Are We Too Hung Up On Shallow DOF? - Page 3

Justified_Sinner · #21 June 20th, 2012, 01:40 AM

There is a LOT to be learned by following the links to the images linked in that article. There are some absolutely phenomenal photographs there which bear proper study and reflection.

DonTom · #22 June 20th, 2012, 02:01 AM

I got into m43 because I would be able to achieve shallower DOF if I want to. I moved from a point & shoot. I think I made the right move.
For portraits, I think this:

is better than this:

but I would have been better off with a larger DOF when I took this on MF by mistake:

As always, horses for courses. The strength of m43 is that we can usually find a horse for every course....

Cheers, Tom

fredlong · #23 June 20th, 2012, 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RT_Panther

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

@RT_Panther
I took it as such and appreciate the irony.

Fred

Monza76 · #24 June 20th, 2012, 05:16 AM

Before digital my main camera was a Pentax K1000 which I used in a shutter priority mode by setting the shutter speed first and then using the aperture to get the exposure right. I hardly paid attention to DOF except for certain subjects. With digital I did the opposite, usually shooting in aperture priority mode and , all too often, wide open. Like I said in my earlier post, I still like the shallow DOF "look" so I am not looking at a radical change in my photography, but I tend to be more observant of my backgrounds (the other layers of my images) since using m43 with no truly fast "native" primes. The result is that I am becoming a more observant photographer, not a bad thing.

Ray Sachs · #25 June 20th, 2012, 05:22 AM

For street photography, I'm almost always looking for more DOF, not less. But for portraits, still life, and some abstract shots. I like narrow DOF. As with all things, it depends. I like having the Olympus 12mm in my bag, which I usually shoot at f8 with the whole world in focus, but CAN shoot at f2 as well. And to also have the X-Pro in my bag which I often shoot with the 35mm lens wide open, but can also shoot with it or the 18mm stopped down for more DOF.

Kind of like asking does the guitar or piano sound better - answer: both!

-Ray

meyerweb · #26 June 20th, 2012, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hikari

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.

If you look at most of the photographs taken today, you'll find they were taken with P&S cameras and phones, where shallow DOF is pretty much impossible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredlong

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

Many photo forum denizens seem to think shallow DOF is the same thing as bokeh. Or Bokey, as I've also seen it written.

cmpatti · #27 June 20th, 2012, 08:14 AM

In many years of shooting with larger formats, from 6x6 to 8x10, perhaps the primary technical challenge was achieving adequate DOF. The process of taking a photograph--which involved setting up the tripod for every shot, implementing complicated tilts, fixing ultra small apertures (f/128, anyone?), making very long exposures, calculating reciprocity failure, etc.--was largely dictated by the need for greater DOF. Given this experience, I have to chuckle at complaints about m43's lack of "DOF control." (A phrase that, in days gone by, meant the exact opposite of its current usage in online forums.) For 90% of my photography, the DOF characteristics of m43--combined with the higher ISOs available (200 used to be my "fast" color film speed, now it's my base ISO)--are a feature, not a bug. They allow appropriate DOF hand held often at my lenses' best apertures. The current fetish for shallow DOF and "bokeh" (a lens characteristic that was once hardly mentioned but now seems to compete with "sharpness" as the primary determinant of a good lens), leaves me scratching my head.

Just Jim · #28 June 20th, 2012, 08:32 AM

A little rain on the subject. But that original article is so whiney. Dude needs to stop complaining about prevailing trends. If the author doesn't like the current trend, make some photographs now that will alter peoples idea's to what he considers "good". We're in a trend now where people can finally process on their own, with their own vision, with little barrier to entry. (imo, people actually being able to test their vision is far more important than the subjective "good" photograph) With that comes testing of the boundries, and that's going to involve cranking the dial to 11. After all, to use the music analogy again, when you get that new fuzz pedal you crank it.

Oh, and his argument is logical junk. His side is argument from antiquity, and equivocation, the contrary is an argument from popularity. The whole topic is going to go nowhere from the position the author views the question at. Not even sure what his real position is, hence my conclusion is he's just being whiney about his ego and audience.

With_Eyes_Unclouded · #29 June 20th, 2012, 09:08 AM

I have no opinion on your assertions on the author of the article, but I'm 100% with you on this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Jim

We're in a trend now where people can finally process on their own, with their own vision, with little barrier to entry. (imo, people actually being able to test their vision is far more important than the subjective "good" photograph) With that comes testing of the boundries, and that's going to involve cranking the dial to 11. After all, to use the music analogy again, when you get that new fuzz pedal you crank it.

The crucial term being "to experiment", which implies decision, vision and determination, in contrast with "to imitate" which implies nothing of the above.

allenrowand · #30 June 20th, 2012, 11:46 AM

Whatever happened to "f8 and be there"?