Depth of field discussion...

[V F]

I'm just intrigued to take this out of the thread that kicked it off.

They're not "out of focus". The photographer is just choosing where the focus point is, there's a difference. Most of the people in this thread take it to the extreme because they know it annoys half the people. When done properly it adds to the photo.

The more expensive the camera the greater the depth-of-field quality/control/smoothness - there must be a correlation. http://www.hasselblad.com/us/inspiration/gallery/sample-images - here's some samples from a £30k Hasselblad camera for you to get angry at dm - you even have the lenses separately .

I know how it works as you pick your focal points that you want to focus on. As well as depending how good the body and or lens. Since not all are good with the correct settings.

I aspire to take images of the quality that Raymond and mrk do.

I love their style.

Yes, but mrk has a very interesting colour tone that makes his photos pop with a certain amount of DOF.

So why has this kicked off such a strange feud?

Why though? Did somebody famous kick it off? You usually see it heavily on miniature scale stuff...

As I had originally said... What has made it so popular so many seem annoyed about it while it has been going on for so long. Though I used to read some peoples views on it last decade why some people hated DSLR for this.

Personally I think it is nice when done right plus I also like complete in focus shots when done right as I wouldn't view either bad. I think it is only bad when the DOF has went overboard that the outlines or even partial sections of the subject is also blurred. Bokkeh is also really nice with the correct lighting and whatever the moment is that is done right.

 

[Raymond Lin]

People who are generally against the look are usually uneducated on the topic both in technical terms to artistic terms. The latter is subjective but in a way the latter is also influenced by the former.

They do not understand that

DoF use in daily life and history

1 – The human eyes have the equivalent of an aperture of f/2.1 to f/8.3, everything we look at has a shallow DoF look, the reason you don't notice is only because it constantly refocuses

2 – All cinematic work has a certain depth of field, it is not a modern day DSLR invention, it is as old as photography itself. 35mm film is relatively modern, old cameras were shot on large sheets of chemicals, can you imagine a sensor the size of A4 and the DoF on that?

DoF technicality

DoF is a tool, if anyone here has tried a Tilt Shift lens would know that taking photographs with one is a more 3 dimensional experience than your normal lens. A normal lens is a relatively 2D experience, that being you are only concerned with X & Y geometry at any given time (your framing and composition). Sure you are moving focus point, the Z axis forward and backward but at any one time that focal plane is perpendicular to the sensor meaning your subjects in focus is in a 2D plane, the shallower the DoF, the more 2D that experience is, as your concern of what is captured is a relatively narrow one.

When you tilt a lens however, the focal plane twists on an angle and all of the sudden you are shooting in 3D, you are now paying attention not only what is in frame but you are also concerned with what cuts through your focal plane on the Z-Axis. This makes composition incredibly more difficult as anything in focus will stand out more than that doesn't.

DoF as a tool for direction

DoF is a useful tool to direct what the photographer want you to see, a useful way to move your attention to something on the frame that is pivotal to the storytelling of the photo. One can imagine a street scene with everyone in focus where you are trying to capture a face in the crowd. When there are 100 faces in the crowd, having that F/1.2 would make your intention all the more abundantly clear of your intention of focus, focus both in terms of technically and focus as intention.

If the same photograph has everyone in focus, which can be done, then the intention of the photograph would be of a wider consequence, it is no longer about the face in the crowd, it is about the story of a street scene, about everyone in the street, about the people walking, the baby crying, the woman who just dropped her phone etc etc.

Both capturing the same thing, both have different intention and meaning. Which brings me to the next point

DoF as a tool for hiding clutter

Shallow DoF is often used to hide what I call clutter, it can make a messy background nice and smooth and dream like when reality it would be a mess. So it allows you to take photos in a relatively ugly space and not worry as much what is behind the subject.

When everything in focus it make composition a lot harder, everything is exposed and more importantly, distracting.

Using the street scene as the example above, it is much easier to pick out the face in a crowd than to have a photo where everything in focus and where everything is interesting. Because your concentration and aim went from worrying about that 1 single face is pointing the right way, the right expression, the right light and shadow, blinking and perhaps speed of movement, which are enough variables already before you add that to 100 other people into the shot.

Shooting something with a large DoF creates challenges that isn't there in a shallow DoF. Sure, your standard of facial expression for everyone would be lower than of a single person, same as the angle they are facing but the idea remains the same. The idea is you want each individual doing something interesting.

Real world application

Now take that idea and apply it to day to day, not just street photography but say family photos or wedding photos. With limited time and often space restrictions, you need to make maximum use of space and tools at your disposal, there is a balance of what is more important. Getting the face in focus, or getting that over flowing rubbish bin in the background in focus.

 

[Drollic]

Don't the ones usually commenting on slightly excessive wide open apertures normally post photos from an iPhone

 

[dannyjo22]

I'm not against the look, I'm against people whacking everything wide open and thinking it works or makes them a photographer because of it. Especially on faces, I'm not a fan of 1cm being in sharp focus. I think it takes far more skill to be able to judge how much of the face in focus works and getting that right than 1.2 or 2.8 everything. (Not that I can judge that yet, but I can 1.2 everything like a pro )

 

[D.P.]

I'm not against the look, I'm against people whacking everything wide open and thinking it works or makes them a photographer because of it. Especially on faces, I'm not a fan of 1cm being in sharp focus. I think it takes far more skill to be able to judge how much of the face in focus works and getting that right than 1.2 or 2.8 everything. (Not that I can judge that yet, but I can 1.2 everything like a pro )

I;m with you on this.

There is a strange trend to having wafer thin DoF, just like HDR and selective colouring it gets very old very quickly, especially when overdone.

One of the biggest reasons old lenses opened up to f/14 or f/1.2 even was because of the limitation of colour film, ISO 400 already introduced noticeable noise and reduced resolution. With modern sensors and noise reduction software we can shoot at ISO 3200 and way beyond, allowing us to close down the aperture and get better depth to our photos.


Shallow DoF are definitely advantageous at times in increasing subject separation from the background etc. but a lot of people don't seem to realize that you get the greatest seperation when the edges of the subject are sharp against the soft background. Too many people open up to f/1.4 and try and focus on someone's eye, the result being the edge of their head is soft and you completely loose that 3D look because you've removed the sharp edge differentiation.


There is a similar trend with using wider lenses like 35mm and shooting them at f/1.4 that exacerbates the problems. Due to perspective the background gets compressed and actually ends up nosier and distortion of the face is increased. Using an 85-135mm lens facilitates a much smoother background while the lens can be stopped down to ensure the subject is properly focused.

 

[2StepSteve]

Don't the ones usually commenting on slightly excessive wide open apertures normally post photos from a potato

Fixed that for you

 

[Drollic]

Fixed that for you

It was either that word or 'slightly'.