Depth or field or not dof

rolleistef

Well-known
Local time
10:31 AM
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
945
Hello,
since I bought my Kiev, I started using depth of field a lot. It's true it's so useful to set the lens on hyperfocal and have everything sharp from 1.50m to infinite, you're much faster...
So most of the time, I use dof except when I need for a reason or another, to open up to 2.8 or 2.
Nw the question is : do you do the same, or do you consider it's an heresy to do so? (as i read on the French Leica forum)?
 
Small apertures make flat images. If I take pictures of architecture of landscapes I use f8/f11/f16. But if the subjects stands alone, you can release it from the background by choosing an larger aperture.
Larger apertures can make pictures more dynicamical, and unsharpness can be very beautifull too. Colourfull autumn leaves as an unsharp background for example.
Walking around with the infinity mark on the choosen aperture is a good thing when you have to keep your camera steady for an unexpected shot. But taking every picture with the same aperture and DOF will result in the same sharpness, a little bit dull. Keep thinking about apertures, DOF, shutter times, etc. while shooting, it stimulates the creativity.

Greetings :)
 
Of course it's not a heresy, it's the best thing about manual lenses. Garry Winogrand did it. HCB used f8 a lot in combination with the distance scale.
 
Of course it's not a heresy, it's the best thing about manual lenses. Garry Winogrand did it. HCB used f8 a lot in combination with the distance scale.
 
What religion are you talking about? Whatever aperture you use, you always have DOF whether it is deep or shallow. I don't think being padantic about the "rules" of photography is helpful. Naturally, if you don't know what you are doing, the rules can help, but they are not absolute. Eventually you will need to progress to the point where you use the "rules" rather them using you.
 
Sorry, I have sometimes difficulties expressing my ideas in English ;)
What I wanted to know, is whether you exclusively used your rangefinder for focusing, or if you sometimes (or most of the time) used the depth of field scale for that.
It's an actual debate they had on this French Leica Forum : they were arguing that if you bought a Leica M, then you HAD and were supposed to use the RF, otherwise you had to buy a Leica I or a Voigty L!

I always use apertures such as 8, 11, 16 for landscapes etc, and 2.8 or 4 for portrait, or 5.6 with my Rolleiflex. But I should try using f:2.8 for street photography, you're perfectly right Valkir1987.
f:2 is more problematic because it makes my J8 really too soft, and and it looks like a photo taken with a Softar filter.
And I have a kind of psychological gap about f:22. It seems I'd get "hyperrealistic" pictures with an unlimited DOF, and that I'd lose optical quality. Is it true or not?
 
I almost always use DOF instead of the rangefinder. At f11 or f16, I just leave my lens frefocused at 3 meters. At if 8 I'll use the distance scale, and at f5.6 and wider I will use the rangefinder. F11 and f8 get me through 9 out of 10 times.
 
Stephane,
I prefer to focus but that is not always the best solution so sometimes I do rely on the DOF markings on the lens. I tend to shoot mostly 400 speed film, so in the daytime my aperture is usually f/11 or f/16 and if I have time I still focus with the RF. If something is going on that I need to be very fast to catch, then I will go with hyperfocal settings.
Heresy? Don't think so. But that's just my opinion.
Rob
 
The way I see it there are no hard and fast rules on how you ought to shoot. There's nothing inherently wrong with using hyperfocal with a Leica. On the contrary it can be one of the fastest ways to get the picture you want. Just raise the camera and snap. At first perhaps one is not comfortable with this technique but it can become a lifesaver in situations where you have to react real fast. So, I usually have my lens preset on f8-f11 hyperfocal just in case something comes up and I do not have the time to focus. I think f16 degrades somewhat the sharpness due to diffraction but it still gives really acceptable quality. If I have the time though, I definitely prefer to focus.
 
I'm pretty much the same as most people here - it varies.

With my CV 15mm and 21mm lenses on a Bessa-L, I obviously use hyperfocal distance cos that's all it can do (and with such wide lenses there's no need at all for anything more accurate).

With a 35mm lens on an FSU body, if the light is bright and I can get a small aperture I'll walk around with it set hyperfocal and just point and shoot (but if it's close-up at all, I'll use the rangefinder). And if I can't get a small enough aperture, again I'll focus properly.

With a 50mm or 85mm lens on an FSU body, I focus with the rangefinder every time.
 
If I have enough light, I shoot for an infinate focus. However, I do like to shoot at 2 or 4 when working close with portraits. The short DOF helps to separate the subject from the background.

As for sticking with some sort of rule as implied by the Leica users you mentioned, I feel that you just limit yourself and not fully exploring the design of the lens. If you always going to shoot for an infinate DOF, then why not use a fix focus P&S?

Jonathan
 
Since you bought the camera, you can use it any way you like.

I use both methods depending on the situation. I believe Mr. Leica (Henri Cartier-Bresson) used both methods as well. At least that is my impression from a discription of how he worked.
 
The whole hyperfocal thing was what sucked me into RF photography. My world changed when I tried using that along with RF focusing - something clicked in my brain, and it changed the way I visualized everything. And some days, this style really works for me, most other days it always presents a new challenge.

Discover what you like and have fun!
 
Back
Top Bottom