Roger Hicks
Veteran
Oh, we will all go together when we go,
Every Hottentot and every Eskimo.
Universal bereavement, an inspiring achievement...
Any other Tom Lehrer fans here?
Cheers,
R.
Every Hottentot and every Eskimo.
Universal bereavement, an inspiring achievement...
Any other Tom Lehrer fans here?
Cheers,
R.
jawarden
Well-known
Agree. Flicker is where you can find it. And I think your shot looks great and achieves the aim you were after.
Me, I'm just looking for a dirty and cheap way of taking 'creative looking' shots.
dof
Fiat Lux
Shallow depth-of-field has been the "New Math" for long enough I say!
NLewis
Established
I get at what Roger is talking about. In the end, I think it is a matter of poor use of OOF areas. I would call these (shot on a Noctilux with ND filter) examples of aesthetically uncomfortable OOF in bright daylight:
I would call these aesthetically pleasing use of OOF in daylight:
I would call these aesthetically pleasing use of OOF in daylight:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I've seen plenty worse, but thanks very much indeed for having the cojones to put them up. Thery are exactly the kind of thing I meant. I also think that they probably look better in colour than in B+W. In mono they'd be a totally unsuccessful attempt at a 'classic' look.
I certainly agree about the success of the last two (bridge and beach), but no. 3 (twigs) is something I've failed at often enough myself that I regard it as just another damn' shallow d-o-f shot. Not unpleasant: just nowhere near the class of the last two.
Cheers,
R.
I certainly agree about the success of the last two (bridge and beach), but no. 3 (twigs) is something I've failed at often enough myself that I regard it as just another damn' shallow d-o-f shot. Not unpleasant: just nowhere near the class of the last two.
Cheers,
R.
jawarden
Well-known
Some aren't aware of it but it's sure there. About the only thing that is in focus (with our eyes) on a bright sunny day is what we're focusing on, which is a small part of the visual field. It's just that we can adjust so quickly as our eyes wander that it seems everything is in correct focus, when in reality it's not.
What I don't like about selective focus is that when it's done aggressively my eye is dissuaded from exploring the picture. If only the head of a pin is in focus and everything else is a colorful mush, I look at the image for a quarter second and move on.
But when it's done well it's done well. I don't think overuse of selective focus is a big problem really. It certainly pales in comparison to the overuse a myriad of software tweaks most photogs use to ruin their images these days.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Some aren't aware of it but it's sure there. About the only thing that is in focus (with our eyes) on a bright sunny day is what we're focusing on, which is a small part of the visual field. It's just that we can adjust so quickly as our eyes wander that it seems everything is in correct focus, when in reality it's not.
What I don't like about selective focus is that when it's done aggressively my eye is dissuaded from exploring the picture. If only the head of a pin is in focus and everything else is a colorful mush, I look at the image for a quarter second and move on.
But when it's done well it's done well. I don't think overuse of selective focus is a big problem really. It certainly pales in comparison to the overuse a myriad of software tweaks most photogs use to ruin their images these days.
YES! The subject in focus must be interesting enough, and the out-of-focus bit UNinteresting enough, that it reflects the normal psychology of how we look at things.
But I must be less sensitive to overdone software than you are -- or maybe I just look at pictures in different places.
Cheers,
R.
j j
Well-known
Maybe I missed an explanation somewhere, but what I did not follow was why shallow focus should be dubious in bright light and not in darker conditions. If it is because you find this disturbing as it does not fit with your previous experience, I suggest that shows that the effect is challenging (which I would consider a positive notion) rather than ineffective.
I see more of it now than before. I think it is partly a meme. We live in an age of effective communication where fashions travel fast and far.
I also think it is a matter of equipment. People have greater access to more equipment and use it more imaginatively than only a few years ago; for example, how many film users used to fit so many and various lenses from so many and various manufacturers on their cameras?
And modern equipment is well suited to experimenting with shallow focus (indeed, it suits experimentation full stop). High resolution sensors and screens show off the effect very well and better than on film and in prints.
I do not see that shallow focus is a sign of laziness, lack of technique, failings of imagination or equipment and so on. Actually, quite the reverse. Fewer people are now tied to the ideas that wide apertures are to get around a lack of light and smaller apertures a desirable luxury to be used whenever conditions allow.
In short, I reckon that people do it intentionally because they like it and I suspect you like it less because it is not your style and experience.
