Shallow Depth of Field in Landscapes

[Sparrow]

I normally have a very relaxed view of these photographic gimmicks, but this one strikes me as looking wrong each time it comes up ... not simply the 'not to my taste' reaction when people contrive to demonstrate excessively shallow DOF of their lenses, but an error in the representation of reality.

All I can think is that when the light is good I simply don't see the world like that, have never seen the world like that and it's perhaps that, that makes it look wrong ... and I'm sorry but I'm not convinced by the examples posted earlier, some I wouldn't call landscapes at all and the best of the others only look 'less wrong' to my eyes

Is it just a minority that feels this way?

 

[kubilai]

Use large format.
Use tilting both axes : horizontal and vertical.
You then can choose a limited sharp area in the picture.

 

[Sparrow]

Wide open type bokeh, for me, very, very rarely. Like this:

35mm, f5.6 type bokeh more often. Like this:

(hard to see in the tiny jpg, but very nice 3D effect when hanging in 14x20 on the wall)

Roland.

Hi Roland ... I'd argue the first isn't a landscape and the second is so subtle it mimics our normal perception, and not the effect I'm thinking about ... I like these anyway

 

[Sparrow]

If you mean, the aesthetics of using a lens wide open, it depends on both the lens, the scene, and what you're trying to achieve... as always. 🙂

Leica M9 + Summilux 35 v2
ISO 160 @ f/1.4 @ 1/2000​

G

... that just looks over-processed to my eye, I don't notice anything much beyond that

 

[Sparrow]

Plaubel Makina iis / Anticomar 10cm f2.9 Acros

img005 by Adnan W, on Flickr

... 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

 

[jsrockit]

There is no one way to do photography or a genre of photography. If it works, it works.

 

[Sparrow]

There is no one way to do photography or a genre of photography. If it works, it works.

... which did you decide in this case?

 

[Addy101]

I believe thoughtful use of out of focus areas can add depth to a picture. The second picture by Roland (ferider) proves just that. Is it landscape? I don't know, it works for me and it evokes a feeling of standing there. If that is an objective of landscape photography, it works.

Here is one of mine, but without a shallow depth of field, but the view in the distance gets blurred due to atmospheric effects:

Sony A900 | Minolta 100-300 APO(D) | 100mm | f/9 | 1/500s | 160iso

 

[jsrockit]

... which did you decide in this case?

I take it on a case by case basis... I prefer relatively sharp landscapes, but I am open to the possibility that shallow DOF could be used successfully in landscape. I mean, there was a time when the whole photo was soft in landscapes... Steichen and Pictorialism comes to mind.

 

[airfrogusmc]

I take it on a case by case basis... I prefer relatively sharp landscapes, but I am open to the possibility that shallow DOF could be used successfully in landscape. I mean, there was a time when the whole photo was soft in landscapes... Steichen and Pictorialism comes to mind.

Yep, does the technique fit with the intent. Shallow DoF is just another tool that can be used or mis-used. A great photographer and teacher once told me that either everything in the frame is helping your photograph and if those things are not helping it then they are hurting it. Each photographer should be able to evaluate if the techniques like shallow DoF help or hurt the visual statement.

 

[pgk]

The only rule I subscribe to in photography is that there are no rules. How can you define what is visually appealing in terms of rules? Even composition defies analysis. I've shot landscapes with fast lenses wide open and to me the results can be effective but only when the subject matter is suitable. Once you decide that there is a 'rule' ,then you curtail what you will accept as being viable. The trick is to look at the image without preconceptions and see whether it appeals visually.

 

[Sparrow]

I take it on a case by case basis... I prefer relatively sharp landscapes, but I am open to the possibility that shallow DOF could be used successfully in landscape. I mean, there was a time when the whole photo was soft in landscapes... Steichen and Pictorialism comes to mind.

Yes, I take each on its own merit too ... but in recent years people are publishing photos with a more pronounced effect and more frequently ... it mostly looks like a fault to me but the people who take them clearly perceive them differently

 

[OurManInTangier]

I normally have a very relaxed view of these photographic gimmicks, but this one strikes me as looking wrong each time it comes up ... not simply the 'not to my taste' reaction when people contrive to demonstrate excessively shallow DOF of their lenses, but an error in the representation of reality.

All I can think is that when the light is good I simply don't see the world like that, have never seen the world like that and it's perhaps that, that makes it look wrong ... and I'm sorry but I'm not convinced by the examples posted earlier, some I wouldn't call landscapes at all and the best of the others only look 'less wrong' to my eyes

Is it just a minority that feels this way?

I'm curious about the term 'photographic gimmicks,' used in conjunction with a choice of aperture. I understand HDR being a technique that became so popular, widespread and overused that it could easily be called a gimmick but isn't our choice of aperture a part of a photographers everyday toolkit when presenting our personal vision of reality; our understanding of it, our emotional connection (or otherwise) to it?

