The Shallow DOF paradox

[DNG]

[quote Have a look at what this guy does with an f/0.95 lens.

Wow.

When does it come out in thread-mount ? 😀[/quote]

WOW....10K too.... Well I'll have to be happy with the Nokton 1.1 for 1/10th the price 😀
(still going back and forth on my new to come RF kit, and its components 😱)

 

[bo_lorentzen]

Mabelsound,

Pretty meaningful observation you got there. Totally understand what you are saying, love shooting wide open, but in the end, some of the favorite picks are f8is..

Images translates very differently depending on enlargement, is it possible you made prints of these also to help in the selection process. 😀

I typically print everything to 8.5x11 glossy at full frame (white border) and find that a lot of my wide-open images just don't work as well once I get them in the hand, stepping up toe 13x19 drops even more wide open shots as suddenly 2.8-5.6 seems to be holding good soft backgrounds that look nice.

Not buying a 0.95 but am very very happy with the gritty de-focus on my nokton 50mm 1.1 from cameraquest.com that lens keeps growing on me all the time, but I admit to shooting it at 5.6 and liking that also.


Bo

www.bophoto.typepad.com

 

[flip]

I somehow see this evolving into a variation of the one year one camera one lens project.... One year, minimum (or maximum) aperture. 🙂

 

[Thardy]

Wow.

When does it come out in thread-mount ? 😀

WOW....10K too.... Well I'll have to be happy with the Nokton 1.1 for 1/10th the price 😀
(still going back and forth on my new to come RF kit, and its components 😱)[/QUOTE]

This may sound crazy, but when I saw the photos from the $10,000 lens I thought they looked a lot like the $1,000 Nokton. They both had very shallow DOF and lacked the "character" you find with the Noctilux f/1.0.

But then I don't consider myself a lens aficionado.

OK here's a comparison between the affordable old Noctilux, and the really affordable new Nokton.

If I had either one of these, there where be no end to the gratuitous bokeh shots in my flickr, folio, book, or wall.

 

[Thisisaline]

Bokeh's overrated don't you think.. To the point the word is even annoying to hear sometimes.. Ha

 

[urban_alchemist]

I own both "Bokeh Kings" - f.95 and f1.0 and you know what? I have very few pictures with bokeh in them. I don't think about it, I don't look for it. However, I love shallow dof and fast lenses as I find it incredibly useful to isolate subjects...

 

[enochRoot]

i realized the same thing some time ago. now i only shoot wide open if the light requires it. i tend to try and hit f4 or f5.6 most of the time. i just love sharpness in a photo. not sure why.

 

[Andy Kibber]

f/8 and be there.

f/1 and be on the internet.

That pretty much sums it up! 🙂

 

[pakeha]

`QUOTES'

everyone so far

A reasoned, sane bokeh discussion🙂

 

[morback]

Some shoot wide open to facilitate the subject of the image being easier, quicker to read within the context of the total image. That is a viewer, particularly one skimming many images, will comprehend the image quickly.

Some shoot wide open or at larger apertures as a by-product of using slow films for a particular look, ie, minimal grain, smooth tone transitions; likewise for low ISO ratings to reduce digital noise.

Some use older lenses, such as my own Canon 50/1.2 LTM, with the understanding that certain aberrations will be more prominent at larger apertures for a particular look, which likewise limits depth of field.

Some portraitists use longer lenses at wider apertures understanding that the limited DoF will smooth over skin imperfections of their subjects.

Some jump on the bandwagon of the latest fad. I recall back in the '70's when many (too many) were shooting 2475 Recording Film and abusing it in processing to accentuate grain, a photo variant of pointilism.

Then there are those who previsualize an image and choose the variables at hand to achieve a specific look, leaving as little to chance as possible. The range of DoF is known as is also what will fall in that zone and what will be excluded. The range of light is known and exposure (and it follows also development) is made to achieve a desired contrast. Lens selection is made on the basis of perspective and the characteristics of a given lens.

Agreed. I think both extremes are boring. Too many paper thin DoF and too many f64 look-alikes just for the sake of it

I personally don't like to have everything in focus. I like depth in my images and separation of the subject. I also like the play/interaction with each other of objects in and out of focus. Not everything needs to be sharp.

