Sickly out of focus backgrounds

[Keith]

Don't agree with you there Keith. I think that is a lovely 3D effect and I am drawn to concentrate on the subject.

Well ... I was being tongue in cheek.

I totally agree with you ... it's a spectacular example IMO! 🙂


Some more 3D effect from OOF backgrounds with 4x5 ... though minor it really emphasises the poles etc in the foreground.

 

[Roger Hicks]

At the risk of setting myself up for ridicule, I'll put up an example here that may be the sort of thing you are talking about. The background here is obviously not blurred to oblivion. And definitely not in focus.
This was very intentional on my part - feeling that the background maintained enough focus to make it clear what the object in the distance is.
This was part of a small documentary project I did on the refurbishment of an old WWII-era bomber. And this is Mitchell, the hangar dog.

It was a muddy, rainy, overcast day. But I suspect there was room to get more in focus if I wanted to. If anything, I wish I'd gotten a lower perspective to cut some of the dead space between the dog and the plane, but I like the focus just the way it is.

Dear Tim,

Thanks very much for daring to put up an example. This is sort of half way to what I meant. Now imagine that you had another aeroplane and a hangar in the background: big, simple shapes, recognizable, but out of focus. ONE thing out of focus like this seems fine to me: it's when there's neither real blur, nor a simple, well-thought-out composition, but something sharp in front of a messy, not-quite-unclear-enough background.

This thread is not a lot to do with bokeh, which is the quality of the out of focus iage. It's more to do with the quantity of the out-of-focus image, and its composition.

See also my post below.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I suspect this is the type of thing he's talking about. This is one of my shots of a stranger I met off the street. I go for shallow depth of field because I didn't have the skill or opportunity to find a background with leading lines that would focus the viewer on the subject. Shooting them within a couple of minutes of meeting them also often leads to some pretty dull/distracting backgrounds as well, so shallow dof is safer.

Again, thanks for posting. Your pic, at least to me, is a perfect example of how selective focus can and should be used: an all but total blur, in indifferent light. We know what is likely to be behind the principal subject: we are not interested in straining to see it. It's when the background provides real context, and isn't sharp, that the problem arises for me. Even then, it can be used intelligently, as in the picture 'quoted' in the post above.

Looking through the pics here, and reading the responses, two more things occur to me. One is that selective focus often works better in colour than in B+W (at least for me), and the other -- concerning the psychology of vision -- is that because our eyes focus on one thing, then on another, we are normally much less aware of the background in real life than in a photo: as soon as our eyes refocus on it, the background becomes (in a sense) the subject.

In a photograph, where we can take in everything at once, on a single plane, selective focus works best when we can look at the principal subject; consider the background, and think, "Oh, yeah, background, I can ignore that" (just as we do in real life), and refocus our attention on the principal subject. When the background forces itself upon us -- when, in other words, we would refocus our eyes on it in the real world, so see what it was -- and it's lacking the information we want, THAT´S when shallow d-o-f fails.

In fact, as a further thought, I'd say that an ill-done selective focus shot is akin to the classic amateur error of the person with a tree immediately behind them, apparently growing out of their head. The photographer has not paid enough attention to the background, but instead of ignoring it, they have lazily assumed that they can throw it out of focus.

Finally, note 'ill done' and 'for me'. This is always on a case-by-case background, and intensely personal. Thanks to everyone who has responded so far.

Cheers,

R.

 

[c.poulton]

It's definately a fashion - one which the camera companies have picked up on:

From the Sony Nex 5 web site:

Background Defocus
"Create professional-looking images with a crisp foreground subject against a smoothly blurred background, just like a DSLR camera"

As for me, I use DoF as a tool, either because I have to (low light, fast glass) or to isolate a subject from the background for pictorial reasons...


34180002 by Christian Poulton


34170027 by Christian Poulton

 

[alistair.o]

As for me, I use DoF as a tool, either because I have to (low light, fast glass) or to isolate a subject from the background for pictorial reasons...

Agreed. It works all ways i.e. soft foreground -> subject -> soft backround

 

[SimonSawSunlight]

a lot of people seem to think that a shot gets better and better with thinner and thinner DOF and more and more blurred background. very unhealthy attitude, photographically, if you ask me. it sometimes seems to be an easy escape from having to deal with proper composition. but I'm not saying the exact opposite is true either, I try to stay away from such generalisations. there are good f1.4-in-daylight shots.