Is it the perceived lack of thought behind its use? The appearance that its a default setting, that everything should be shot at f/1.4 that turns it into into a gimmick? I know that fast/slow shutter speeds when recording the flow of water is a contentious issue for some, with some wanting 'reality' and others wanting an alternative view of reality - I'll leave relativity there as I'll be shot down in moments by those far smarter than I - are we on the same lines as this?

What place does aerial perspective have in landscape photography as this often has a similar effect? Is there a specific focal length that we should not go above to ensure optimum DOF? If this reads as if I'm being flippant I apologize as its not meant this way, I'm simply struggling to understand what makes it a gimmick.

My golf clubs shot posted earlier clearly isn't a 'proper' landscape as the interest should be, or was at least meant to be, on the 'forgotten' clubs but it was used to illustrate using a wider aperture within a 'landscape setting.'

I know it's time to stop typing when the inverted commas start to rack up😱

By the way Stewart, good to have you back and bringing up interesting points for discussion once again.

 

[Sparrow]

The only rule I subscribe to in photography is that there are no rules. How can you define what is visually appealing in terms of rules? Even composition defies analysis. I've shot landscapes with fast lenses wide open and to me the results can be effective but only when the subject matter is suitable. Once you decide that there is a 'rule' ,then you curtail what you will accept as being viable. The trick is to look at the image without preconceptions and see whether it appeals visually.

... four years at college and a forty year career worked for me

 

[jsrockit]

Yes, I take each on its own merit too ... but in recent years people are publishing photos with a more pronounced effect and more frequently ... it mostly looks like a fault to me but the people who take them clearly perceive them differently

Well, we both know that photography's always had its gimmicks and parlor tricks... unfortunately, some people run with them.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Well, we both know that photography's always had its gimmicks and parlor tricks... unfortunately, some people run with them.

But will they hold up over time? If the work is solid, it probably will. If not it will just fade and shooting for technique, without any other reason, which a lot of this is, will fade.

 

[Sparrow]

I'm curious about the term 'photographic gimmicks,' used in conjunction with a choice of aperture. I understand HDR being a technique that became so popular, widespread and overused that it could easily be called a gimmick but isn't our choice of aperture a part of a photographers everyday toolkit when presenting our personal vision of reality; our understanding of it, our emotional connection (or otherwise) to it?

Is it the perceived lack of thought behind its use? The appearance that its a default setting, that everything should be shot at f/1.4 that turns it into into a gimmick? I know that fast/slow shutter speeds when recording the flow of water is a contentious issue for some, with some wanting 'reality' and others wanting an alternative view of reality - I'll leave relativity there as I'll be shot down in moments by those far smarter than I - are we on the same lines as this?

What place does aerial perspective have in landscape photography as this often has a similar effect? Is there a specific focal length that we should not go above to ensure optimum DOF? If this reads as if I'm being flippant I apologize as its not meant this way, I'm simply struggling to understand what makes it a gimmick.

My golf clubs shot posted earlier clearly isn't a 'proper' landscape as the interest should be, or was at least meant to be, on the 'forgotten' clubs but it was used to illustrate using a wider aperture within a 'landscape setting.'

I know it's time to stop typing when the inverted commas start to rack up😱

By the way Stewart, good to have you back and bringing up interesting points for discussion once again.

... 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.

 

[pgk]

... four years at college and a forty year career worked for me

I'm in a similar position and my experience has taught me what I tend to like and accept, but also not to have preconceptions. And certainly not to try to define 'rules'.

"Has the use of the bokeh aesthetic got any place in daylight landscape photography?"

Depends on what you mean by bokeh aesthetic and landscape photography - definitions as ever. I have images that I would categorise as 'landscape' which I've shot at f/1.4 and which were intended to, and do, use the shallow depth of field, its associated softness and bokeh (the old Leica 35mm pre-aspheric Summilux can be very effective for such images) to what I think is good effect. Unfortunately they work best as reasonably large prints though so posting a small jpeg here isn't of much use I'm afraid. - I've tried reducing a couple but the effect is lost. Whether others would accept woodland scenes as an example as landscape or whether they would argue that they are moving towards natural history might be a consideration.

What I would say is that over and excessive use of a specific technique does, in my experience, detract from its possibilities because it is over applied and consequently too often applied in situations where it does not work and becomes a gimmick.

 

[airfrogusmc]

.

I simply don't perceive the world like that, I find them disconcerting, my brain want's to resolve the detail and can't.

But does that mean you can't appreciate others that perceive the world differently from the way you perceive it? I would hate to only enjoy art and photography the way I see the world.

 

[jsrockit]

But will they hold up over time? If the work is solid, it probably will. If not it will just fade and shooting for technique, without any other reason, which a lot of this is, will fade.

Again, there is no one way to do something. Plenty of solid work has been forgotten as well. We have to remember that not everyone is trying to accomplish the same thing in photography. There are many venues, purposes, and uses for photography... we tend to focus on only a few avenues here.