Shallow Depth of Field in Landscapes

jsrockit said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree but the cream in some cases does rise and history is the real test. I 20 years will it still be in the conversation? Only time will tell.
 
airfrogusmc said:
I agree but the cream in some cases does rise and history is the real test.
Click to expand...

I agree...and I generally feel that those that have "made it", deserve it. However, we are talking about those that want to show in galleries and museums, etc... the Art world for lack of a better term. Many people who photograph don't care about this world and may still be successful.
 
airfrogusmc said:
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.
Click to expand...

... gestalt perception is pretty much hard wired in my experience. I'm surprised, and intrigued, when I come across something like this, people usually perceive such things in the same way
 
jsrockit said:
I agree...and I generally feel that those that have "made it", deserve it. However, we are talking about those that want to show in galleries and museums, etc... the Art world for lack of a better term. Many people who photograph don't care about this world and may still be successful.
Click to expand...

Also agree. I measure success in the professional world usually in monetary terms and certainly that is the way I measure my business. In my personal work I measure success in different terms. My professional work pays the bills so my personal work is free from those pressures. I don't know how my work will be seen if it will be at all in 25 years. I create personally for me. And if others get it so be it. If not, thats cool to.

If folks do it on line blogging thats OK to. I have seen some really good work on line and a lot of not so good work but thats everywhere. But time will weed out a lot and in 25 years. Lets see what is still in the conversation.

The forums now are full of the camera club/calendar art esthetic. The images that are immediate and giver immediate gratification and very obvious (as Weston would say) or (nouns). Yep thats what that is. You look and no reason to look again. Ya get it move on. No real staying power. Nothing to come back to see. Historically most work that is on that level is also work that doesn't stand the test of time.

In the mean time just create for you first and don't worry about if it's this or that but just create and be honest to yourself in the process.
 
Sparrow said:
... gestalt perception is pretty much hard wired in my experience. I'm surprised, and intrigued, when I come across something like this, people usually perceive such things in the same way
Click to expand...

I tend to like to look also at things outside my world. Like coming out of Plato's Cave. I am always stimulated by work outside my world and sometimes it even changes my perception of things and isn't that what art can do? The world for me would be a very boring place indeed if I didn't stick my head out of the cave once in a while and I'm sure my work would probably reflect that lack of adventure.
 
jsrockit said:
I agree...and I generally feel that those that have "made it", deserve it. However, we are talking about those that want to show in galleries and museums, etc... the Art world for lack of a better term. Many people who photograph don't care about this world and may still be successful.
Click to expand...

Recently ... rather flippantly, I defined Art as 'that which is curated' ...
 
Sparrow said:
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
Click to expand...

Hi Stewart,

thanks !

For me the first one is a landscape, it shows an ice plant and the Pacific in the background. And I'm not alone: as a German I've grown up with Bavarian Edelweiss mountain landscapes :)

In any case, IMO, @RFF, we spend way too much time trying to constrain genre definitions, a futile exercise really. I like stretching these stereotypes, and would expect you feel the same :)

Roland.
 
airfrogusmc said:
I tend to like to look also at things outside my world. Like coming out of Plato's Cave. I am always stimulated by work outside my world and sometimes it even changes my perception of things and isn't that what art can do? The world for me would be a very boring place indeed if I didn't stick my head out of the cave once in a while and I'm sure my work would probably reflect that lack of adventure.
Click to expand...

... 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?
 
Sparrow said:
... 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?
Click to expand...

I'm talking about me not the masses. I create my personal work for me not the masses. I look at all art to expand not contract my view of the world. To help me see things from a different point of view. If the world would be defined by my view of it, it would be a boring, very small world, in the cave. I prefer the big beautiful world outside that cave. And it's that world that teaches me things and helps me grow and not only a photographer but as a human being. And isn't that what art does when it is functioning at it's best? it makes us think, it asks questions and it can change us.
 
airfrogusmc said:
I'm talking about me not the masses. I create my personal work for me not the masses. I look at all art to expand not contract my view of the world. To help me see things from a different point of view. If the world would be defined by my view of it, it would be a boring, very small world, in the cave. I prefer the big beautiful world outside that cave. And it's that world that teaches me things and helps me grow and not only a photographer but as a human being. And isn't that what art does when it is functioning at it's best? it makes us think, it asks questions and it can change us.
Click to expand...

While that is perfectly valid in relation to your perception it's quite a way removed from the topic at hand
 
Sparrow said:
I think you and I and the vast majority of human beings respond to a particular visual stimulus in the same way and that the response is involuntary
Click to expand...

That's the immediate gratification part. Great work is usually work that works on several levels and is usually much deeper and needs more attention than just the look and move on. And the more we expose ourselves to all kinds of things the more we understand about everything and the more those deeper aspects show up in our own work.

There are plenty of techniques I think are way over done. HDR and shallow DoF are two. But there are some occasions when it helps create the image and is important to the visual statement. If you close your mind and do not judge on each individual case because the image is A then you are shutting out things for the wrong reasons.

I usually don't gravitate toward pictorial work but there are some images by Steichen and Stieglitz made in that time period I just love. Glad I didn't close the door on those things before seeing those pieces.
 
airfrogusmc said:
That's the immediate gratification part. Great work is usually work that works on several levels and is usually much deeper and needs more attention than just the look and move on. And the more we expose ourselves to all kinds of things the more we understand about everything and the more those deeper aspects show up in our own work.

There are plenty of techniques I think are way over done. HDR and shallow DoF are two. But there are some occasions when it helps create the image and is important to the visual statement. If you close your mind and do not judge on each individual case because the image is A then you are shutting out things for the wrong reasons.

I usually don't gravitate toward pictorial work but there are some images by Steichen and Stieglitz made in that time period I just love. Glad I didn't close the door on those things before seeing those pieces.
Click to expand...

.... I wasn't really thinking about your considered response to the effect, or your general perception or opinion of this, or other photographic genera or your experience of this or other historic techniques ...

... I am simply interested in how people in general appreciate shallow DOF in landscape photos
 
Sparrow said:
....

... I am simply interested in how people in general appreciate shallow DOF in landscape photos
Click to expand...

I think viewers enjoy a break from the convention of our "real" ability to see (actual vision). A little direction when it comes to imagination.
As Robert intimated in his comment about removing his glasses " to enjoy terra sfumato".

The first image I posted for example is printed and hanging in my house (50mm f1.2).
Folks often think it's a drawing until they look further in to it. It's slight initial visual "incoherence" has drawn people further in to find familiarity.
Some may not like it but others find this sort of thing a spark for imagination. I have heard a few comments in that regard directly with this and similar images.
This is one area where I feel shallow DOF in Landscape can find appreciation.

I hope that the Bokeh Craze and Holga Fever have not created a back-lash of some sort for use of DOF, Vignetting, Uneven resolution , etc...
 
Sparrow said:
.... I wasn't really thinking about your considered response to the effect, or your general perception or opinion of this, or other photographic genera or your experience of this or other historic techniques ...

... I am simply interested in how people in general appreciate shallow DOF in landscape photos
Click to expand...

Good to pull it back toward the original question.

I would answer, "Usually not appreciated."
 
Doesn't the Brenizer Method of pano photography fall into the category of shallow depth of field landscape photography.
 

soft by berangberang, on Flickr


boats by berangberang, on Flickr


oreston1 by berangberang, on Flickr

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom