sanmich
Veteran
Roger,
I want to make sure what your remark is because If I got it right, I find it very interesting:
Are you saying that since in real life our eyes, in bright daylight have closed iris, we are used to sctually see with a huge DOF, and therefore, using a Noctilux at full bore with very bright and even harsh sunlight gives an artificial look to the pictures?
Maybe in the same sense HDR looks artificial?
Is that it?
I want to make sure what your remark is because If I got it right, I find it very interesting:
Are you saying that since in real life our eyes, in bright daylight have closed iris, we are used to sctually see with a huge DOF, and therefore, using a Noctilux at full bore with very bright and even harsh sunlight gives an artificial look to the pictures?
Maybe in the same sense HDR looks artificial?
Is that it?
Last edited:
lynnb
Veteran
Couldn't agree more. My memory of something is the result of significant post processing by my hippocampus. It selectively sharpens things of interest to me and blurs things that don't matter into a nice creamy bokeh. Then it compresses all that into memory storage, dropping out any detail deemed unnecessary. The cranial equivalent of a JPEG.
I think film users are more likely to be very familiar with the DOF characteristics of their lenses at different apertures and focus distances than digital users. RF users generally use lenses with accurate focus and DOF scales. Non-auto film SLRs with focusing screens optimised for clarity also encouraged use of DOF preview - judging DOF through my OM1's vf was comparatively easy, even at smaller apertures.
It's a different story with digital. Camera/lens automation in digital cameras gets in the way of bokeh control. The focusing screens in modern DSLRs seem to be optimised for viewfinder brightness rather than clarity and stop-down visual estimation DOF is more difficult - particularly with crop sensor mirrored viewfinders. That probably encourages shooting at full aperture more often than not, when shooting for shallow DOF. Even the DOF preview button on my 5D is tiny and harder to use than the DOF preview controls on my film Nikons. Another digital disadvantage is that most made-for-digital lenses have coarse motor-driven autofocus, making the DOF scale next to useless (e.g. look at an EF 50/1.4's DOF scale), or don't have a DOF scale at all. Do EVF cameras or the hybrid X100 make it easy to accurately preview DOF? Does LCD/viewfinder signal processing/auto-gain help?
If the tools that most people use (and increasingly that means digital bodies and designed-for-autofocus lenses) make it harder to estimate DOF and harder to judge the quality of DOF outside the plane of focus I'm not surprised if things are sometimes rendered strangely.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Partly that, but partly, and rather more, that our eyes automatically refocus as we glance at something new. In other words, we are very seldom aware of out-of-focus areas in the real world.
A successful picture with an out of focus background replicates our normal "I'm looking at this, so I don't care about that" mind-set, or (as in the case of the dog and the aeroplane) replicates the awareness of the background as if we were concentrating on the foreground. An unsuccessful one forces the background on our attention in a way we never see in real life.
The fact that we never see something in real life doesn't necessarily matter, which was really the origin of this thread: I asked in the first post whether we are now seeing more badly-done and unnatural-looking shallow d-o-f shots around in bright light. I also asked whether it was mere habituation on my part that I dislike so many of them, because it's not what I'm used to.
As Gabriel has pointed out, the immediate reaction from some appeared to be absolutism -- a belief that I was saying that all such shots are bad, or (worse still) that shallow d-o-f is always bad in all circumstances, which is far from what I said -- together with a good deal of restating the plain and obvious truth that taste is personal and cannot be disputed.
A few others agree that it does seem to be a fashion, which, like all fashions, tends to be overdone -- but again, this is NOT the same as saying it can never be done well. (I know you're not saying that, but I'm just trying to clarify my stance.)
EDIT: I am rather taken with the arguments in the previous post about exactly how this is equipment driven.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited by a moderator:
rogerzilla
Well-known
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
sanmich
Veteran
Roger Hicks;The fact that we never see something in real life doesn't necessarily matter said:
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
John Burroughs, portrait nouveau victim, pondering on how boring it all is and ways to make it fun fun fun.
dotur
od karnevala
www.ivanlozica.com
Nauseating experiments in selective focus and bokeh should at least be more nature friendly... let's stop molesting innocent flora and fauna, spring blossoms and endangered species like cats deserve better treatment...
Dirty fake flowers, digital shot, fake leica: fake rangefinder Digilux 3 - and CZJ Pancolar 50mm 1.8, ISO 400, 1/640
0524dot2011 by dotur, on Flickr
Nauseating experiments in selective focus and bokeh should at least be more nature friendly... let's stop molesting innocent flora and fauna, spring blossoms and endangered species like cats deserve better treatment...
Dirty fake flowers, digital shot, fake leica: fake rangefinder Digilux 3 - and CZJ Pancolar 50mm 1.8, ISO 400, 1/640
0524dot2011 by dotur, on Flickr
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
How deliciously timed.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I think you have hit upon it exactly. It doesn't matter what the magic bullet is this week. There's ALWAYS a fashionable magic bullet.
And, yes, I did intent to add 'bright light + bokeh' as more than usually unnatural.
Cheers,
R.
Sparrow
Veteran
... I thought it tasted of chicken myself
Dr Strangelove eh?
YES! Love that movie. I was wondering if anyone got the Strangelove connection.
BTW: learned that Mandrake was seated at an IBM 7090 for the movie. I'm thinking that inspired the Hal 9000 in 2001.
Last edited:
SciAggie
Well-known
Shallow DOF is tricky for me. On the one hand selective focus is nice. It is great to be able to shoot with a higher shutter speed in low light - sometimes that's the difference between having/ not having a usable image. On the other hand, I sometimes think I have a good shot only to discover later that I focused on an eyebrow instead of an eye, or I have one eye in focus and the other not. The more I use fast lenses, the more I seem to rely on f-stops higher than f2 or 2.8; at least with people. Then I wonder why I'm toting around an expensive piece of wonderglass.
I had the Nikkor 10.5cm F2.5 out today on the M9 at Gunston Hall, home of George Mason.
When will people quite waving Red Capes at me like this...
When will people quite waving Red Capes at me like this...
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I'm sorry, Brian, I can't let you do that. This thread is too important...
Cheers,
HAL (Or possibly Roger)
j j
Well-known
May I ask why?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Because that's how it looks to me, for reasons stated earlier in the thread. I'm used to seeing quite considerable depth of field in good light. And, again as I asked earlier, is this just me, or do others feel the same way?
EDIT: In other words, I'm asking about how many people think hard about why they use shallow d-o-f, and what conclusions they come to when they've thought about it.
Cheers,
R.
Sparrow
Veteran
he was based in part on one of Max Mathew's synthesisers voices anyway
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I'm sorry, Stewart...
sanmich
Veteran
One of my all time best movies.
A pure, concentrated pill of cynism and crazyness and a great way of looking at the fine, fine idea of anihilating millions of peoples because, of course, they are the enemy.
I can't even start thinking what is my prefered scene...