semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Depends whose work you follow. ;-)
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Anything can be made to work.
Anything can be turned into a failure.
Everything depends on skill.
Too many people (I do not exclude myself) overestimate their skill.
Far too many jump on bandwagons. I'm not quite as bad at that.
Cheers,
R.
Anything can be turned into a failure.
Everything depends on skill.
Too many people (I do not exclude myself) overestimate their skill.
Far too many jump on bandwagons. I'm not quite as bad at that.
Cheers,
R.
nandemofoto
Established
I agree with ampguy that the new technology has an impact on how people shoot.
The new and relatively cheap DSLRs allowed amateur photographers to achieve things they couldn't do before, shooting mostly wide open helps them feel like artists and explains endless shots of leaves or Christmas lights on flickr. However if you stick with photography long enough you will eventually discover the beauty of f11 used intentionally as opposed to a program mode.
The new and relatively cheap DSLRs allowed amateur photographers to achieve things they couldn't do before, shooting mostly wide open helps them feel like artists and explains endless shots of leaves or Christmas lights on flickr. However if you stick with photography long enough you will eventually discover the beauty of f11 used intentionally as opposed to a program mode.
tlitody
Well-known
It certainly helps when making short DOF pictures.
Pablito
coco frío
Then you are not looking at much contemporary photojournalism. The motto seems to be f1.4 in bright daylight and be there.
gshybrid
Well-known
I find that I often have to shoot with a narrow dof to obscure all the Starbucks and other branded advertising on the street these days...
Pablito
coco frío
Why obscure it? It's there - it's the street!
gshybrid
Well-known
It's my preference.
Brian Legge
Veteran
See, what is the stance I was arguing against earlier with my 'V-J Day in Times Square' post. Just because it is there doesn't mean people should feel obligated to make it part of their shot if it doesn't make sense for it.
Maybe this is personal baggage for me. I've been on other forums where people were adamant that good photography (and they only considered street photography good photography) meant using a lens wider than 35mm and getting within a few feet of the subject. Use of strobes was optional but encouraged.
[note that I'm not attributing this stance to anyone here - just providing some context for my perhaps reactionary response to this thread]Everyone has different aesthetics. Those aren't mine and my shots were lousy to them as a result. I don't see why we spend so much time trying to convince others about why our preferences should be more prevalent.
tlitody
Well-known
Because those who do it have vision which doesn't extend past the end of their nose. A somewhat debilitating condition for a photographer.
TXForester
Well-known
The answer is yes and no. Really, there is no right and wrong. Shallow DOF, deep DOF or somewhere in between depends on what you are trying to accomplish.
It also depends on your tastes. What makes a photograph good or bad is subjective, so there can't be one way to shoot photos.
It also depends on your tastes. What makes a photograph good or bad is subjective, so there can't be one way to shoot photos.
Damaso
Photojournalist
I don't think there is any one technique or element which makes for better photos. When used well shallow DOF can help...
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Seriously, folks. We have so far talked about two images, both portraits, one famous (Afghan Girl) where shallow DoF did not detract from the image and might have improved it. We have talked about one image with intermediate DoF (the Eisenstadt picture).
This is a conversation that stands or falls on the specifics. So let's discuss some great photographs that DID require shallow DoF, and talk about how and why the shallow DoF was used.
Bonus points for choosing pictures that are not headshots or wedding photographs.
This is a conversation that stands or falls on the specifics. So let's discuss some great photographs that DID require shallow DoF, and talk about how and why the shallow DoF was used.
Bonus points for choosing pictures that are not headshots or wedding photographs.
igi
Well-known
Here we go again... I read someone wish for a DOF talk back at the printing thread. You're wish is granted.:angel:
As for my take... well, it depends.
As for my take... well, it depends.
PatrickONeill
Well-known
If you want some examples, I can think of a few examples. not quite extreme blown out backgrounds, but certainly shot with a narrow DoF in mind.
Ralph Gibon.
william albert allard
Photojournalists shoot it wide open a lot.
Moises Saman
Ben Lowy.
Ralph Gibon.
william albert allard
Photojournalists shoot it wide open a lot.
Moises Saman
Ben Lowy.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
The Gibson shot looks like it was taken at about f/11. It would be very very hard to get the background in focus from that distance.
