Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Popular all-in-focus "art".
Boring, distracting, sickly, unpopular out-of-focus background.
It'll never catch on.
Sickly out of focus backgrounds
- Thread starter Roger Hicks
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 353
- Views 37K
Popular all-in-focus "art".
Boring, distracting, sickly, unpopular out-of-focus background.
It'll never catch on.
Sparrow
Veteran
... now that one is so swirly even I can see it, thank goodness it isn't one of my lenses
GSNfan
Well-known
By focusing on the man sitting at the ledge the people and the landscape in background would have been in focus (if shot at f5.6 -f8 range) the chessboard would have looked slightly out of focus but this would have been a 'complete shot' with its intended narrative and a much better shot overall.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Well, can't we all just agree to disagree?
We're all right and wrong at the same time. It's all explained by Quantum Theory (another unpopular fad amongst Ptolemaists) 😉
We're all right and wrong at the same time. It's all explained by Quantum Theory (another unpopular fad amongst Ptolemaists) 😉
tlitody
Well-known
No he said in post 1 of the thread: "Shallow focus seems natural in poor light, but in bright daylight, it looks contrived and artificial".
I think plainly can be read as natural verses un-natural. So it's a naturalistic standpoint which is where Henry Emerson comes in because he wrote a book on the subject of naturalistic photography where in his view photographs should be rendered in the same way as the eye percieves them. And my point about the FStop of the eye relates directly to above quote in that at night or in dim light your Fstop gets bigger meaning shallower depth of field. i.e. "Shallow focus seems natural in poor light, but in bright daylight, it looks contrived and artificial". In bright light eyes FStop is smaller giving greater depth of field.
The original post is clearly stating the idea of Naturalistic photography.
See book "Peter Henry Emerson - Naturalistic Photography for Students of the Art" Which current versions also contain "The death of Naturalistic Photography" by the same where he gave up on trying to swim against the tide.
It's a Victorian idea that photographers on mass rejected.
Sparrow
Veteran
well as we all know, reality is simply an illusion created by a lack of alcohol ... and, obviously, bokeh if one of the fundamental laws of the multiverse
Sparrow
Veteran
I would refer you to post 244 where you will find Roger is in agreement with my interpretation
Perhaps you could learn something from studding the work of another Victorian photographer C L Dodgson
Last edited:
robert blu
quiet photographer
What disturbs me is not the out of focus background (really in many cases I like it, to be honest) but the fact that we have certain time fashion in photography. I mean in a moment you "must" shoot wide angle with the human subject on the side and the environment in the other, everything in focus. Than we have the wave of the 50mm look, HCB like. Than we have the out of focus fashion where most of the frame is OOF and only a small portion is sharp. Now, among others we have the fashion of big size print, sometimes the size seems to be more important than the content. And if you do not follow the "actual" wave it seems your photo have no value. I refuse the way oh thinking and believe that according to what you desire/need to express you must choice an appropriate style. With the appropriate techniques.
robert
robert
F
former member
Guest
Like most fields, Photography does seem to follow waves of what is in style.
Long hair seems to be in style again. Teenage boys look like they did in my 1970s High School yearbook. So I guess if you look at my hairstyle, you would think that I am following the new style. But in reality, I have gotten haircuts three times a year whether it needed it or not since High School.
Long hair seems to be in style again. Teenage boys look like they did in my 1970s High School yearbook. So I guess if you look at my hairstyle, you would think that I am following the new style. But in reality, I have gotten haircuts three times a year whether it needed it or not since High School.
Thardy
Veteran
Interesting point. Sounds like what many have been saying on this thread about 50 y/o photographic fads.
Last edited by a moderator:
scottgee1
RF renegade
This may sound ridiculous, but I blame the Internet. 😛
1. Images propagate instantaneously and a select few can capture the fancy of millions of people and thus become 'hot'.
2. There are a lot of wannabes who have digicams but lack creative ability. In order to be cool, they copy whatever is hot and commence to uploading their pix.
