Shoot wide open or stop it down a bit when it's not about "light" and more about DOF?

[dpitt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

34 minutes ago, erl said:

Just to put 'the cat amongst the pigeons' I could ask, " why buy expensive Leica lenses" if you don't exploit their prime characteristic? ie. Great image quality at maximum aperture. I remember it was that very fact that instantly switched me from Nikon to Leica, many years ago. My Nikon lenses were OK provided they were stopped down to 5.6 or more. The first Leica lens I acquired was a Summicron 50mm and one client swore that wide open its images walked all over the Nikons. That was the start of my embarrassingly large Leica collection. But I never regretted it. I am a self confessed large aperture junky, but ONLY because it works for most of what I shoot.

I should declare that I conducted a rigourous comparative test of Leica V's Nokon, both on tripods and still have those prints to remind me of why I spend so much money on Leica.

What convinced me even more was the '3D rendering'. Its hard to put a finger on, but there is definitely a 'Leica look' even when used on other brands bodies. And it is not all about shooting with very good fully open apertures. I appreciate that also of course. It is nice to have a F1.4 lens that you can use full open without hesitation in low light situations. That is one of the reasons that I am not really fond of the Summilux 35 F1.4 pre-ASPH. It is too soft at f1.4 for me, compared to other Leica Summiluxes.

Edited April 20, 2023 by dpitt

[erl]

1 hour ago, dpitt said:

What convinced me even more was the '3D rendering'. Its hard to put a finger on, but there is definitely a 'Leica look' even when used on other brands bodies. And it is not all about shooting with very good fully open apertures. I appreciate that also of course. It is nice to have a F1.4 lens that you can use full open without hesitation in low light situations. That is one of the reasons that I am not really fond of the Summilux 35 F1.4 pre-ASPH. It is too soft at f1.4 for me, compared to other Leica Summiluxes.

Thank you for reminding about that 3D effect. My wife 1st remarked on it. The moment I started using a Leica, she remarked " have you changed your developer or something? Your pictures suddenly look better." I hadn't 'fessed up to spending money on a Leica, but she noticed something had happened! 😇

[evikne]

16 hours ago, kinetic said:

The forum code compresses images so much that I don't think this is a great example, but I feel like I still get plenty of the magic of my 50mm summilux bc even at f/3.5 that I used here (I think I was going for f/2.8 but bumped the aperture ring). The good thing is, in the uncompressed image, I got the model's face/hair/body fully in focus, and you can see the layers behind her are well separated. The light fall-off is still there.

The question is am I missing some other "magic" that I could have gotten at f/1.4 other than just a lot more DOF (which wasn't what I wanted here anyway)?

 

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!

 

Cropped down:

In this example I think stopping down a little works particularly well, and there is still lots of beautiful, soft bokeh. Some of the reasons are:

• Short distance to the subject
• Long distance from the subject to the background
• Simple, non-distracting background
• No OOF light sources that reveals the ninja star shaped aperture

[pgk]

2 hours ago, erl said:

Just to put 'the cat amongst the pigeons' I could ask, " why buy expensive Leica lenses"

Excellent image 'quality' at all apertures. Size and RF which I like. You might as well ask why Leica produce slow aperture lenses at all? I have Sony and Leica lenses with similar focal lengths. The Sony lenses are great but relatively huge and the EVF interface is a challenge. The M with its diminutive lenses and simplistic usage suits me very well. Lots of reasons of which the ability to use lenses wide open is possibly one (but the Sonys are good at f/1.8 too).

[pgk]

1 hour ago, dpitt said:

 Aperture is technical, but control of DOF is often an artistic decision, so it is one of the most 'artistic' settings to me. Most other artistic decisions are outside the camera as I tried to say above.

Any setting on the camera is, to me, technical and yes, of course aperture is a very strong influence on the final image, so its choice is inherent in the artistic decision making. But it is, as you say, a camera setting and therefore technical to me, too.

Subject, composition and lighting are outside the camera, to me anything else which is set on the camera is a technical decision.

[erl]

39 minutes ago, pgk said:

Subject, composition and lighting are outside the camera, to me anything else which is set on the camera is a technical decision.

Correct, but IMO, not the complete description. I see the technical decisions as clearly part of the creative process. ie. The decision to change or alter the 'technicals' may be part of the creative process in that understanding the technical influences allows creative variation. Is this too semantic? Probably. 🤪

[Greenhilltony]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I doubt anyone can tell the exact focal length, aperture and shutter speed given a photo without EXIF. And also, can anybody assert which lens is used for a given photo without EXIF, and promise 100% right answers? I don’t think there is a person who can do this. If your image appeals to others by its atmosphere of a cron or a lux, instead of its content, you are out of the discussion of art. Larger maximum aperture and the IQ level mainly provide you a wider choice for your creative process, just use it if you think it is necessary. If you do think your supposed outcome should be decorated with some characters of a specific lens, then feel free to get it and use it. But don’t take pictures just for the characters, unless you are a gear reviewer.

[M.RB]

17 hours ago, kinetic said:

The forum code compresses images so much that I don't think this is a great example, but I feel like I still get plenty of the magic of my 50mm summilux bc even at f/3.5 that I used here (I think I was going for f/2.8 but bumped the aperture ring). The good thing is, in the uncompressed image, I got the model's face/hair/body fully in focus, and you can see the layers behind her are well separated. The light fall-off is still there.

The question is am I missing some other "magic" that I could have gotten at f/1.4 other than just a lot more DOF (which wasn't what I wanted here anyway)?

 

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!

 

Without meaning to be antagonistic, I think some see an aperture or some other technical detail like contrast or the way the reds look or whatever in a photo like this and maybe it is just a picture of a lady in a shopping mall?

I don't think the aperture of a picture matters, surely it's the subject matter and the light and the fact that you took a photo. The difference between a picture with 40cm DOF or 82cm is counting angels dancing on pinheads stuff and a million miles wide of the mark imho. If you think there is secret sauce then enjoy it with your burger.

[Stein K S]

On 4/19/2023 at 4:13 PM, Somchai said:

Honestly I think the magic is in the content of the photo and not in the lens. You can take a good photo or you can take a photo as a love letter to your lens. And usually bokeh photos are love letters to lenses rather than good pictures. 

The more I shoot the more annoying I find shallow depth of field. I do use it occasionally when it makes sense, but at f2.8 and 50mm the depth of field is shallow enough. 

95% of my photos are shot at f8 and sometimes f11 if it’s really bright. When it’s a more distant subject and I need the light I will go to f4-f5.6.

I find absolutely 0 use having f1.4. I don’t know why I would ever use this aperture. Even at night. I still need to see the foreground, middleground and background clearly. A friend of mine shared a photo from his monochrome. It was f16, 1/1000, ISO32,000. And it was taken in the middle of the night at 28mm. You just need to see everything in the frame. At least for me. 

Thanks for a refreshing post in between bunches of ¨the importance of shootin Leica lenses fully open¨ Rationals… and to me acually a good & sound ¨reminder¨… 👍😀

Edited April 20, 2023 by Stein K S

[luetz]

Shoot it anyway you want (your preference).  The key for me is "when an image presents itself"...."The Art of Seeing".  

[erl]

5 hours ago, luetz said:

Shoot it anyway you want (your preference).  The key for me is "when an image presents itself"...."The Art of Seeing".  

The absolute and final acid test. Sounds too easy doesn't it! 😇