Is it Bokeh or is it real?

[muser53]

Here is an interesting post regarding the uses of DOF from today"s TOP.

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/blog_index.html

 

[ChrisP]

It just shows that photographers have always tried to differentiate themselves from the masses. When 35mm, MF and LF were the norm and film speeds were in the double digits it was difficult to get alot of DOF. Amateurs probably shot everything with miniscule DOF back then so they could hand hold. People who wanted to look like pro's did their best to get alot as much DOF to say "look how different I am, bet you can't do this."

Now that sensors are small its easy to have everything in focus. Almost every image from a camera phone has huge DOF. Now to differentiate themselves from the masses people minimize DOF as much as possible to show they don't just use the kit lens. The same thing happens with WA. Now that a standard zoom starts at 28mm (equivalent) people buy things in the UWA category to show their special.

However I think its a crutch for most people. It makes boring photographs slightly less boring.

 

[timor]

Now that sensors are small its easy to have everything in focus.

How this is possible ? What has the size of the frame anything to do with the focus ?

 

[crispy12]

How this is possible ? What has the size of the frame anything to do with the focus ?

I think he means that a small sensor requires a shorter lens for a similar field of view, thus increasing the depth of field.

 

[TXForester]

I just finished reading that article before coming back to the RFF site.

This quote from the article (bold emphasis is mine, not the author's) sums it up for me.

Everything else tends to be less so, but in a way that looks effortless and natural, never calling attention to itself. (In fact I'd hold that no aspect of good technique ever does, but then maybe I'm a relic that way too.)

 

[heartattackandvine]

Excellent text and great food for thought. Thanks for posting (although I normally follow TOP, I would've missed this one).

 

[timor]

I think he means that a small sensor requires a shorter lens for a similar field of view, thus increasing the depth of field.

So, he is mistaking DOF with the focus ? That two different things.

 

[Sylvester]

I think it all depends on the subject. It's up to you to choose what is the more suitable, more, less or no DOF. Personally I feel it is easier to shoot with rather small apertures on the street...

 

[jbot]

So, he is mistaking DOF with the focus ? That two different things.

You're nitpicking. Saying "everything is in focus" and "the DOF is so large that everything appears to be in focus" are pretty much the same thing.

 

[timor]

You're nitpicking.

Realy ? Any lens can focus one distance only, everything else is out of focus, do you like it or not. Saying "everything is in focus" sounds silly, and members of such a forum like this should know better and not repeat propaganda fallacies. Those are for "sunday shooters".

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Those are for "sunday shooters".

Do I detect just the slightest hint of prejudice here?

 

[timor]

OK. Retracted. Correction: people who know only where the trigger is, but playing photographers. And I am thinking only about those I met.

 

[Sparrow]

... I quite like f16 myself ... I know there's only one plane of focus, but all the rest look reasonably good too

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Things that are different are bad. Change is to be feared.

Ironically, curators/editors want "different". But not too different: you gotta do the normal kind of different, because if you're really different, you're ridiculed. If you're too normal in the not-different sense, you're just a snapper.

Everybody has an opinion. It's when it becomes sectarian that it becomes a problem.

 

[starless]

I agree that photographs with more than one plane/layer are visually more interesting. But at the same time much harder to pull off.

The easiest approach to a photograph is just to pick one object/subject, blur the middle and background and voila!
Easy and boring. That explains why beginners fall for this gimmick.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

One can also say that setting the aperture at f/16 or f/22, pick a framing and voila, no need to focus on a subject, let that be done by the viewer.

The selective focusing is usually disliked by those who need corrective glasses, and "all in focus" is usually thought of as boring by those who have very good vision.


One way is in no way "superior" or "inferior" to the other.

 

[starless]

"all in focus" is usually thought of as boring

I don't understand this.

Are you saying that an image with 3 or more planes of action, visually interacting or relating to each other, filling out the frame is more boring than let's say a centered person in focus and the rest of the frame a smudge?

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

No, I am not saying that. Read the rest of the sentence you didn't quote.


Selective quoting used to reach broad interpretations...

 

[Sparrow]

One can also say that setting the aperture at f/16 or f/22, pick a framing and voila, no need to focus on a subject, let that be done by the viewer.

The selective focusing is usually disliked by those who need corrective glasses, and "all in focus" is usually thought of as boring by those who have very good vision.


One way is in no way "superior" or "inferior" to the other.

I'm not sure one is allowed to be ambiguous on RFF; aren't we supposed to pick a side and take to the trenches?

 

[jbot]

Realy ? Any lens can focus one distance only, everything else is out of focus, do you like it or not. Saying "everything is in focus" sounds silly, and members of such a forum like this should know better and not repeat propaganda fallacies. Those are for "sunday shooters".

You're still nitpicking. I wrote up a reply, but then realized I was nitpicking. :bang: