BobYIL
Well-known
There is an ongoing trend, to shoot wide open or at apertures close to wide open. With today's improved formulae and coating techniques, we apparently enjoy the new lenses through their whole aperture range better than what we could, say, twenty years ago.
But, really, do these wide apertures with thin DOFields help us to end up with better pictures?
This brings another inquiry to mind: Why the great majority of the photographs admired globally, including those of Magnum masters, have been shot with DOFields appearing either natural or not bothering the eyes? And these were since the days of high-speed films with rating of 100 ASA only...
We all are aware of the advantages of having an f1.4 lens over an f2.0 one, for being better equipped for low-light situations, no discussion about it. This is about the choice, tendency to use short DOF over rather longer ones.
As I tried to comment on an other forum, "I have seen thousands of great and memorable photographs shot by Summar, Summitar or Summicron however I wish I could be remembering since its introduction in 1966 just a dozen shot by the series named Noctilux at apertures larger than f2.8."
Just my 2 kurushes..
Regards,
Bob
But, really, do these wide apertures with thin DOFields help us to end up with better pictures?
This brings another inquiry to mind: Why the great majority of the photographs admired globally, including those of Magnum masters, have been shot with DOFields appearing either natural or not bothering the eyes? And these were since the days of high-speed films with rating of 100 ASA only...
We all are aware of the advantages of having an f1.4 lens over an f2.0 one, for being better equipped for low-light situations, no discussion about it. This is about the choice, tendency to use short DOF over rather longer ones.
As I tried to comment on an other forum, "I have seen thousands of great and memorable photographs shot by Summar, Summitar or Summicron however I wish I could be remembering since its introduction in 1966 just a dozen shot by the series named Noctilux at apertures larger than f2.8."
Just my 2 kurushes..
Regards,
Bob
_larky
Well-known
I personally do not like tiny DOF, I understand why people use it and why people like it, but I don't. I like stuff sharp, and I like to see the background.
FTography
Contains Sarcasm
It's an interesting point, Bob. And I believe everyone has contemplated about it at one time or another. But as for most techniques, a shallow depth of field will contribute to a good picture when it makes sense, aesthetically and artistically.
As for the hype, there really are quite a hand full of people who forget that they can actually stop down their fast aperture lenses. There is a load of pictures shot with the largest of apertures which don't make any sense. I couldn't say how many pictures I have seen of leaves and other things with the background resolved in "bokeh", just for the sake of it.
I wouldn't say that a shallow depth on its own will make a picture any better or worse per se. It really depends on what you want to express in the shot. I suppose the key question is whether you like to put your subject in context with its surroundings, or separate the subject from its surroundings.
As for the hype, there really are quite a hand full of people who forget that they can actually stop down their fast aperture lenses. There is a load of pictures shot with the largest of apertures which don't make any sense. I couldn't say how many pictures I have seen of leaves and other things with the background resolved in "bokeh", just for the sake of it.
I wouldn't say that a shallow depth on its own will make a picture any better or worse per se. It really depends on what you want to express in the shot. I suppose the key question is whether you like to put your subject in context with its surroundings, or separate the subject from its surroundings.
sleepyhead
Well-known
It all depends on the subject, it's surroundings, and what the photographer wants to emphasize, or "say" about the scene.
oftheherd
Veteran
I think it is like any other tool. Use when it makes sense, don't when it doesn't.
B.S.
Member
I've been reexamining my views on this as of late.
My first rangefinder lens was a Nokton F/1.1 , so when I started out I'd try to shoot as close to F/1.1 as possible whenever I'd have the chance. I loved that OOF look to the background, the way that the aperture blades create these little balls of light and the way that sometimes the picture appears to be swirling around in the bokeh, I still do love it.
Another lens I like is the 35mm Summaron F/2.8 . It has a gorgeous 3D look to it, but it's almost tough to throw things OOF, especially on a sunny day without any filters. With this lens I started to see how amazing shots can look up at F/11 - F/16, with seemingly everything in focus. It's a completely different type of photography from fast, short DoF shooting. It's harder, IMO, but very rewarding.
I feel like with everything but a small slice in focus it's much easier to get sloppy with things like composition. All of the sudden it doesn't really matter what's in the background of the shot because it's going to be so out of focus anyway nobody will be able to make it out. All you have to do for many of these shots is place the subject and hit focus, whereas with a longer depth of field you must consider the entirety of what you're seeing through the viewfinder.
In conclusion I think that while short depth of field can look amazing and should be a tool in most photographers bags, I think it can also make us less careful. And of course always pick the right tool for the job and all that jazz...
My first rangefinder lens was a Nokton F/1.1 , so when I started out I'd try to shoot as close to F/1.1 as possible whenever I'd have the chance. I loved that OOF look to the background, the way that the aperture blades create these little balls of light and the way that sometimes the picture appears to be swirling around in the bokeh, I still do love it.
Another lens I like is the 35mm Summaron F/2.8 . It has a gorgeous 3D look to it, but it's almost tough to throw things OOF, especially on a sunny day without any filters. With this lens I started to see how amazing shots can look up at F/11 - F/16, with seemingly everything in focus. It's a completely different type of photography from fast, short DoF shooting. It's harder, IMO, but very rewarding.
I feel like with everything but a small slice in focus it's much easier to get sloppy with things like composition. All of the sudden it doesn't really matter what's in the background of the shot because it's going to be so out of focus anyway nobody will be able to make it out. All you have to do for many of these shots is place the subject and hit focus, whereas with a longer depth of field you must consider the entirety of what you're seeing through the viewfinder.
In conclusion I think that while short depth of field can look amazing and should be a tool in most photographers bags, I think it can also make us less careful. And of course always pick the right tool for the job and all that jazz...
