Sickly out of focus backgrounds

I'm happy.

I probably post more shallow depth of field shots than anyone else on this forum.

I do not want anyone thinking that I am fashionable or any kind of trend setter.
 
Photography is full of cliches and parlor tricks. I'd rather just go have fun photographing than worrying about if I'm being fashionable or not. In the end, its a body of work that matters, not one individual cliche. And as Roger has conceded, we all fall for the cliche... it's inevitible in photography.
 
The not so loved bokeh of the summarit 1.5 but it does the work of isolating the chess set, IMO the practice extensive or not depends on what one visualized the shot to be. It should have meaning from the point of view of the photographer.



From the VC 40 1.4 SC



 
Last edited:
Roger Hicks said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well to go back to the original observation;

I believe the effect Roger is recounting could well be physiological.

In everyday life, in good light ones' eyes are constantly refocusing to the place ones' gaze alights. The human eye has all the limitations our lenses have, but because of our brains remarkable autofocus system we are seldom aware of anything being out of focus in daylight.

However the type of image Roger refers to as "clear objects (buildings, etc) rendered in very poor focus" could possibly be causing the eye to try to resolve the OOF areas and in effect be hunting for the correct focus.

As the eye's focal-length is part of our distance and spatial-awareness perception it could very easily be inducing a sensation similar to vertigo in some people ... just a thought
 
According to Wikipedia, the maximum aperture of the human eye is around F3.2 and the minimum around F8.3 for an average focal length of around 22-24mm. According to rogers little theory, we should limit ourselves to these apertures and presumably these focals lengths and also presumably using the corresponding apertures to the eye according to the ambient light levels if we want our images to look as he thinks they should. I know what I think. What would Henry Emerson say?

http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/emerson.htm

And we're still arguing about it today. You would have thought we'd have it sussed by now.
 
Last edited:
Sparrow said:
yep, and I have a FOV of around 170-180ᴼ so I find a focal length of 22-24mm a little hard to believe
Click to expand...

dunno becaue you have to take the refractive index of the fluid in your eye into consideration meaning you cannot compare to camera lens directly. But then what you see at the periphary isn't sharp where lens manufacturers try and make it sharp as they can. Naughty people, that isn't natural we should all complain.
Could a camera 22mm lens see 180 degrees but not sharp? I don't know but my eyes can.

seems to me that most of us really aren't interested in "Natural" which is an idea that died long ago in the photographic world. Are we trying to resurrect it here? Is that what this thread is all about?
 
tlitody said:
According to Wikipedia, the maximum aperture of the human eye is around F3.2 and the minimum around F8.3 for an average focal length of around 22-24mm.
Click to expand...

My Mrs can spot a penny on the pavement at night - so, I reckon her eyes open to f0.95 (at least).
 
tlitody said:
dunno becaue you have to take the refractive index of the fluid in your eye into consideration meaning you cannot compare to camera lens directly. But then what you see at the periphary isn't sharp where lens manufacturers try and make it sharp as they can. Naughty people, that isn't natural we should all complain.
Could a camera 22mm lens see 180 degrees but not sharp? I don't know but my eyes can.

seems to me that most of us really aren't interested in "Natural" which is an idea that died long ago in the photographic world. Are we trying to resurrect it here? Is that what this thread is all about?
Click to expand...

No, I don't think the OP mentioned natural, and it hasn't been a major part of the discussion that I've noticed

Roger said he found indistinct backgrounds in daylight disconcerting, I believe that is what the thread is about ... but then I'm only speaking for myself.
 
Sparrow said:
No, I don't think the OP mentioned natural, and it hasn't been a major part of the discussion that I've noticed

Roger said he found indistinct backgrounds in daylight disconcerting, I believe that is what the thread is about ... but then I'm only speaking for myself.
Click to expand...

Well by implication that is what I think this is about. i.e. a blurred background looks unnatural, it doesn't look right or have I have mis-interpreted this. I don't think so.
 
tlitody said:
Well by implication that is what I think this is about. i.e. a blurred background looks unnatural, it doesn't look right or have I have mis-interpreted this. I don't think so.
Click to expand...

He said it looked normal in poor light but inappropriate in bright light, unless I'm misreading it.

From the OP 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.
Click to expand...

A little like the dog on the beach photo above, it just looks a bit off
 
Sparrow said:
Well to go back to the original observation;

I believe the effect Roger is recounting could well be physiological.

In everyday life, in good light ones' eyes are constantly refocusing to the place ones' gaze alights. The human eye has all the limitations our lenses have, but because of our brains remarkable autofocus system we are seldom aware of anything being out of focus in daylight.

However the type of image Roger refers to as "clear objects (buildings, etc) rendered in very poor focus" could possibly be causing the eye to try to resolve the OOF areas and in effect be hunting for the correct focus.

As the eye's focal-length is part of our distance and spatial-awareness perception it could very easily be inducing a sensation similar to vertigo in some people ... just a thought
Click to expand...
Dear Stewart,

This sounds extremely likely. As a result of ear infections from swimming in the Mediterranean as a boy, I've had inner ear problems and poor balance for most if my life: if I close my eyes I start to sway, even stone cold sober. I therefore rely heavily -- probably far more heavily than most people -- on visual clues for distance and spatial awareness.

A fascinating thought. Thanks.

Cheers,

R.
 
gilpen123 said:
The not so loved bokeh of the summarit 1.5 but it does the work of isolating the chess set, IMO the practice extensive or not depends on what one visualized the shot to be. It should have meaning from the point of view of the photographer.

Click to expand...

But from a photographic point of view, what makes the chessboard and pieces more important than the man in the background?

What if I want to look at the chessboard, the pieces and the people and landscape in the background to 'get a feel' for the place? I love chess and I have seen some marvelous sets but imo the people playing chess are far more interesting 'photographically' than the chessboard itself.
 
Sparrow said:
He said it looked normal in poor light but inappropriate in bright light, unless I'm misreading it.
Click to expand...
Dear Stewart,

This brings us straight back to habituation, as mentioned in the first post and subsequently: that a great deal of what we see is learned. Is accepting shallow d-o-f something we have learned since the invention of photography? As noted above, in the 1930s people spoke of 'violent' perspective from 28mm and even 35mm lenses, which now we take for granted. Is perception of d-o-f a similar habituation?

Perhaps needless to say, no, you're not misreading it. Nor are you putting (totaly false) words into my mouth.

Cheers,

R
 
GSNfan said:
But from a photographic point of view, what makes the chessboard and pieces more important than the man in the background?

What if I want to look at the chessboard, the pieces and the people and landscape in the background to 'get a feel' for the place? I love chess and I have seen some marvelous sets but imo the people playing chess are far more interesting 'photographically' than the chessboard itself.
Click to expand...

That is indeed my feeling here. The chessboard is... a chessboard. Not a particularly interesting or handsome one, and not telling much of a story. It might tell more of a story with deep field focus, relating more to the man on the wall. Or it might not.

Of course all the stories are in our heads, and we see different stories, and de gustibus non disputandum, but this strikes me as essentially a narrative picture rather than graphic. In narrative, in the nature of things, picture elements tend to be much more related, so to me the shallow d-o-f separates the elements artificially.

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom