Are We Too Hung Up On Shallow DOF? - Page 4

nueces snapper · #31 June 20th, 2012, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by allenrowand

Whatever happened to "f8 and be there"?

I think now its f5.6 and be there.

Markb · #32 June 20th, 2012, 12:36 PM

Posterity will call this the "soft ears" period of portrait photography

CUB · #33 June 20th, 2012, 12:37 PM

This question of more/less control over depth of field is almost history repeating itself.

In the 1920s, Oskar Barnack developed the Leica camera which used a negative that was small compared to the much larger cameras in general use. One of the criticisms of the Leica, and an obstacle to its early progress, was that it offered too little control over depth of field compared with larger film formats.

Now we have people stoutly defending m4/3 because it offers even less control over depth of field than the 35mm film format that the Leica introduced. Ironic, isn't it.

Hikari · #34 June 20th, 2012, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by meyerweb

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.

Most product and architectural photography uses deep DoF. So does landscape photography. Those three genres alone would probably be in the majority of photographs taken. But even high-end fashion and portraiture use plenty of DoF. Sure you can find the use of shallow DoF, but the majority of photography you see on the web and in magazines are not really using shallow DoF regardless of the use of call phones.

But the article still comes down to the fact that the assertion is not even shown to be true. All it alludes to is what some folks that post on photo forums think is important. And it even does not show whether that is a majority opinion.

Fmrvette · #35 June 21st, 2012, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nueces snapper

The Online Photographer

There's a follow up article:

The Online Photographer: I Should Have Said...

One point of the original article is reiterated in Mark Scholey's comment (#4).

Edit - and this update on the update:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad....html#comments

Jim

Lawrence A. · #36 June 21st, 2012, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hkpzee

Good article! Thanks for sharing.
.....
BTW, just curious, does anyone still follow the Sunny 16 Rule in the digital photography world?

Like Penfan, I use the sunny 16 rule with my film cameras, two of which have no light meters. When I remember it, I use my Luna Pro Sbc (I love that analog meter and have generally not liked using digital handheld meters), but I also forget it half the time. The rule is always handy in a pinch.

nianys · #37 June 21st, 2012, 05:03 PM

I beg to differ. I understand its's fashionable for m4/3 to dis' (sometimes to the point of ridiculing) shallow DOF shooters. Like "oh, you do shallow DOF because you can't compose or won't bother with controlling your backgrounds, etc". To which I answer : balloney. Some of us use shallow DOF because it rocks our boat, period. Shallow DOF just fits my vision of photography. I understand it might not be for everybody, or not for every shot for that matter, but generally speaking I really like to be able to achieve a clear subject isolation. In this regard (as an ex FF shooter), m4/3 means a limitation to me. Which I live with, because globally the pros of the smaller system outweight the cons. But FF gives an ability to CHOSE, and all shallow DOF lovers are not poor or lazy photographers, this argument is getting old. Thankfully there are workarounds, and the 25/1.4 and 45/1.8 are my most used lenses on my GX-1.
Just my 02 cts...

fredlong · #38 June 21st, 2012, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nianys

I beg to differ. I understand its's fashionable for m4/3 to dis' (sometimes to the point of ridiculing) shallow DOF shooters.

Not around here. If you look through the archives you'll find many threads including complaints about the difficulty achieving shallow depth of field. You'll also find very little ridiculing of any kind here.

Fred

nianys · #39 June 21st, 2012, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredlong

Not around here. If you look through the archives you'll find many threads including complaints about the difficulty achieving shallow depth of field. You'll also find very little ridiculing of any kind here.

Fred

That's wonderful news :) I really didn't want to come across as bitter, or overly defensive, but it's just that it's gotten really sour on some mainstream board lately, so I had my flame reatrdant vest on...

meyerweb · #40 June 21st, 2012, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CUB

This question of more/less control over depth of field is almost history repeating itself.

In the 1920s, Oskar Barnack developed the Leica camera which used a negative that was small compared to the much larger cameras in general use. One of the criticisms of the Leica, and an obstacle to its early progress, was that it offered too little control over depth of field compared with larger film formats.

Now we have people stoutly defending m4/3 because it offers even less control over depth of field than the 35mm film format that the Leica introduced. Ironic, isn't it.

And now people are touting that same 35mm frame size, that people used to say didn't offer enough DOF control, as the ne plus ultra of DOF. Ironic, eh?

Frankly, though, I think the real objection to the Leica had little to do with DOF, and that DOF was just an argument from luddites who were unwilling to leave what they knew behind. I've shot with large format (4x5, and a little 8x10), and the challenge with those formats is getting enough DOF. Trying to shoot in evening light at f32 and f64 is not "DOF Control," it's a lack of control. And everyone who shot or shoots large format would have loved to have an easy way to get more DOF. View cameras, with the shift and tilt capability, were developed to overcome the DOF limitations of large format cameras.