An interesting article on depth of field

menthel

menthel

Messages
6,732
Name
Jim
Edit My Images
Yes
menthel said:
I think I agree with the general sentiment that shallow depth of field and bokeh are seen far too much these days. Its a modern obsession similar to that of sharpness. I would be happy to see it go back to where it was before, as a useful tool used when needed and not used as the default option.
Click to expand...

As is often the case, people tend to follow trend so if shallow DOF is "in" then masses are going to follow until something else takes it's place.

Personally I'm with you is so far as using it as a useful tool when it's needed/suits the shot.

As it mentions in the link, with more dof, one has to take more care "Arranging all those in-focus elements into coherent form".......definetly adds to the challenge of the shot and I suppose brings out the additional skills of the photographer.

How did we go on before "fast lenses"......we either accepted the BG or simply didn't take the shot!

Unfortuanetly BGs are often much "busier" now than years past which helps none in composing a decent shot but there again it shows the scene "as is"

Like anything to do with photography, it all comes down to individual tastes.
 
Really low DoF does get tired quickly but a lot of portraits wouldn't be the same without it.
When looking through some sets of photos I can't help but think "Yeah, alright, you have bought a 1.4 lens, I get it"
 
menthel said:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/06/in-defense-of-depth.html

As usual, good artile from TOP. I think I agree with the general sentiment that shallow depth of field and bokeh are seen far too much these days.
Click to expand...

One great advantage of being an amateur photographer is that no one can tell me what pictures I should or shouldn't be taking :D I am therefore immune to financial concerns or the opinion of others :D Personally I like shallow DoF shots (with a name like Way Out Of Focus... repeated... that's hardly a surprise) but that's by no means all I shoot.

I'm not really too worried about the proliferation of shallow DoF shots, the trend that irritates me the most is the tight portrait shot containing no context. That's something that's been done to death IMVHO.
 
woof woof said:
One great advantage of being an amateur photographer is that no one can tell me what pictures I should or shouldn't be taking :D I am therefore immune to financial concerns or the opinion of others :D Personally I like shallow DoF shots (with a name like Way Out Of Focus... repeated... that's hardly a surprise) but that's by no means all I shoot.

I'm not really too worried about the proliferation of shallow DoF shots, the trend that irritates me the most is the tight portrait shot containing no context. That's something that's been done to death IMVHO.
Click to expand...

But surely a shallow depth of field portrait does the same thing. It takes away any context from the image, just presenting the person. I personally think photos are better with a context, whatever the subject may be! :)
 
He's right about people coming from small sensors.

I like using a shallow DoF. I never used to be able to.
 
menthel said:
But surely a shallow depth of field portrait does the same thing. It takes away any context from the image, just presenting the person. I personally think photos are better with a context, whatever the subject may be! :)
Click to expand...

Distance is key too. Shoot a portrait at some distance and even with a wide aperture you won't get such a razor thin DoF that it'll obscure the context competely.
 
woof woof said:
Distance is key too. Shoot a portrait at some distance and even with a wide aperture you won't get such a razor thin DoF that it'll obscure the context competely.
Click to expand...

But could make it difficult to discern. Again, its horses for courses and that is why I posted up the link. Its good food for thought!
 
menthel said:
But could make it difficult to discern. Again, its horses for courses and that is why I posted up the link. Its good food for thought!
Click to expand...

Well, it could but we choose the camera settings we want to get the shot we want :D

Try shooting a full body portrait with some context with a 50 or 85mm lens at f1.4 and you'll see how difficult it is to throw everything out of the DoF in the way that you could with the same lens when shooting a head shot at closer range.

Yes, I agree. An interesting read and point of view.
 
What are your thoughts on the "Brenzier method" then guys?
 
ChrisGilbert said:
The article seems to be inventing an issue in order to give itself an excuse to discuss it. I'm not aware of any controversy or issues or 'fascination' with depth of field. Someone somewhere was desperate for content and hits.
Click to expand...

Well, it is not exactly a controversy or an issue as such and is more of an observation which I agree with.
 
whom said:
What are your thoughts on the "Brenzier method" then guys?
Click to expand...

Have to admit i've only skimmed through the process but it seems like an awful lot of work sat in front of a computer screen.....tbh I prefer to be behind a camera!

As for the end result using this method ....nothing wrong with them, nor anything special about them imo.....again comes down to personal preference as to what one wants from his/her photography skills and equipment.
 
ernesto said:
Well, it is not exactly a controversy or an issue as such and is more of an observation which I agree with.
Click to expand...

Yeah. It's even something I noticed about myself very recently, and I've only been shooting for a few months. For my own sake I've got to learn to explore my range of apertures...
 
Asha said:
Have to admit i've only skimmed through the process but it seems like an awful lot of work sat in front of a computer screen.....tbh I prefer to be behind a camera!

As for the end result using this method ....nothing wrong with them, nor anything special about them imo.....again comes down to personal preference as to what one wants from his/her photography skills and equipment.
Click to expand...

Yeah but no matter how long you stand behind the camera you can't get the same results... And it takes as much standing behind the camera as behind the computer screen.

Fair enough if the look doesn't do anything for you. I personally like it but that may be for technical reasons than artistic ones...
 
An interesting read indeed.. I think the other reason why photographers love narrow depth of field effects and bokeh is because it's a complete stark contrast to how the human eye (and hence the observer of the photograph) sees the world.

I don't really see tons of photos all using narrow depth of field flooding facebook - whilst there are some very affordable cameras and lenses out there, it's not in the same league of accessibility as say instagram whose poo brown processed images are everywhere.

Personally, I love shallow depth of field and bokeh, I think it's a wonderful creative tool and used properly can make your photographs truly magical.
 
Great point Mark. It's a different perspective.
 
cuthbert said:
An interesting read indeed.. I think the other reason why photographers love narrow depth of field effects and bokeh is because it's a complete stark contrast to how the human eye (and hence the observer of the photograph) sees the world.

I don't really see tons of photos all using narrow depth of field flooding facebook - whilst there are some very affordable cameras and lenses out there, it's not in the same league of accessibility as say instagram whose poo brown processed images are everywhere.

Personally, I love shallow depth of field and bokeh, I think it's a wonderful creative tool and used properly can make your photographs truly magical.
Click to expand...

INstagram are now doing false DOF as well, basicaly it blurs everything in a circle around a centre point that you select.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top