Sickly out of focus backgrounds

R

Roger Hicks

Veteran
Local time
10:46 PM
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
23,920
Selective focus is one thing: turning a jumbled background into a blur. But 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.

This isn't a 'bokeh' issue. It's just that on a bright, sunny day, I'm used to seeing most of a scene more or less in focus. Shooting at 1/4000 wide open, solely because you can, just looks weird to me. Shallow focus seems natural in poor light, but in bright daylight, it looks contrived and artificial, at least to me.

Is this pure habituation/age (when I started in the 60s, there were still plenty of cameras that stopped at 1/500 second)? Or is it that I'm seeing a fashion that will, with any luck, be short lived?

Cheers,

R.
 
The doughnut highlights of mirror lenses were popular in the 1970s.

With Kodachrome II and Panatomic-X, 1/500th was plenty and 1/1000 was reserve.
 
The fashion is called "use your lens always wide open". If you have a Noctilux it would be stupid to use it stopped down to 1.4 or even 2 :)
 
You bring up a very good point Roger.
Thinking about it, I am used to seeing "sunny" photos with everything in focus and "nightly" or "indoor" photos with selective focus.
One argument can be: people now do it because they "can". In this modern world of super-fast lenses, ND filters and 1/8000 sec speed, I guess our eyes haven't yet seen everything that is to be seen.
Some would call it crazy while others, evolution.
Some would call it "unconstitutional" while other, experimental.
To each their own.
 
Just depends on the subject matter, I suppose. There are times when I love to see a scene that's all in focus. But there are other times when, to me, it feels like the photographer just didn't really know what he/she was shooting or trying to say with the image.
 
Depends what you are used to. I cant say I have expecially seen any objectionable trend. But then again I like using selective focus when I think its appropriate. 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.
 
I think it has a cinematic look, which is nice...but obviously very subjective. If a shooter is trying to convey an objective "documentary" style, then it is the wrong look. Selective focus forces the viewer to look where the photographer wants, not where the viewer wants.

I think this is why most photojournalism I see has deep DoF...for an "objective" take.

My opinion is that many shooters don't put that much thought into it...they like the look, or see it used in a way they like, and try to emulate it.

Also, there is a trend to prove you have a larger sensor by being able to selectively focus, and so naturally it is used as often as possible.

I like shallow DoF and selective focus...but I like shooting with a subjective eye.
 
Throwing the background out of focus is a dirty and cheap way of taking 'creative looking' shots without being creative.
 
And also a great way to shoot creative images.
Just because a tool is misused - that doesn't make it a bad tool.
 
I think there's also a push for OOF shots due to online reproduction efficiency. For web, there's always been a preference for the shots you are describing Roger, primarily because they compress so well. I know it sounds ridiculous, but that's why sooo much stock imagery is devoted to bokeh ;-) I don't believe its just a creative issue - selective focus photos are simply much easier to work with.

I do like shots wide open generally but your point is a good one - it can get 'too much'. The comments re: small v large sensor are interesting too. I hate the small sensor digi look where everything is always in focus ;-)
 
tbarker13 said:
And also a great way to shoot creative images.
Just because a tool is misused - that doesn't make it a bad tool.
Click to expand...

Dear Tim,

I think that's the point: it's a tool that seems to me to be grossly (and incompetently) overused at the moment. A couple of days ago I shot something at f/1.4 to 'lose' the background, but that was the point: there was nothing left in focus that was clear enough to be distracting. It's the shots where the background is still too clear and distracting where the technique fails.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
<<Throwing the background out of focus is a dirty and cheap way of taking 'creative looking' shots without being creative.>>

I'm not sure I agree with this at all. Speaking for myself only, I can't always control the background or background elements...but I can choose to make them less visible. Throwing distracting elements out of focus is but one method. Shooting in a studio is another :)
 
GSNfan, I disagree. Its just one (of many) techniques for isolating a subject.

A lot of people have been shooting small sensor cameras with slower lenses for a while. I think bokeh became a novelty as a result. It became a 'unique look', reserved for those shooting full frame or medium format. I think this furthered the mystique and perception of quality.

Now that we have full frame cameras coming, I'd expect to see more of this for a little while.

If anything, those of us prone to using DoF for isolation could be accused of being lazy and under-utilizing other techniques which address the issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom