilux is as good as any lens that I have ever used, but I have never terrified a family cat with it.

A more interesting topic on the 'great' photo aspect is whether anyone here has seen a 'great' photo taken with a digital camera or has all that 'greatness' gone with the digital turn?...

Thanks for yoour post, William; very interesting! Why is the 35mm f2 Nikkor called an O Model do you know? It's many years (2008) since I was actively shooting with my F / F2 bodies and many years before that where I was buying lenses and the terminology is new to me. But then again; I was never too interested in reading up about the history of Nikon in those days. Nowadays it would be a different matter!

My own favourite image of our rescued cat just happens to have been taken on a 50mm f1.1 7Artisans shot wide-open! Not that she was terrified; she just gave me her usual "You and a Camera? Again???" look............

Getting the thread back on topic and posting a photograph of a cat at the same time(!) It doesn't get any beter than that! Here's Scrap;

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!

As far as future 'Great' images are concerned? It could be, as touched on when discussing Boke, that the phenomenon is too recent for Digital cameras to have had much impact on the concept and it might only be with the benefit of hindsight that some of the images shot using digital kit truly becomes recognised as being 'Great'.

Personally I see no reason to believe that the method of an images capture should have any impact on how it comes to be considered.

Philip.

Edited January 15, 2023 by pippy

[FrozenInTime]

20 hours ago, pippy said:

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.

 

Mark dePaola ran with shooting 50mm f/1 as an artistic theme https://www.depaolapictures.com/

He held workshops on the subject, where he explained his technique and set the group a task of shooting 1m f/0.95 https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/263043-noctilux-workshop-mark-de-paola-leica-store-san-francisco/  This resulted in many blurry photos 😉

[M Street Photographer]

vor einer Stunde schrieb pippy:

....I had never previously seen the Steichen otherwise I'd have (probably) 'referenced' it more closely! It is possible, of course, that I had seen a similar situation in some film / book / other but there's certainly nothing which springs to mind....Philip.

Well, many years ago I met an Iranian woman (like both were in their late 40s at the time) and when I picked her up for dinner, I saw a black, richly embroidered, ornate headscarf hanging on the wardrobe. I asked her to put it on briefly for me once, which she did. She looked so beautiful, almost mystical, as if from 1000 and one night, that I asked her to wear the headscarf for me that evening and in the future, which was only put on and not tied, which she did.
And so we have all certainly seen people, photos, images of a similar kind, also unconsciously. There are also many religious representations that are familiar to us.
That could also have been a reason for your inspiration to do the recordings. It shows and you actually say that this moment touched you very much. That also appeals to me a lot.

If I have a new lens and want to test it on the day of delivery, or want to test an existing one again, my cat always has to be used as a model, which she usually endures patiently. In that sense, we're not that far apart.

Pic M10 R VC 50 1.0 f 1.2

 

 

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 M Street Photographer

[FrozenInTime]

2 hours ago, raizans said:

. The misconception that shallow depth-of-field by itself will isolate the subject, without considering perspective and foreground/background relationships, leads to lazy, ineffective composition. Our descendants will recognize photographs from this period by noticing the cluttered, anxiety-coated backgrounds. I despair for this lost generation. 😂😭

I wanted to show a shunned, yet beautiful, Porsche;  yes it is difficult to blur out the background clutter and Portaloos 🙂 

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!

40/1.2 @ 1.2 ; Maybe If I had a 4x5 Linhof Technika and applied some swing and tilt I could have achieved more isolation.

 

[FrozenInTime]

One famous full aperture photographer was Erich Salomon, who through necessity, shot wide open back in the late 1920's.

Vince Lupo over on RFF has done a great job reliving the experience with an original 100mm f/2 equipped Ermanox.

https://www.rangefinderforum.com/index.php?threads/my-ermanox-journey.177672/

[Dennis]

20 hours ago, pippy said:

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'm sure there are plenty of photos. But I can't recall any at the moment. I took a note to find a few iconic ones taken wide open; I will let you know.

More than anything, IMHO, the big difference is all about content together with context. And wide open most of the time is not enough.

 

Below, some samples.... because I love dogs.

.

Iconic picture below by (of course) Elliott Erwitt. 

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!

.

Here, another one by Elliott Erwitt, probably wide open... not powerful as the previous one.

Finally, probably one of the most iconic dog photos of (still) Mr Erwitt.... Shallow DoF yes, but not wide open... Stopped down a stop or two for more appropriate context 

 

Then, I tried to google iconic dogs photos wide open. I didn't find any. But, look at the picture below .... I just googled dog photograph wide open Sony (sorry about that)

 

Context and content, not just subject, it's making the difference... Look how the foreground in the EE's photograph works just well while here doesn't. Well, IMHO.

