Depth of field discussion...

V F

V F

Soldato
Joined
13 Aug 2003
Posts
21,184
Location
UK
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 :p.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom