Shallow Depth of Field in Landscapes

[OurManInTangier]

... thanks Simon, it's good to be back I can tell you ...

... yes 'photographic gimmicks,' was probably going a bit far ... and I accept the 'old fogie' charge from HDR to the inevitable blurred waterfall shots. This is different, it isn't a matter of not liking the effect or not liking some new fad or other, it's more that I perceive it as a fault and expected everybody else to see it the same way.

I simply don't perceive the world like that, I find them disconcerting, my brain wants to resolve the detail and can't. I can understand how someone who was colourblind could choose a yellow tie to go with a purple shirt, I don't understand how shallow DOF in a daylight landscape is perceived to be reality by anybody.

1. I accept no responsibility for laying charges of fogie-ism, old or otherwise😛 I'll leave that for your own admission or denial:angel:

2. With regard to this, I'll leave you with the names Lee Van Cleef and Clint 'The Squint' Eastwood; two guys who, through their close lidded eyes, must surely inhabit that reality.

Thanks for the explanation, I understand a little more now and am forced as a result to admit that I have my own, similar, feelings towards sharpness. I see nothing overtly wrong in an image lacking sharpness especially if it is a strong image but I don't understand why one wouldn't strive to make the greatest effort to get the job done "properly" ( 😉 ) from the outset....and certainly not then make excuses, I'm beginning to think that softness is fast becoming the more bourgeois concept.😎😀

I sound like my old lecturer now which, like the excess inverted commas, is a sign to stop typing.

 

[Keith]

As much as I'm a depth of field control junkie I'm not a huge fan in landscape shots. A lot of the images using short depth of field being posted here aren't really landscapes in the true sense IMO ... more towards still life.

 

[Sparrow]

... yes I was thinking of classic landscapes not photos of objects on a blurred ground

 

[Keith]

... yes I was thinking of classic landscapes not photos of objects on a blurred ground

Exactly! 🙂

 

[Sparrow]

I don't know if any of these truly qualifies as having a "shallow" depth of field, but I do find (personally) that keeping the distant background slightly out of focus actually seems to look more natural than having it sharp. But I am also slightly near-sighted so that may be the reason.

It is also interesting to note, that contrary to popular belief, few box cameras and older fix focus cameras are actually focused on the hyperfocal distance - the result being that distant backgrounds were always soft in photos taken with these cameras. It seems to be a subtle but key part of the "vintage" look of many antique photos.

.... both interesting observation, the former could explain a lot

 

[Sparrow]

1. I accept no responsibility for laying charges of fogie-ism, old or otherwise😛 I'll leave that for your own admission or denial:angel:

2. With regard to this, I'll leave you with the names Lee Van Cleef and Clint 'The Squint' Eastwood; two guys who, through their close lidded eyes, must surely inhabit that reality.

Thanks for the explanation, I understand a little more now and am forced as a result to admit that I have my own, similar, feelings towards sharpness. I see nothing overtly wrong in an image lacking sharpness especially if it is a strong image but I don't understand why one wouldn't strive to make the greatest effort to get the job done "properly" ( 😉 ) from the outset....and certainly not then make excuses, I'm beginning to think that softness is fast becoming the more bourgeois concept.😎😀

I sound like my old lecturer now which, like the excess inverted commas, is a sign to stop typing.

🙂 ... we were told to squint like Fu Manchu in life drawing classes ... it helps abstract the composition and visualise the modeling according to the lecturer

But it could just be the new bourgeois blur taking over from plain bad bokeh ...

2) ... bullet points are another sure sign 😉

 

[lynnb]

5D 24-105/4L @60mm f4

 

[lynnb]

5D 24-105/4L @45mm f4

 

[Sparrow]

... the second one is the less offensive ..... :angel:

 

[ferider]

Another "still-life" for Stewart and Keith:

Roland.

 

[hitmanh]

... that's a different argument though. One would still expect the majority of people to respond in the same way to a particular stimulus, wouldn't you say?

No, I wouldn't say that. Perception is heavily influenced by many factors (culture, society, education, etc) and it is difficult to make such broad statements. Just look at the broad range of views on many subjects on this site.

 

[back alley]

... that is what I'm talking about, the lack of detail in the middle distance is jarring, my brain wants to resolve the blur and it's unsettling because it can't

interesting reaction...i love this, i see this everyday when i walk down the street...in fact i photograph this scene (in city terms) all the time.
i don't have access to my images here at work or i'd post one.

 

[DominikDUK]

Shallow depth of field can be used for landscape, most examples given in this thread are not landscape photographs but flower or tree photography.
As for seeing we humans don't have an extreme depth of field the final Image we for is the result of stitching and stacking a single Image would have more limited depth of field. The Golf example is a good one though as it comes very Close to how we see, everything that it not important to us will unsharp or we simple do not see it.

 

[Sparrow]

No, I wouldn't say that. Perception is heavily influenced by many factors (culture, society, education, etc) and it is difficult to make such broad statements. Just look at the broad range of views on many subjects on this site.

I would think everybody will see the top horizontal line as the shorter of the two ... even if they know I'm tricking them they will be incapable of anything else


il-1a par Sparrow ... Stewart Mcbride, on ipernity

 

[Sparrow]

interesting reaction...i love this, i see this everyday when i walk down the street...in fact i photograph this scene (in city terms) all the time.
i don't have access to my images here at work or i'd post one.

.. I'd not thought of you as a culprit and I've followed your flicker account for years, maybe you put more interesting stuff in the foreground

 

[hitmanh]

I would think everybody will see the top horizontal line as the shorter of the two ... even if they know I'm tricking them they will be incapable of anything else


il-1a par Sparrow ... Stewart Mcbride, on ipernity

Rubin's vase, some people see the vase, some see the faces, some can switch between the two at will.

And this is with incredibly simple images. Start looking at photos or painting (or even the real world) and it gets complex fast.

Image above from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubin_vase)

 

[Sparrow]

Wow, it's almost as if there was relationship between the ground and figure ... I think that's the case I'm making

Perception is a common experience, when after 40 plus years of studying this sort of thing, I find it interesting when I come across something that is perceived differently by different people

 

[hitmanh]

Wow, it's almost as if there was relationship between the ground and figure ... I think that's the case I'm making

Perception is a common experience, when after 40 plus years of studying this sort of thing, I find it interesting when I come across something that is perceived differently by different people

Hmmm, I would have said perception is a unique experience that shares many commonalities. The systems in our head work more or less the same way, but the variations in the individual (genetic, developmental, cognition, etc) means there are differences, from the subtle to the striking. For example, I'm colour blind, I simply do not perceive colours in the same way as someone with fully working colour system would.

 

[Sparrow]

Hmmm, I would have said perception is a unique experience that shares many commonalities. The systems in our head work more or less the same way, but the variations in the individual (genetic, developmental, cognition, etc) means there are differences, from the subtle to the striking. For example, I'm colour blind, I simply do not perceive colours in the same way as someone with fully working colour system would.

... well yes and no, if I were able to test you I could work out which type of cone-cell you were deficient in ... and that would tell me how you perceive colour, and with the right lighting or filtration I could even experience your view. (I was design director of a large silk weaver for twenty years, so both colour and gestalt perception played a big part in life)

 

[hitmanh]

... well yes and no, if I were able to test you I could work out which type of cone-cell you were deficient in ... and that would tell me how you perceive colour, and with the right lighting or filtration I could even experience your view. (I was design director of a large silk weaver for twenty years, so both colour and gestalt perception played a big part in life)

Yes, you can correct for some issues, but then you change the perception for non-colour blind viewers or viewers with a different variant of colour blindness.