.

F8 and be there makes sense to me... F1 and be there only if I watch a Formula 1 race 🤣

My2Cents

 

 

[pippy]

13 minutes ago, FrozenInTime said:

I wanted to show a shunned, yet beautiful, Porsche;  yes it is difficult to blur out the background clutter and Portaloos ...

40/1.2 @ 1.2 ; Maybe If I had a 4x5 Linhof Technika and applied some swing and tilt I could have achieved more isolation...

Hmmm...Not too easily in that situation, FrozenInTime.

You could have tilted the front standard (lens panel) backwards which would have thrown the background more out of focus without changing the perspective too much. Swing would have brought either the left- or right-hand side more into focus than it already is. Seriously? A much more convncing result would be obtained using Photoshop...

Philip.

[hepcat]

1 hour ago, pippy said:

My own favourite image of our rescued cat just happens to have been taken on a 50mm f1.1 7Artisans shot wide-open! Not that she was terrified; she just gave me her usual "You and a Camera? Again???" look............

Getting the thread back on topic and posting a photograph of a cat at the same time(!) It doesn't get any beter than that! Here's Scrap;

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!

 

 

45 minutes ago, M Street Photographer said:

If I have a new lens and want to test it on the day of delivery, or want to test an existing one again, my cat always has to be used as a model, which she usually endures patiently. In that sense, we're not that far apart.

Pic M10 R VC 50 1.0 f 1.2

 

 

It is a well known fact that the Internet was invented by Al Gore specifically for the purposes of sharing photos of cats.  These posts in this thread prove that truth. 🤣

[colint544]

One of Bruce Davidson's favourite pictures was Girl Holding Kitten, which he shot in 1960. I think it's a wonderful image, and looks very much as though he used the maximum aperture of his 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!

Edited January 15, 2023 by colint544

[adan]

2 hours ago, pippy said:

Thanks for your post, William; very interesting! Why is the 35mm f2 Nikkor called an O Model do you know?

The letters on 1960s Nikkor SLR prime lens designs (and a few of the 1950s RF designs) stood for the number of elements.

U - Uni - one element (never used alone)
B - Bi - two elements (not used alone to my knowledge)
T - Tri - three elements (Nikkor-T 10.5cm f/4.0; Nikkor-T 50cm (500mm) f/5.0 for use on the rangefinders with a Visoflex-like mirror box)
Q - Quadra - four elements (Nikkor-Q 135mm f/2.8 or f/3.5)
P - Penta - five elements (Nikkor-P 10.5cm/105mm f/2.5)
H - Hexa - six elements (Nikkor-H 50mm f/2., Nikkor 18cm Nikkor-H f/2.5 (for use on the rangefinders with a Visoflex-like mirror box)
S - Septa - seven elements (Nikkor-S 50mm f/1.4). Not to be confused with the S-mount rangefinder lenses.
O - Octa - eight elements (Nikkor-O 35mm f/2.0)
N - Nona - nine elements (Nikkor-N 24mm f/2.8)
D - Deca - ten elements (Not sure it was ever used)
UD - Unideca - one + ten = eleven - (Nikkor-UD 20mm f/3.5)

They were phased out with the cosmetic and metering changes of the Nikon F2 era, to allow for the mount designator letters instead (Ai or Ai-S, AF-S, etc. etc.)
 

Edited January 15, 2023 by adan

[FrozenInTime]

1 hour ago, pippy said:

Hmmm...Not too easily in that situation, FrozenInTime.

You could have tilted the front standard (lens panel) backwards which would have thrown the background more out of focus without changing the perspective too much. Swing would have brought either the left- or right-hand side more into focus than it already is. Seriously? A much more convncing result would be obtained using Photoshop...

Philip.

Letting Photoshop 2023's Neural Filter Depth Blur loose on the image.

One click on '83' and blur to maximum.

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!

Maybe the Neural learning depth blur net would achieve better isolation from a stopped down image, which may in turn support your why shoot wide open argument; something to try in the future.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pippy]

49 minutes ago, colint544 said:

One of Bruce Davidson's favourite pictures was Girl Holding Kitten, which he shot in 1960. I think it's a wonderful image, and looks very much as though he used the maximum aperture of his lens...

Absolutely! A really beautiful image. Thanks for the reminder, Colin!

Philip.