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
It seems to me that saying "it's just a tool" in some ways ducks a very real and, actually, rather serious question about how we approach photography. Shallow DoF is a tool for what purpose?
If you go to, say, flickr, you will certainly find that there are a lot of good pictures with very shallow DoF. But perhaps flickr, that vast storehouse of bland competence, is not where we really should look.
Among the greatest photographs taken over the history of our medium, there are comparatively few with very shallow DoF. To be sure, there are a few. But most of the greatest photographs have relatively extended focus. And this is not because shallow DoF was difficult to achieve in the past! Remember that over the history of photography most photographers used large formats with intrinsically shallow DoF. The fact that most of the greatest images did not have shallow DoF when that was the easiest way to shoot tells us, in fact, that for most of the greats, most of the time, overly shallow DoF was something to be avoided. Something that the greats went out of their way to avoid. But why should this be?
It stands to reason, really.
Many of the most miraculous, virtuoso images take a complex three-dimensional space and project it onto that two-dimensional piece of paper in an amazing way. Think of Koudelka, think of Strand, think of Kertesz, think of Gilles Peress, think of Imogen Cunningham, think of Ernst Haas, think of Raghubir Singh, think of Bruce Davidson. Very shallow DoF bypasses the difficulty — and the reward — of dealing with three dimensions. Shallow DoF takes a cross-sectional slice and throws away most information about the volume of space. It allows the photographer to sidestep a central challenge of photography: managing the complexities of a more information-rich projection.
For this reason, I'll go out on a limb and say that shallow DoF is an intrinsically less-ambitious approach to making photographs. This is a generalization, of course, and there will always be exceptions. What do the rest of you think?
If you go to, say, flickr, you will certainly find that there are a lot of good pictures with very shallow DoF. But perhaps flickr, that vast storehouse of bland competence, is not where we really should look.
Among the greatest photographs taken over the history of our medium, there are comparatively few with very shallow DoF. To be sure, there are a few. But most of the greatest photographs have relatively extended focus. And this is not because shallow DoF was difficult to achieve in the past! Remember that over the history of photography most photographers used large formats with intrinsically shallow DoF. The fact that most of the greatest images did not have shallow DoF when that was the easiest way to shoot tells us, in fact, that for most of the greats, most of the time, overly shallow DoF was something to be avoided. Something that the greats went out of their way to avoid. But why should this be?
It stands to reason, really.
Many of the most miraculous, virtuoso images take a complex three-dimensional space and project it onto that two-dimensional piece of paper in an amazing way. Think of Koudelka, think of Strand, think of Kertesz, think of Gilles Peress, think of Imogen Cunningham, think of Ernst Haas, think of Raghubir Singh, think of Bruce Davidson. Very shallow DoF bypasses the difficulty — and the reward — of dealing with three dimensions. Shallow DoF takes a cross-sectional slice and throws away most information about the volume of space. It allows the photographer to sidestep a central challenge of photography: managing the complexities of a more information-rich projection.
For this reason, I'll go out on a limb and say that shallow DoF is an intrinsically less-ambitious approach to making photographs. This is a generalization, of course, and there will always be exceptions. What do the rest of you think?
Last edited:
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
No. Just like expecting a space pen that allows you to write lying down, the expectation that it'll help you end up with better grammar is an equal case of Point Missed. No pun intended.
Brian Legge
Veteran
Would 'V-J Day in Times Square' if the background was more in focus?
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
^---that's actually a very good example of what I'm saying, Brian.
The image would have been taken with a 35mm lens (35-eq is what Eisenstadt used 80% of the time), and by the look of it it's shot at about f/4 or f/5.6 (35mm). It has quite a lot of information about the background still visible, and by contemporary standards it is not a "shallow DoF" image. There's just enough blur to emphasize the kissing couple. With more OOF blur the context -- crucial to the image's power -- would be obliterated.
The image would have been taken with a 35mm lens (35-eq is what Eisenstadt used 80% of the time), and by the look of it it's shot at about f/4 or f/5.6 (35mm). It has quite a lot of information about the background still visible, and by contemporary standards it is not a "shallow DoF" image. There's just enough blur to emphasize the kissing couple. With more OOF blur the context -- crucial to the image's power -- would be obliterated.
Last edited:
Brian Legge
Veteran
Perhaps, but it is also far from the opposite position of 'I want razor sharp detail in the background'. 
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
That's one very narrow example. Not all photographs are meant to convey historical information.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Do people hold writers to the same and only standard? There would be no richness in literature if there were only two "debates":
1 - Does rhyming really help making good writing?
2 - I'm so sick of this rhyming thing, I want every single word available in my book!
1 - Does rhyming really help making good writing?
2 - I'm so sick of this rhyming thing, I want every single word available in my book!
functus
Failed Poet
It all depends on the compositional reason for it. If you are using it without being able to articulate why it makes for a better photograph, then there probably isn't any reason why you need it. A distraction in the background is no less distracting because it happens to be out of focus.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Perhaps, but it is also far from the opposite position of 'I want razor sharp detail in the background'.
You do realize that no one on this thread has taken that extreme position, don't you?
Last edited:
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Go ahead and make a list of truly great photographs. How many of them rely on shallow DoF? Some, of course. My contention is that a large majority do not, and that there are important reasons why this should be the case.
Sparrow
Veteran
There’s a photographic effect called bokeh
Over which so many words are spoken
I guess the artists know best
But I must get off my chest
I sometimes wonder what they are smoking
.
ferider
Veteran
Many. For example:
Just because everyone on RFF shoots "street", doesn't mean this is all photography is about.
Even then, checkout Medals/New York by R. Frank. A "bokeh shot" from 1951 (the word didn't exist back then)
Roland.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You