Allard is probably my very favorite photographer who tends to limit his DoF, and this is of course one of his most important photographs. Allard's work is definitely worth discussing on this thread. But it's also worth noting that the vast majority of his work was done with Kodachrome 25, 64, or 200, and that he *had* to be wide open to get usable shutter speeds with those films, especially since he prefers to shoot in marginal light. But, working within these constraints he makes maximal use of them, turning limitations into strengths for sure.
The Saman picture (medevac) -- an amazing image that I had not seen, and thanks for posting it -- isn't even close to wide open. Most of the depth cues come not from OOF blur but from the backlit dust in the background. I don't think that it would be a weaker image with the foreground in focus. What would make it less effective is motion blur or camera shake. This is a tremendous example of projecting a complex 3D space into a 2D image plane. Stunning and with tremendous gravity due to the story it tells. This is what it's all about.
The Lowy shot is to me by far the most interesting of the bunch (in the context of the conversation about DoF). It works mainly because of the overall composition and the child (again, the story), and with those 2+ stops of vignetting it's almost a given that it was taken wide open with a fast wide lens. Certainly the strong vignetting has a lot of influence on the overall look of the shot, I think at least as much as the bokeh. Do you think it would be less effective with a sharper background? I'm not wholly convinced that it would be...
Allard is probably my very favorite photographer who tends to limit his DoF, and this is of course one of his most important photographs. Allard's work is definitely worth discussing on this thread. But it's also worth noting that the vast majority of his work was done with Kodachrome 25, 64, or 200, and that he *had* to be wide open to get usable shutter speeds with those films, especially since he prefers to shoot in marginal light. But, working within these constraints he makes maximal use of them, turning limitations into strengths for sure.
The Saman picture (medevac) -- an amazing image that I had not seen, and thanks for posting it -- isn't even close to wide open. Most of the depth cues come not from OOF blur but from the backlit dust in the background. I don't think that it would be a weaker image with the foreground in focus. What would make it less effective is motion blur or camera shake. This is a tremendous example of projecting a complex 3D space into a 2D image plane. Stunning and with tremendous gravity due to the story it tells. This is what it's all about.
The Lowy shot is to me by far the most interesting of the bunch (in the context of the conversation about DoF). It works mainly because of the overall composition and the child (again, the story), and with those 2+ stops of vignetting it's almost a given that it was taken wide open with a fast wide lens. Certainly the strong vignetting has a lot of influence on the overall look of the shot, I think at least as much as the bokeh. Do you think it would be less effective with a sharper background? I'm not wholly convinced that it would be...
Last edited:
erik
Established
I think there is a bit of a trend in tastes, the prices of speed lenses seem to indicate a spike in interest. Video with DSLRs may be driving that some. I think people are using it a lot because they like it and like all things that people like, sometimes it gets over done. Some really nice HCB portraits have a shallow DOF, although he wasn't exactly known for it. There are also lots of really dull F64 style pictures out there made when that was a trend. Styles come and go.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
True. Not here.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Let's really argue about it: do you think that Mark Twain would have been "more effective" had he applied a sentence structure more commonly found in Shakespeare, or more like that found in Edgar Allan Poe?
How many pages of it would "help making good literature"? Shakespeare uses contrived constructions compared to Truman Capote, and Poe certainly would have found Capote "cheating" by borrowing from reality and "simply" telling the tale, instead of thinking it up.
Does non-fiction make good literature? Does fiction make good literature?
Does narrow DOF make good photos? Does deep DOF make good photos?
It was said earlier: tastes are different. "Good" is not an absolute.
Steve Ash
Established
Dof
Dof
In my point of view a shallow DOF is closer to how we see the world. Nevertheless, a good image still requires a carefull composition independent of DOF. It is obvious that it is much more difficult to coordinate and compose the different subjects in a frame with increasing DOF. In this respect I am more impressed with good images that show a deep space, although I prefer a shallow DOF in my own shooting style.
Regards,
Steve
Dof
In my point of view a shallow DOF is closer to how we see the world. Nevertheless, a good image still requires a carefull composition independent of DOF. It is obvious that it is much more difficult to coordinate and compose the different subjects in a frame with increasing DOF. In this respect I am more impressed with good images that show a deep space, although I prefer a shallow DOF in my own shooting style.
Regards,
Steve