taskoni
Well-known
Well, the photo above is a good example that everything is a matter of taste...
To me, if I may comment on the photo, the BG is still too busy and doesn't make the model to stand out much - I would of pan more left where the BG looks more promising or shoot her in portrait mode...
On topic now: I usually check the background first and then decide what aperture to use - I noticed that in many cases the sharp background can bring to the picture an establishment rather than OOF background with hard shapes that distracts even more. If/when I shoot wide open I like to go really close or because of the available light.
It's all personal
Regards,
b.
To me, if I may comment on the photo, the BG is still too busy and doesn't make the model to stand out much - I would of pan more left where the BG looks more promising or shoot her in portrait mode...
On topic now: I usually check the background first and then decide what aperture to use - I noticed that in many cases the sharp background can bring to the picture an establishment rather than OOF background with hard shapes that distracts even more. If/when I shoot wide open I like to go really close or because of the available light.
It's all personal
Regards,
b.
Last edited:
Exactly...taste. That is wide open at 1.5. Not sure how much more I can get things OOF. I wanted the barn in the background...that was my choice. Luckily, the "model" (haha) is my GF so this is just one photo of many.
Matus
Well-known
I think that the thin DOF is more than just a tool that often gets misused. It is also becoming a way to tell digital P&S and small sensor-slow-zoom-lens crowd from true photographers who either shoot film or large sensor cameras with expensive fast lens :angel:
taskoni
Well-known
I like it that way if it has to be wide open - Summilux-R 1.4 wide open
Regards,
b.
Last edited:
See, and to me that doesn't have enough context. To each his own... thankfully we do not all think alike.
igi
Well-known
I don't have an idea why some are calling the technique "misused"...
Who the guides the usage of the technique? The aesthetics of the audience or the intent of the creator?
It can never be misused. Just a fad.
Who the guides the usage of the technique? The aesthetics of the audience or the intent of the creator?
It can never be misused. Just a fad.
taskoni
Well-known
I agree, that's why I posted a shot
It doesn't have context indeed, just stressed on what I found important in the picture and made sure the background will render the way I wanted, not just gray and boring DOF
Regards,
b.
Instantclassic
Hans
I think we should ban middle- and large format cameras. At least force people to use tripods and make the objects stand still so we do not get blurred pictures of the objects per se.
Mr f/22
Mr f/22
I'm cleaning out some space at work and found a 20 year old folder full of CGI and "Scientific Visualization" on Dye Sub prints. Wrote my own Color Postscript driver in FORTRAN. Ahhh. The good old days.
tlitody
Well-known
If more people are doing bad photography these days its probably because there are a lot more people doing photography. But as has been pointed out, a lot of these digital cameras used cropped sensors and not especially wide apertures. So where are all these bad bokeh shots and who is producing them? Is it just RFF members? If it is a problem, then I suspect that it's laziness. i.e. just open to widest and take some pictures instead of working out what you want in focus and what not and using the dof scale on lens to work out correct aperture for the effect. But that might present a problem for people using zoom or auto focus lenses that are not well marked, if at all, with dof scales. So again, its just easier for them to open wide and not think about it too much. Result equals very blurry backgrounds.
Actually I think you have to think more when using your lens wide open... and be more carefully and make more defined decisions. Not that making a great photo with shallow or deep depth of field is easy ever.
It is a choice... why is that so hard to accept? It is one more tool for you to use when making decsions that will affect your photos...
Using deep depth of field can be even lazier. Just set it and forget it. To me there is no wrong way to make photos... what matters to most people (except photo geeks) is the photo, not how it was made.
wilonstott
Wil O.
Like you Roger, I feel like the effect is approaching cliché.
Seems to be a fashion/portrait studio nouveau thing.
Again, not to be rude or point fingers, but this somewhat prominent street fashion blog, I believe, illustrates the effect that Roger is refering to.
http://thesartorialist.blogspot.com/
Not all of his photos are like this, only the vast majority.
Daytime Bokeh is now code for professional--for better or for worse, I can't decide.
Albeit I do hate most all visual clichés. So there's that in roundabout implication.
Seems to be a fashion/portrait studio nouveau thing.
Again, not to be rude or point fingers, but this somewhat prominent street fashion blog, I believe, illustrates the effect that Roger is refering to.
http://thesartorialist.blogspot.com/
Not all of his photos are like this, only the vast majority.
Daytime Bokeh is now code for professional--for better or for worse, I can't decide.
Albeit I do hate most all visual clichés. So there's that in roundabout implication.
GSNfan
Well-known
The reason PJs resorted to 'isolating' the subject from the background, had to do with the fact that they had no control over the background... You isolate the subject if the background is ugly, wrong color/contrast etc... you just don't 'kill' the background because of some optical effect every time and time and again.
When you're going to shoot lets say a portrait, get the subject to a pleasing background and add that to the picture for even better results, but that requires visualization and knowing how backgrounds work.
When you're going to shoot lets say a portrait, get the subject to a pleasing background and add that to the picture for even better results, but that requires visualization and knowing how backgrounds work.
tlitody
Well-known
Do you miss my point? Not sure. What I'm saying is that with a subject far enough from its background, then maybe f5.6 is sufficient to give you a slight blurred background depending on how far you are from the main subject. But with an autofocus zoom which a lot of people use, how are you going to work out what is actually the optimum aperture for dof effect you want unless you have it stored in your head. The lens barrel tells you nothing on these auto focus zooms and dof preview really doesn't show anything accurately on a viewing screen. Its just laziness to then say, sod it, I'll shoot wide open for bokeh effect. i.e. people just think, and I'm speculating here, that if you want bokeh you shoot wide open and be done with it.
I didn't miss your point. I think you are assuming that everyone who uses a DSLR is stupid. If you use a camera enough (and care to learn), you know how it reacts at every aperture....regardless as to if your lens has a proper depth of field scale. If you are using a 28mm lens, 5.6 isn't going to give you that much isolation.
But it is a choice, not laziness. How's it any different than saying I want everything to be in focus so I'll shoot at f/11? Laziness is going fully automatic and having your camera make choices for you (regardless of what your want your photo to look like).
hipsterdufus
Photographer?
Perhaps it is because the focus is on the clothes?
I was wondering about that as well... What's the purpose of having the background in focus if it does nothing to add to the photo? In fact, leaving the background in focus in these shots would distract from the main subject (the model/clothing).
I was always taught that you want to do whatever you can to emphasize the subject of your photos and subtract distracting elements. Selective focus is a great way to minimize these elements.
I guess to each their own...
wilonstott
Wil O.
First, let me say, you are right, and your photographic education was not a vain lie.
I'm not saying I hate it.
I simply think it's cliche.
I'm not saying that it serves no purpose.
It's a fashion (gloss "sartorial") blog--obviously the focal point is the clothes, you clever lot.
The guy doesn't vary his style--which is cool for him.
I'm offering an example here, and implying that the style seems a bit stagnant, but not without purpose.
I offer no further criticism.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
I think we should ban middle- and large format cameras. At least force people to use tripods and make the objects stand still so we do not get blurred pictures of the objects per se.
Mr f/22
Thank you.
That is exactly what I thought when I read Roger's original post.
Although, knowing that Roger shoots Large format himself, I think I'm still missing what he meant by 'sickly' bokeh.
Almost all of the examples in this thread do not make me the least bit sickly, some are actually quite lovely
Most non-photographers don't think about bokeh. It's used in movies so much that it just seems normal.