Sickly out of focus backgrounds

[bigeye]

I would argue that critiques need critiquing.

No.

You are welcome to do it, but it becomes derivative and tedious (as has this thread) while creating a stifled, suppressive atmosphere. A conservatism of opinion will set in.

The original work will stand on its own within a field of ideas, as will an individual's opinion/critique.

I can gauge an opinion or critic for myself.

- Charlie

 

[LeicaFoReVer]

For me o.o.f is not used only when you dont have enough light but it is a tool for composition to isolate the subject from the background. I think that is already stated. There is nothing wrong shooting wide open during strong sunlight. Open aperture in certain conditions can give 3D feeling too if not opened too wide. I will try to post some examples later on.

 

[former member]

I lost track of all of the points and counterpoints being made in this thread.

Thankyou to all of the members for the compliments on my photographs posted here.

To add, some thought goes into these beyond just opening up to full-aperture and focusing on the object at close range. Thought regarding the optical characteristics of the individual lens, lighting, and composition are as important to a "bokeh" shot as any other photograph. These types of images are like any other: appeal to some, and not to others. Like any photograph, "picturing in your mind" what you want the image to look like before taking it is important. For a Bokeh shot, this requires additional knowledge of the behavior of the lens at the extremes of its optical design. I've been playing with these types of shots for decades. In the last few years, started playing with (modifying) the lenses themselves. Experimentation is a fun part of photography. And again- thanks to the members that liked my experiments.

 

[L David Tomei]

It's been difficult to follow all of the posts following the first few where OOF background was described as (I paraphrase) sickening cheap attempts at making an image look creative perpetrated by incompetent photographers... sorry... I like my OOF backgrounds even more now than I did before I knew I was incompetent.
Ciao everyone.

 

[Roger Hicks]

It's been difficult to follow all of the posts following the first few where OOF background was described as (I paraphrase) sickening cheap attempts at making an image look creative perpetrated by incompetent photographers... sorry... I like my OOF backgrounds even more now than I did before I knew I was incompetent.
Ciao everyone.

Dear Tony,

Re-read the original post. I have reproduced it below for your convenience. It did NOT dismiss ALL o-o-f pics, just an increasing number of a certain type that I've seen lately. It also asked about how far it was a question of perception in general, and my perception in particular. There have been a number of interesting posts addressing all these points, together with (as Gabriel M.A. has pointed out more than once) distressingly many where there have been rather feeble attempts at extremism: ALL shallow d-o-f is good, or ALL shallow d-o-f is bad.

Cheers,

R.

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.

 

[L David Tomei]

I understand, and I was smiling when I wrote that posting, but... I do think that someone needs to take the side of the "incompetent" photographers who want to make images that look creative by shooting with extreme lens/shutter combination. That's how one learns photography at the beginning, by imitation. Clearly, there are some popular forms of photographs today that leave me a bit weary. B&W images in various shades of brown/sepia, for instance. These are all, without exception, debates that have taken place throughout the past 150 years or so. These debates will continue as each new generation of photographers, amateur and professional, emerges. Frequent use of OOF backgrounds, bokeh, or brown B&W images don't really reveal much about the photographer but rather perhaps more about the critic.

However, I must express disappointment when the debates move to the level of questioning the personal side. This does nothing to provide encouragement and support to those who may in fact be quite incompetent, but none the less interested in photography. I am curious why people do B&W in shades of brown, but it doesn't make me sick and I don't thing they are doing it as a cheap way to look creative. I'm simply curious. This thread, I'm afraid, had a bad start, I regret to say.

 

[rogerzilla]

I quadtone my B/W images in Photoshop. It gives them more apparent depth than straight black and white. I've been doing it for years. Think of it as a substitute for Agfa Record-Rapid warmtone paper!

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Dear Gabriel,

Sorrry. You have indeed stated that. I was just a bit low when I wrote the last post in the middle of the night. I couldn't sleep because during the day we had been robbed of 60 euros by a couple of gypsies, through our own carelessness. They arrived at the door purportng to be collecting money for a good cause. We took them at their word, foolishly neglecting to ask for any identification, and gave them 10 euros. When they asked for a gass of water, we gave it to them, and they stole 50 euros from Frances's wallet. The theft was bad enough, but the way that they traded on our goodwill as well as our stupidity left a very nasty taste in the mouth. The gendarmes were very good, but as they said, these people will soon move on...

Cheers,

R.

No worries, Roger. And that would shake me up a bit, too. I did learn my lesson a very long time ago: they were asking for "directions", and she pretended to be incredibly stupid (obviously, that was the diversion). They ended up with over $400 in my gf's cash (with purse inclusive, and a whole bunch of irreplaceable things). That's why I never carry more than a few 20s' worth ever since.

 

[LeicaFoReVer]

Well how come someone count the number of oof photos lately and predicts that it is increasing trend. Do you have any statistics? I find the opposite. With the Dianas, Holgas I believe the number of dull, flat, everywhere focused photos are more common now. Shall I start a thread called "sickly flat photos" now? 🙂

 

[Bob Ross]

Selective focus
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.

Hi Roger,
This may be a case of large numbers.....as in 2010 140 million DIRDs (digital image recording devices) were sold, of which 10 million were DSLRs. You have to go back a way to get numbers under 90 million...each year.
Those many hundreds of million DIRDs are busy making "Billions and billions" of images, to be displayed on billions of computer displays )that are far from adjusted the same way), prints and publications.
Sooner or later we are going to see every variety of the good, bad and the ugly as those billions of new photograpers with their new DIRDs fill the apparent vacuum.
On the other hand, chances are that, we might also see something great and new in those big numbers.......😱
Bob
ps, This is just about the 50th anniversary of my getting my first serious camera, a Contax II with two lenses.

 

[former member]

I have not seen the terms "Digital Imaging Device" and "Digital Imagers" used since the early 1980s.

 

[Bob Ross]

I have not seen the terms "Digital Imaging Device" and "Digital Imagers" used since the early 1980s.

Resurection before our very eyes...
Back then I used to give little notice to the digital stuff, asking under my breath, "why are they even bothering?"

 

[Proteus617]

My contribution. Good OOFA; background. Bad OOFA, foreground. When I get around to printing I might try to dodge the hell out of those indistinct blobs at the base.

 

[jim_buchanan]

Interesting discussion.

I guess if my photos were more about a non-focused background blur, a very small area in-focus, and the overall philosophy of a photo pulling the viewers eye toward the out of focus areas instead of the in-focus areas, I will sell my expensive Leica lenses and buy something cheaper.