D.o.f.

This discussion made me think of the f/64 group - large format photographers in the early '30s who rebelled against what they considered to be the over-used artifice of shallow depth of field. Their creed was everything in focus, to depict the world as it really is, and to seek to use outstanding (or even abstract) composition to highlight the subject.

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/f64/hd_f64.htm
 
I noticed the sentiments in that thread too. Thought them rather strange. Either lots of it, or very little at all. Whatever makes the shot. It's the first aspect of the shot I think about. So yes I agree, deliberate use of varying degrees of DoF is an important tool.
 
VinceC said:
This discussion made me think of the f/64 group - large format photographers in the early '30s who rebelled against what they considered to be the over-used artifice of shallow depth of field. Their creed was everything in focus, to depict the world as it really is, and to seek to use outstanding (or even abstract) composition to highlight the subject.

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/f64/hd_f64.htm
Click to expand...

The f/64 group wasn't going on about inappropriate use of selective focus, but about photographers who tried to ape current trends in painting (particularly impressionism) by use of mechanical means such as intentionally soft lenses and manipulation of film and paper to achieve a 'painterly' effect. They did indeed believe that everything in the photo should be in razor-sharp focus, however. I found much of their work rather boring and uninteresting, but that's just me.
 
D.O.F an be a power full tool in the photographic image chain. What is missed in the understanding by some is how subject distance/ perspective and point of focus all factor in the final image. Just as lighting and contrast as well as B+w color all play a role in the the emotional impact of a given image.




Taken with a Lecia M3 and a 50 1.0 Noctilux and a Polarizer on XP2.

I 'll post a couple more images to illustrate my point.




Taken on M6 with 50 1.0 Noctilux @ f8/11 on XP2




Taken on M7 with 50 1.0 Noctilux 1.0 with B+w N.D filter @ 1.0 on Ektar 100
 
Last edited:
FrankS said:
I was surprised to read in a recent thread on another topic, that some photographers do not consider/appreciate the visual effect of limitied DOF when composing/visuallizing their picture.
Click to expand...

The key word there is "consider". That a photographer doesn't USE it, does not mean he hasn't considered it.

It isn't necessary to use every tool, or make every kind of photo. Would it surprise you that some don't "Consider" using color (or monochrome)? Is that any different?

Shallow focus or deep focus, it's all fine, but in a good picture there is always a reason for it.

Personally, I've always considered the camera's ability to quickly describe such vast amounts of detail to be one of its most fascinating and seductive traits. So I've tried to embrace that and prefer (in my own pictures) everything in focus. But of course, I've enjoyed many great pictures that exhibit shallow focus.


Cheers,
Gary
 
Goldilocks tried the papa bear's camera but it had too much DOF. She then tried the momma bear's camera's but it had too little DOF. Finally she tried the baby bear's camera and it had just the right amount of DOF.


JMO but I think Goldilocks has the right idea 🙂
 
Holy crap, I agree with Bill! 😉

I agree that it is a powerful tool, and that it is only one tool at the photographer's disposal.

But I think it has become something of a fashion statement/trend lately, and can be over-used. I often wonder if it is used to cover up sloppy/bad composition.
 
Trius said:
Holy crap, I agree with Bill! 😉

I agree that it is a powerful tool, and that it is only one tool at the photographer's disposal.

But I think it has become something of a fashion statement/trend lately, and can be over-used. I often wonder if it is used to cover up sloppy/bad composition.
Click to expand...



I thought that was what B+W was for. 😉

B+W is just sooo over-used too.
 
Last edited:
FrankS said:
I was surprised to read in a recent thread on another topic, that some photographers do not consider/appreciate the visual effect of limitied DOF when composing/visuallizing their picture.
Click to expand...

I find this an interesting topic, and would like to know which thread you are referring to, in order to read that too.

Thanks,

-g.
 
FrankS said:
I'm thinking that the "everything in focus" snapshot technique is heavily overused, as that is the only effect that the small sensor digital cameras are capable of (except in macro mode). I prefer to look at images created with some thought behind them.
Click to expand...

and bokeh = thought?
 
peterm1 said:
Absolutely. This is one of the main attractions of using rangefinders, particularly Leicas as their lenses are designed to shoot wide open. In fact you may say this is much of what what you pay for in good quality fast glass. And its not only Leica glass.
Click to expand...

Quiet true, and sometimes it doesn't even need to be expensive:

3134060386_fe95d560d9.jpg


Minolta 58mm f/1.2 which cost me a fraction of either CV or Leitz lenses.
 
Trius said:
Holy crap, I agree with Bill! 😉
Click to expand...

Eventually, everyone will agree with me. I take some getting used to, but eventually ever buddy figures out I'm mostly right.

I often wonder if it is used to cover up sloppy/bad composition.
Click to expand...

That's a good point. It can also be used to paint one's way out of a corner, so to speak. There have been times when I may not have wanted to create a limited depth of focus effect, but the composition forced me to, due to some object I could not maneuver out of my frame, and could not live with it being in sharp focus. So yeah, fixing phone poles and electric wires, basically. Pre-photoshop kind of trickery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom