Well... I've been on the same pendulum swing since 1979. Now I am better at optimizing the lenses for use wide-open.
Out to Lunch
Ventor
Some of the photos in this thread clearly outperform the statements by the background/boheh police.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
The Standard Deviant
inanimated.co.uk
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Roger: obviously you did not get the message that if a little is good, then a lot must be better and the max is best.
We have been provided many powerful tools in the modern era. It appears that they sometimes get overused. Often to the point that tool usage becomes the message the photo delivers, not some emotion about the subject. More unfortunate is that this is often deliberate by the photographer whose primary objective is to demonstrate his competence with the new tool.
I think we all go through these phases of tool overuse (selective focus / HDR / removal of distracting elements in Photoshop / etc.) Fortunately these phases eventually run their course most of the time.
Roberto V.
Le surrèalisme, c'est moi
I think it depends completely on the image. Narrow depth of field can be a great tool when it's used correctly (and even then, it's very subjective).
Roberto V.
Le surrèalisme, c'est moi
in some cases it is, but this doesn't mean that every photo with an out of focus background is a 'dirty and cheap' attempt at making a good photo. This is a very inaccurate over-generalization.
Roberto V.
Le surrèalisme, c'est moi
in some cases it is, but this doesn't mean that every photo with an out of focus background is a 'dirty and cheap' attempt at making a good photo. This is a very inaccurate over-generalization.
alistair.o
Well-known
Absolutely - photography is about freedom. We are always asking for more 'film users' but, are we saying 'film-users' after our taste?
One very important point in this is that people must know and understand their lenses (especially their lens limitations)
Roberto V.
Le surrèalisme, c'est moi
I do not want to cause any more computer fires.
50/1.1 Nokton, wide-open.
I don't understand how some people still think this lens is not sharp wide open (when most of the times their photos are unsharp due to camera shake). You're not helping with my CV Nokton (35 1.2 and 50 1.1) GAS Brian!
Roberto V.
Le surrèalisme, c'est moi
Completely agree. I prefer film myself, but I have seen amazing work made with digital gear, so I only see it as a personal preference. It's just what works for me.
logaan
Newbie
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.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I think by refering to OOF backgrounds as 'sickly' the OP was asking to have it rammed down his throat ... and that's what's happened!
Thanks for effectively starting another 'show us your bokeh' thread Roger!
Thanks for effectively starting another 'show us your bokeh' thread Roger!
alistair.o
Well-known
OK then - how about a:
'Show us your 99.999% out focus shots with 0.001% (i.e. a pixel - no maybe not that term!) in focus?
Let's call it 'Art a la Turneresque' darling.
'Show us your 99.999% out focus shots with 0.001% (i.e. a pixel - no maybe not that term!) in focus?
Let's call it 'Art a la Turneresque' darling.
Roberto V.
Le surrèalisme, c'est moi
And now, some nauseating, out of focus backgrounds
Blueberry Nights part IV by Roberto V., on Flickr
Untitled by Roberto V., on Flickr
Untitled by Roberto V., on Flickr
Solitude by Roberto V., on Flickr
Untitled by Roberto V., on Flickr
Blueberry Nights part IV by Roberto V., on Flickr
Untitled by Roberto V., on Flickr
Untitled by Roberto V., on Flickr
Solitude by Roberto V., on Flickr
Untitled by Roberto V., on Flickr
hxpham
Established
I like to use large aperture lenses to keep the subject isolated in somewhat wide shots where normally you would have little subject isolation, rather than totally abstracting the background.
Ade-oh
Well-known
There are plenty of photographic clichés out there, and OOF backgrounds are just one of them. How about sunlight streaming through the wooden slats of a derelict building? Or faded paint peeling from a wooden door? Or a topless model with her hands over her boobs? Or dirty-faced homeless people staring into the lens in grainy black and white?
The thing is that when done well, or with a slightly new slant, all of these clichés can become interesting again, so I can't see any strong reason to get annoyed by them. People have to learn, and that's normally done by imitation, trial and error - particularly amongst us amateurs.
The thing is that when done well, or with a slightly new slant, all of these clichés can become interesting again, so I can't see any strong reason to get annoyed by them. People have to learn, and that's normally done by imitation, trial and error - particularly amongst us amateurs.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I went searching for an image that was posted in my Pentax 67 gas thread by Gian and I found it ... I hope he doesn't mind me posting it here!
It's one of my favourite 'sickly OOF area' images. That Takumar 105mm f2.4 is a horrible lens all right and typifies this talentless technique of isolating your subject.
It's one of my favourite 'sickly OOF area' images. That Takumar 105mm f2.4 is a horrible lens all right and typifies this talentless technique of isolating your subject.
tlitody
Well-known
Perhaps the simple answer is to pay attention to the main subject instead of analysing over the background. But when all is said and done it's upto the photographer how they want it to look and you either like it or you don't. It's really not important what someone who doesn't like the background thinks.
alistair.o
Well-known
I went searching for an image that was posted in my Pentax 67 gas thread by Gian and I found it ... I hope he doesn't mind me posting it here!
It's one of my favourite 'sickly OOF area' images. That Takumar 105mm f2.4 is a horrible lens all right and typifies this talentless technique of isolating your subject.
Don't agree with you there Keith. I think that is a lovely 3D effect and I am drawn to concentrate on the subject.