Lately I've been trying to have my infinity just outside my DoF so that backgrounds soften and recede. Having everything in focus can be confusing especially with the poor post processing of many a photographer.

 

[JonasYip]

I like the wide-open look too, and luckily my favorites tend to be those as well. It helps that I pretty much *always* shoot wide-open, with ND filters on all my lenses for shooting during the day. So really by default any "keepers" with be ones with shallow DOF.

j

 

[Bobfrance]

I haven't seen the images the OP is talking about but in my personal experience shots are often more engaging given the added the sense of contex (in the overall scene) granted by more DOF.
Shallow DOF is good for isolating the subject but it has to be a very interesting subject.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

I haven't seen the images the OP is talking about but in my personal experience shots are often more engaging given the added the sense of contex (in the overall scene) granted by more DOF.
Shallow DOF is good for isolating the subject but it has to be a very interesting subject.

I think that's the key right there. Shallow DOF has the effect of temporarily making anything look interesting--but in the long run a lot of these pictures lose their luster. The effect can definitely enhance a good subject. A really good shallow DOF picture can be very exciting to look at...

 

[Bobfrance]

I guess we have a similar outlook. 🙂

Here a couple of my pics that I feel reflects my ideas of DOF and context (correctly spelt this time!)

Shallow DOF. Subject isolated,.
At first, I was pleased with this shot at first (nice textures and colours etc.), but when I look at it now there's really not much too it.

Shallow DOF that isolates the subject, but still retains context and tells a story. I like this much more.

Large DOF where the surroundings are part of the story.

 

[btgc]

I think shallow DOF is a tool, like [super]wide lenses. It doesn't work for anything just like snapping parking lot with 15mm doesn't make stunning shot in most cases.

 

[Turtle]

This is what it boils down to: novelty vs substance. Shallow DOF can work wonderfully, when it has a point and serves to support a stronger subject/emphasis. When it IS the subject and IS the emphasis something has gone wrong IMHO. History is with you too. Most great, famous, coveted images are quite ordinary from a technical perspective. Quite a few famous are not even that sharp. F1 lenses have created some wonderful images, as have 50 Summilux asphs wide open... but do a trawl on this forum and on others and at least my experience has been an awful lot of dreary images that lack a point... probably because the photographer was squinting so hard trying to nail focus that this became the challenge rather than making an interesting photo.

 

[bo_lorentzen]

Kind of agree with Turtle, its a novelty and most seriously great shots don't rely on shallow dof. 🙄 only thing left for me, learn to take better pictures, nothing new here.

.

www.bophoto.typepad.com www.bophoto.zenfolio.com

 

[Haley]

Great examples, Bobfrance, and I think some other great points were made, especially in some of the more recent above posts.

However, I'm curious if the idea of art as representation versus art as expression/response plays into the DOF discussion.

(First off, I think that's a false dichotomy, but it can be helpful in some situations, so we'll stick with it for now.)

Perhaps a shallow DOF, when used as a tool (good point, btgc), is used by the photographer when she wishes for the image to display a specific subject or to get across a specific point. It's a more overt way of expressing an idea with an image.

A wider DOF is often used to produce a representation of the scene as it appears to the photographer. Perhaps the OP prefers a wider DOF because of the photojournalistic qualities it has; it often can feel like there is less of the photographer in the photograph, that is represents life as it was at that moment.

Was there any pattern to subjects of the wide DOF shots you found yourself liking more than the shots with shallow DOF?

 

[peterm1]

This must be one to put down to differing tastes. You see I really like the proverbial photo with lots of out of focus field behind the main subject and will often take my photos deliberately in this manner. Unusually perhaps, I especially like to do this for street photos where otherwise they are often just too "busy" - too much going on which detracts from the story I ma trying to tell. Here are a couple just "for instance". I accept that if you like the other style these may not be to your taste but that's OK they are just to demonstrate a different style of working.

In most of these cases I have employed vignetting in post processing to heighten the effect of the OOF. In all of these cases my interest is in the main subject not whats going on around them so much (except as context for the main subject) hence my desire to isolate that subject from the "stuff". I shot them digitally and could have converted to BW (I often do) but in these instances left some color as I have been experimenting with a new "look".