I think people confuse what is said on photography forums and blogs with photography. Just looking at most photographs produced--you can look just about anywhere--I doubt you could come to the conclusion that a shallow DoF is preferred. Just because you can form an idea with words, does not mean there is any reality to that idea.

I think shallow DOF can be important in some circumstances but to me what's more important is how the OOF rendering is.

You don't need super shallow depth of field for your bokeh to be creamy.

Every format has its strengths -- and its drawbacks. Getting what you want in spite of what the format's natural strengths are is only partly a matter of equipment; you have to know what to do with it. Having spent hours under black focusing clothes in the hot desert summer sun to get the field of focus just right to maximize depth of field, I appreciate m4/3's strength in the matter. But working the ground glass on the 4x5 was certainly worth the trouble for the tonal and textural subtlety that large format offered.

The shot below took a while to set up with a 4x5 film camera and a 135mm Fujinon lens (sharp but too contrasy for my taste), and even then could have been got more quickly with 35mm camera and 35mm lens. But I don't regret doing my best with the format I chose to shoot that day and like the shot despite it's weird geometry.

I am guilty of being partial to shallow DOF but, like my bad case of GAS I am getting over it.

I was the guy who would shoot a 50mm f1.4 wide open on an APS-C DSLR and of actually putting the blur ahead of the image. I do not even want to use the word bokeh because it was just about the paper thin focus for me. I have always read Mike Johnston's articles and I do find I usually agree with him. This article, and especially Sam Abell's image, has reminded me that an image tells a story. The shallow DOF may sometimes create mystery but often just isolates the subject to the point of excluding the story.

Only a true fool would now proclaim "I am cured". I will continue to make similar mistakes but, with the help of the 17mm f2.8 I am learning that an image with real depth (pun intended) can put the subject matter in context not hiding behind blur. All I have used for the past few weeks is my Olympus gear, and since I just have the two bodies and two lenses I have had to learn to adapt. I think my images are showing some improvement because I am no longer striving for the pseudo-professional look created by shallow DOF.

I still like the look of shallow DOF night shots but I appreciate having a greater degree of clarity in my work. Although it may not have the initial "Wow factor" it makes for a more enduring image. As a car fanatic I can use this analogy, the original Ford Probe had the wow factor when introduced however it looked old after only a couple of years, more modestly styled cars such as the 1960s Alfa Romeo coupes have styling that has endured. Wow is a short word and usually its effect is equally short.

__________________
Ira (Pentax shooter)
Gander, NL, Canada
http://aicphotography.blogspot.com/
_______________________________
Current equipment: Olympus E-P2 with M.Zuiko 14-42mm f3.5-5.6 L, E-PL1 with M.Zuiko 17mm f2.8 and VF-1, Pentax and Nikon adapters on the way My Pentax Gear will be listed later Nikon gear: Nikkor AF 50mm f1.8D (with m4/3 adapter)
_______________________________
http://www.flickr.com/photos/monza76/

Good article! Thanks for sharing.

I have been guilty of pursuing shallow DOF with my m4/3 equipments ever since I got my first prime lens for the system - the 20/1.7. Like the article mentioned, part of the reason for wanting shallow DOF in my case is to hide the mess behind the subject in a picture. E.g. when I take a picture of my daughter in my home, I don't want the mess in the background to distract from the subject. After a while, I get so used to leaving the aperture wide open on my lenses that I sometimes forget to close it down for situations which calls for a deeper DOF (if lighting conditions permits, of course). Often times, when I look at photos I took at indoor parties and friends/family functions, I would wish I had use a smaller aperture to get everyone's face in focus...

Nowadays, I try to be more conscious as to how much DOF I want to get in my pictures, rather than how wide an aperture I can get away with...

BTW, just curious, does anyone still follow the Sunny 16 Rule in the digital photography world?

Different shots call for different DOF. Many will use extremely shallow DOF for the sake of it, but the same can be said of the other extreme. Our job is to understand how the camera works and compose with DOF in mind. The photographer should be CHOOSING what elements are in sharp focus, which are soft and which are totally OOF.

People who refer to their "plastic fantastic" or "nifty fifty" are ALWAYS the worst at this micro niche of dubious photography. They throw their f1.2 50mm on their camera and set it to wide open in Aperture Priority mode and treat it like it's a point and shoot.

As a landscape guy, shallow DOF is last on my list.

Just means nothing to me, and allows me to sidestep all the blathering nonsense about it and equivalency, bokeh, etc....

My comment/post was a tongue-in-cheek comment

I use the Sunny 16 Rule when I shoot with my film cameras since none of their light meters work. Oddly enough, I don't use it when I shoot digital because I tend to shoot on aperture priority mode and compensate exposure as needed.

__________________
Olympus E-PL3, E-M5, OM-1n and Pen F; Fuji X-10 and Pro 1; Leica M3

http://www.flickr.com/photos/penfan_2010/