Sparrow
Veteran
HAL was in part conceived following a visit by A C Clark to MIT where he heard one of Max Mathew's early synthesisers singing nursery-rhymes ... sadly Max Mathew's died recently
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
@ NLewis — Carkeek Park, Seattle. One of my favorite places to shoot.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Ah... To my mind, as applied to art, this is the classic omitted middle: good new art is often unfamiliar and challenges preconceptions, therefore, anything that is unfamiliar and challenges preconceptions is good new art. Which is of course nonsense.
What I'm suggesting that the current rash of shallow d-o-f shots in good light isn't unfamiliar. It's all too familiar. When it was genuinely new, a few people exploited it to very good effect. But it's very hard to do well (I know: I tried 20 years ago with an f/1.2 Canon and an ND filter), and as executed by all too many people today it is indeed jumping onto a bandwagon that is already well on its way out of town. Yes, it can be done well. Yes, it can be striking. Unfortunately the two are not the same thing.
I'm also suggesting that when composed with conflicting visual clues (strong shadows, sun high in the sky, plus extremely shallow depth of field), the picture has to be VERY good to be effective: mere novelty won't cut it, especially when it isn't novel.
A great deal of our visual vocabulary is learned. Perspective, especially vanishing-point perspective, is an excellent example. So to rephrase my orginal question, how much of the current wave of very shallow d-o-f shots in broad daylight is part of learning a new visual vocabulary (some, no doubt) and how much of it is me-too photography?
If you don't like the phrase 'me-too photography', consider that we almost all try new tricks when we see them, and sometimes we're proud of pics. Other times, we have to admit that we've failed.
Again, I'll repeat that there are plenty of good shallow d-o-f shots, under all kinds of lighting conditions. But it seems to me that right at the moment, there is a very high proportion of shallow d-o-f shots that are taken and disseminated for no better reason than that it is a (declining) fashion.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited by a moderator:
tlitody
Well-known
I thought HAL was a left character shift.
Thardy
Veteran
I'm not sure what this whole discussion is about. Many photos in PDN have this look, and so do photos in B&W Magazine. The only difference is that in PDN the photos were taken a few weeks - months ago and examples in B&W were in 1950.
j j
Well-known
Roger
I missed how you got from "I dislike so many of them, because it's not what I'm used to" to "the current rash of shallow d-o-f shots in good light isn't unfamiliar. It's all too familiar."
With a list of descriptors that includes sickly, nauseating, contrived, artificial, awful, grossly incompetent, overused, rash, cliche and wannabees this style seems to have got under your skin. Adding the general qualifier except for the good ones hardly seems to counter the hyperbole.
And (again) where is the conflict between bright light and shallow focus? I do not get this even a little. The only conflict seems to be with a rule you made up. But, please do explain if I am missing something.
So, in answer to your original question I think neither habituation nor a short-lived fashion but just a style you do not like.
John
I missed how you got from "I dislike so many of them, because it's not what I'm used to" to "the current rash of shallow d-o-f shots in good light isn't unfamiliar. It's all too familiar."
With a list of descriptors that includes sickly, nauseating, contrived, artificial, awful, grossly incompetent, overused, rash, cliche and wannabees this style seems to have got under your skin. Adding the general qualifier except for the good ones hardly seems to counter the hyperbole.
And (again) where is the conflict between bright light and shallow focus? I do not get this even a little. The only conflict seems to be with a rule you made up. But, please do explain if I am missing something.
So, in answer to your original question I think neither habituation nor a short-lived fashion but just a style you do not like.
John
NLewis
Established
The sticks and the girl on the bridge are actually one jpeg, that's why the sticks are in there. I agree, it is a throwaway shot by itself.
The second set of photos are shot on a Contax 645 at f/2.
sanmich
Veteran
I would call these aesthetically pleasing use of OOF in daylight:
You are on the spot about the others (very nice shots BTW), but don't you think this one could have much more in focus background?
The far scene is clean enough and doesn't interfere with the subject.
Blured, it does detract from the general feeling (IMHO of course)
filmtwit
Desperate but not serious
Does this work for super duper out of focus back ground?
rogerzilla
Well-known
The technique looks more natural for subjects closer than a couple of metres, because that's when the human eye also blurs the background.
On the other hand, if we wanted "natural", we'd all be shooting in colour and specifying print viewing distances based on the focal length of the lens used.
On the other hand, if we wanted "natural", we'd all be shooting in colour and specifying print viewing distances based on the focal length of the lens used.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
It's hardly ever National Brotherhood Week 'round these parts.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Funny, I usually think these "I can't stand --insert term here--" threads usually bring out the people who think that everything tastes like chicken, so it's pointless to cook something other than chicken, because, I mean, it's boring and dumb and pointless. Understandable, if their tastebuds can only register chicken.