 

[j j]

Finally, note 'ill done' and 'for me'. This is always on a case-by-case background, and intensely personal.

If you qualify your statements with "except when done well" then we can all agree. Earlier you seemed to be making your notes using a blunter pencil.

 

[kully]

There is bokeh that makes me almost wretch and leaves me with a headache, here is an example: (I took it, so I'm only being horrible to myself)



As for shallow DoF vs. the reverse, I agree with Simon and his shots have that great compositional thing going on, but then I look at stuff Yanick (Yanidel) does with shallow DoF and I can't say I like one more than the other, they're just different.

So, I've rather run out of anything intelligent to conclude this post with... mmm...

Should we just take and look at whatever snaps we like and not be told what we should like?

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Why do people have to generalise about techniques that are a matter of personal choice for the person actually taking the photo. Talk about stamping your own opinion on a subject ...

Exactly. While Roger may have a point, specially when clarifying that, like any tool or technique, overuse or misuse just makes a really bad name for it.

HDR is a great tool. Just as is a laser pointer. Or Autotune. Misuse makes you hate them.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Leica M6 + 8.5cm (85mm) f/2 Sonnar Contax mount + Ilford XP2


You just have to learn how to use stuff.

 

[SimonSawSunlight]

As for shallow DoF vs. the reverse, I agree with Simon and his shots have that great compositional thing going on, but then I look at stuff Yanick (Yanidel) does with shallow DoF and I can't say I like one more than the other, they're just different.

So, I've rather run out of anything intelligent to conclude this post with... mmm...

Should we just take and look at whatever snaps we like and not be told what we should like?

heh, I was thinking about bringing up Yanick's photography as well, but it seemed to easy a card to play! 😀 but I think we have to admit that in most of his shots the background is still more or less distinguishable, and he certainly composes his shots rather thoughtfully as well.

 

[former member]

Bokeh is the photographic equivalent of using chaos theory to produce computer generated images. The latter is based on the finite precision of digital computers in modeling continuous functions. The Mandelbrot set is probably the most popular example, each pixel represents the number of iterations required for a recursive function to diverge to a preset point.

Bokeh is the result of using bulk optics to project the 3D world onto a plane. The trade-offs for aberrations and optimizations that go into the design of the lens are convolved with the image being projected onto the plane. The most pronounced artifacts are produced in the out of focus background when the lens is used at full-aperture, the focus is at minimum distance, and the background has a lot of high-frequency content.

I did a lot of CGI in the 1980s, and a lot of images with my lenses used at full-aperture, the focus is at minimum distance, and the background with a lot of high-frequency content. But the latter did not overload the power supplies on the FPS120b and cause the HALON in the computer room to discharge.

remembered the footnote... after the FPS120b, my employer bought me an $80K desktop computer with 4 attached SKY array processors to continue doing the fractal work for CGI.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

a lot of people seem to think that a shot gets better and better with thinner and thinner DOF and more and more blurred background. very unhealthy attitude, photographically, if you ask me. it sometimes seems to be an easy escape from having to deal with proper composition. but I'm not saying the exact opposite is true either, I try to stay away from such generalisations. there are good f1.4-in-daylight shots.

Like everything, it depends on your point of view. I believe that it requires far better concentration on technique and composition to be able to pull of a narrow DOF shot.

Most people want to see everything. Putting everything in focus is the expected thing. Making things stand out as you intend them is far more difficult with a wider aperture at close distance than otherwise. That many people have overutilized and erroneously overdone narrow DOF does make one prone to generalize, but even more rare is to see people caution themselves out of generalizations. Like you stated. ::thumbs up::

 

[Roger Hicks]

Like everything, it depends on your point of view. I believe that it requires far better concentration on technique and composition to be able to pull off a narrow DOF shot.