3. Wannabes who just want to have something to say recognize the current fad and post "Great pic!!!!!!!!" comments, thus encouraging the cycle.
It was ever thus, but the Internet speeds up the cycles and involves a lot more people. See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
my two lux worth/ScottGee1
jsrockit
Moderator
Man, so many jaded folks on here. I say as long as someone is enjoying what they are doing, let them be. If you don't like the pics, don't look at them.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
And never comment on anything? Or think? Or have any opinions?
It would make for a bit of a sparse internet, wouldn't it? Or is it better to discuss (endlessly) whether the Version 2 of a particular lens is better than the Version 3, despite the fact that that most people have never tried either, but still jump in and say "What aboout the Canon 35/1.5 instead"?
Cheers,
R.
F
former member
Guest
One of my friends would blast into a subject, blow people out of the water, and end it with "And I never have any strong opinions, and even if I did- I would never think of expressing them."
250swb
Well-known
Horrible warm and oversaturated landscapes using Velvia, and now sickly out of focus backgrounds with using very fast lenses. It is a trend, it is something that needs to be worked out of the system.
But it isn't the end of photography with shallow DOF because some people have something genuine to say about their subjects by using very shallow DOF, but some people are only saying 'look at me, I got a fast lens'. You will always get the hangers on who use shallow DOF because they think its cute and meets peer review. So it's the peer review that should be questioned as damaging, the 'nice DOF' or 'creamy bokeh' comments, these are as pernicious as doing it in the first place. They are throw away lines that mask the background thought of many 'yes but the creamy bokeh is about all that this image has going for it'.
Steve
But it isn't the end of photography with shallow DOF because some people have something genuine to say about their subjects by using very shallow DOF, but some people are only saying 'look at me, I got a fast lens'. You will always get the hangers on who use shallow DOF because they think its cute and meets peer review. So it's the peer review that should be questioned as damaging, the 'nice DOF' or 'creamy bokeh' comments, these are as pernicious as doing it in the first place. They are throw away lines that mask the background thought of many 'yes but the creamy bokeh is about all that this image has going for it'.
Steve
jsrockit
Moderator
Well, I can agree this is better than gear talk. However, all a thread like this is trying to do is to reverse a trend. Make it uncool. To me, it seems silly to limit yourself like that. If you want to use OOF background, do it. If not, then don't. No one person, no matter your credentials, is the be-all-end-all in Photography.
Sparrow
Veteran
Why has no one read and, probably more importantly, understood what was in the original observation?
It had nothing to do with bokeh or blur or shallow DOF. It was an obviation that shallow DOF in good light where the background was unclear but still recognisable looked disconcerting to the OP, it was not a blanket condemnation of anything!
It had nothing to do with bokeh or blur or shallow DOF. It was an obviation that shallow DOF in good light where the background was unclear but still recognisable looked disconcerting to the OP, it was not a blanket condemnation of anything!
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Stewart,
READ the original post? Let alone try to understand it, or answer it? You quaint, old-fashioned thing! No: much better to decide what you think the OP should have said, and base your answer on that. Hardly anyone has bothered to speculate on why I (or anyone else) should find a particular style of shallow d-o-f unpleasant, which was, after all, the subject of my first post (and oone or two since). From those who have, however, I have learned a good deal.
Cheers,
R.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I've been mostly "responding" not to the OP (I did that much much earlier), but to those who have run away with f/64 scissors.
Is that so bad? :angel:
GSNfan
Well-known
That is a uphill task. For one the whole amateur photography business now runs on over-priced 'fast glass' that is 'sharp wide open', secondly it is the only type of shot that can get a positive reaction from the audience almost every time and finally it makes photos resemble like stills from a movie.
But fortunately its also a trend mainly amongst amateurs and its not an established aesthetic in serious photography, that is if it could be called an aesthetic because for many its a contrived gimmick.
Similar threads