Most people want to see everything. Putting everything in focus is the expected thing. Making things stand out as you intend them is far more difficult with a wider aperture at close distance than otherwise. That many people have overutilized and erroneously overdone narrow DOF does make one prone to generalize, but even more rare is to see people caution themselves out of generalizations. Like you stated. ::thumbs up::

Yes, I think that's true. But maybe, at this point, it comes down to a restatement of Sturgeon's Law (Someone said to Sturgeon, "90% of science fiction is rubbish", to which Sturgeon replied "90% of anything is rubbish"). Perhaps badly-done shallow d-o-f shots in broad daylight are just a form of rubbish to which I am particularly sensitive, and perhaps the reason that I am unusually sensitive is that they have become much more popular of late. They used to be quite difficult, because of limited shutter speeds and because fewer people could afford super-speed lenses, and they were therefore rare. "Because I can" (use a fast lens wide open with a very high shutter speeed) is not the same as "because I can" (compose a decent picture using this technique).

As I say in the original post, more and more, I'm noticing pictures where the o-o-f background is so noticeable that it's nauseating. It's not a jumble turned into a blur: it's clear objects (buildings, etc) rendered in very poor focus.

The key word is noticing. From the responses to this thread, it looks as though this is merely an over-used fad, like HDR: both shallow d-o-f and HDR can be done really well, but often aren't. Personally I find HDR much less of a problem than shallow d-o-f, possibly because a great deal of painting has always been 'HDR', with far more detail in the shadows than is easily possible in non-HDR photography.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Did I type "pull of"? Oh, la honte!

 

[Roger Hicks]

Did I type "pull of"? Oh, la honte!

Blame it on a lousy keyboard. Yes, I'm a bad typist, but on top of that, my keyboard doesn't always register every key I hit.

Cheers,

R.

 

[gekopaca]

Dear Roger,
As is my habit, I try to think about pictures in terms of meaning, for me it is more important than the aesthetic way.

On the one hand, the current fashion of "always bokeh" joins the way of Flickr always greater aestheticization pictures... at the expense of semantic content.
Actually, Flickr also shows us a large majority of poor framing, simplistic angles shooting, photos without a subject, horrible post-treatment...
Disasters are numerous, the challenge is education to the image, it's a cultural problem, of course.

On the other hand, the ability to isolate the main subject of the background (with the help of modern fast lenses, ND filters and/or high speeds) even when the daylight is strong is a useful tool for the clever photographer; why be deprived of that opportunity?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Roger,
As is my habit, I try to think about pictures in terms of meaning, for me it is more important than the aesthetic way.

On the one hand, the current fashion of "always bokeh" joins the way of Flickr always greater aestheticization pictures... at the expense of semantic content.
Actually, Flickr also shows us a large majority of poor framing, simplistic angles shooting, photos without a subject, horrible post-treatment...
Disasters are numerous, the challenge is education to the image, it's a cultural problem, of course.

On the other hand, the ability to isolate the main subject of the background (with the help of modern fast lenses, ND filters and/or high speeds) even when the daylight is strong is a useful tool for the clever photographer; why be deprived of that opportunity?

I'm not advocating depriving anyone of it, or of any other tool. It just seems to me that at the moment, more people are using this particular tool badly than has been the case in the past: 'because they can'.

I completely agree with your separation of 'meaning' and 'aesthetics', and would add that at most periods in history there is an 'aesthetic of novelty'. All too often, this is immediately seized upon and turned into a cliché by wannabees, thereby detracting even from the pics where it is done well: the reaction is, "Oh, no, not that again." Ultra-shallow d-o-f is merely one current example.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Griffin]

One might even be able say the opposite - because of the number of photos taken with small sensor cameras these days too many photos have every thing in focus.

Couldn't agree more. Coming from a point and shoot, my sole aim atm is to have selective focus. I'm sure I'll grow out of it one day.

 

[jsrockit]

I'm not advocating depriving anyone of it, or of any other tool. It just seems to me that at the moment, more people are using this particular tool badly than has been the case in the past: 'because they can'

More people are doing photography badly these days too. I actually am a fan of the type of images you do not like. I like recognizing things in the background while isolating the main subject. One man's junk is another's treasure...

I guess you hate this then...

Sure, it looks like it's a projection in the background. I like it nonetheless or I wouldn't have taken it that way. The Sonnar acts different wide open and at 5.6. Why wouldn't I use it both ways? I guess I'm a wannabee because I choose to use all of photography's "tricks." 😉