D.o.f.

[FrankS]

I was surprised to read in a recent thread on another topic, that some photographers do not consider/appreciate the visual effect of limitied DOF when composing/visuallizing their picture. "Just an artifact of low light and large aperture," and, "I would prefer that everything were in focus," were 2 sentiments expressed. As I said, this quite surprised me, because I know that limited and selective DOF is a powerful tool for focusing a viewer's attention to where one wants. I know I'm not alone in thinking this, right?

[Gumby]

Do you really need an answer to this question, or are you having one of those "fragile days" and need some emotional support?

Oh, who cares which it is: Of course you are correct. Not recognizing DOF as a powerful compositional tool is just plain ignorant.

[gho]

Of course selective focus is a repertoire in the photographic toolbox.

[Warren T.]

Of course you're not alone!

okay, group hug now

Meditations on a Fountain:



--Warren

[Steve Bellayr]

DOF is always a consideration!

[bmattock]

Originally Posted by FrankS

I was surprised to read in a recent thread on another topic, that some photographers do not consider/appreciate the visual effect of limitied DOF when composing/visuallizing their picture. "Just an artifact of low light and large aperture," and, "I would prefer that everything were in focus," were 2 sentiments expressed. As I said, this quite surprised me, because I know that limited and selective DOF is a powerful tool for focusing a viewer's attention to where one wants. I know I'm not alone in thinking this, right?

I agree with you that selective focus is a compositional tool to be used to draw attention to or away from whatever you wish. It is a tool in the toolbox, one that every serious photographer should attempt to master.

Quite apart from the common Western understanding of 'bokeh', selective focus is not about the appearance of the out-of-focus areas as much as the use of OoF areas to direct attention. However, with that said, there is some subtlety required; too much OoF and the photo looks odd to many eyes; too little and it's not truly effective. Some folks find that hard to master or find that they prefer the 'wide open at all times' heavy OoF look. No accounting for taste, but I try to use it in a 'just enough and no more' fashion, not all out or all in.

Our human eyes see OoF areas much as the camera lens does, but our minds filter the results so we think everything is in sharp focus unless we think about it. Kind of like not being aware of our own heartbeats, though we have them.

There are so many aspects of photography that one can exert creative control over if one wishes too. This is one of them.

[bmattock]

Originally Posted by Gumby

Do you really need an answer to this question, or are you having one of those "fragile days" and need some emotional support?

Oh, who cares which it is: Of course you are correct. Not recognizing DOF as a powerful compositional tool is just plain ignorant.

What sort of day are you having?

[Gumby]

Originally Posted by bmattock

What sort of day are you having?

Whatever do you mean? And why would you care?

[bmattock]

Originally Posted by Gumby

Whatever do you mean? And why would you care?

Quite right. Carry on.

[gb hill]

I'm 100% with you Frank. To me, especially in portraits nice bokeh or shallow dof can make or break a photograph! When I take a photo I almost always make consideration to the amount of out of focus area I hope to acheive! When I first started learning about photography & reading every book I could get my hands on bluring the BG was an artistic ability. Now it seems to have all but disappeared. Might be these newer cameras aren't all what there cracked up to be.

[peterm1]

Absolutely. This is one of the main attractions of using rangefinders, particularly Leicas as their lenses are designed to shoot wide open. In fact you may say this is much of what what you pay for in good quality fast glass. And its not only Leica glass. I recently bought a Canon 50mm f1.2 just for portraits as I want a slightly softer portrait lens that is also capable of extreme shallow dof. I anticipate it being used almost always at near full aperture for just these reasons. Otherwise I will use another lens.

Even with SLR photography I like to shoot for a specific dof using a fast prime. I honestly think anyone who does not understand this option is missing something in their photographic education. The following photos were taken with DSLRs but you can see that a shallow dof (supported by some creative dodging and burning in post processing is a key element of what I was going for.)

[Gumby]

Originally Posted by bmattock

Quite right. Carry on.

Thanks!

But I know why you asked. The question struck me as rather odd, considering who asked it. Y'know, like how the question "Do you think I'm pretty" takes on different meanings when asked by different people. When my wife asks me that, I know she's needing a little bit of emotional support; she really doesn't want, or need, an answer. When someone elses wife asks that question... well, sir, it becomes a real question and the answer counts.

[Gumby]

BTW, Bill, I'm having a GREAT day!

[FrankS]

Ed, I jsut wanted to begin a topic of conversation that was mixed into BetaMax and fountain pens and sensor sizes in that other thread. Yes, I know the answer to the question I was asking, but now you know why I asked it. Gently poking at a hornet's nest, again? BTW, do you think I look fat?

[FrankS]

Originally Posted by nikonhswebmaster

It is indeed a powerful tool if you are shooting fashion for Gap and want the clothes to be the center of focus in their catalog, and do not want to infringe on the trademarks or logos which may appear in the background (or create recognizable faces).
In that case many pros use a 180 2.8 or even a 300 to achieve the effect. I have seen them using radios they get so far from the model.

And it works very well for product photography for the same reason, you can isolate a product on a table and soften other items around it.

But... the effect is so heavily used in advertising, that it is difficult to avoid making photographs using the technique look like anything but a magazine ad.

It can also work well for formal portraits and the like. So it is something all pros need in their arsenal of techniques.

There are exceptions of course, in the art and journalistic world, but many examples shown by proponents, are the product of accident, not intention.

You see, I think/know it is a more generally useful tool than you state.

You would have to be in the head of the photographer to say that, otherwise it is just projection/conjecture on your part.

[Gumby]

Originally Posted by FrankS

BTW, do you think I look fat?

Ummm... I'm smart enough to not touch that one!

Best of luck with the hornets!

[FrankS]

I'm thinking that the "everything in focus" snapshot technique is heavily overused, as that is the only effect that the small sensor digital cameras are capable of (except in macro mode). I prefer to look at images created with some thought behind them.

[btgc]

DoF is reason why Av-style cameras like Yashica Electro are natural for me instead of Oly 35RC or Konica Auto S2 (both happily can be operated in manual mode).

Though speed also is powerful tool in photographer's arsenal. To name a few, I find pictures including motion in foreground shot at speed freezing movement, lacking something. In some sense they are similar to pictures done with small apertures.

[FrankS]

Yeah, pretty boring, isn't it?

[VinceC]

>>Our human eyes see OoF areas much as the camera lens does<<

As someone fairly nearsighted, in my experience the human eye/brain combo has fairly "harse" out of focus effects. I think the brain does a considerable amount of over-the-top "sharpening," equivalent of Unsharp Max with all the sliders pulled far right.

Agree with general consensus above -- learning to control depth of field is a very important photography tool.

[FrankS]

Originally Posted by btgc

DoF is reason why Av-style cameras like Yashica Electro are natural for me instead of Oly 35RC or Konica Auto S2 (both happily can be operated in manual mode).

Though speed also is powerful tool in photographer's arsenal. To name a few, I find pictures including motion in foreground shot at speed freezing movement, lacking something. In some sense they are similar to pictures done with small apertures.

I agree with that.

[Gumby]

Originally Posted by nikonhswebmaster

Sometimes ignorance saves a lot of time, and angst.

Sometimes... in my experience it is "most of the time." It can be really, really troubling when someone enlightens our ignorance, don't you think?

[antiquark]

Originally Posted by FrankS

I know I'm not alone in thinking this, right?

You are not alone!

[bmattock]

Originally Posted by nikonhswebmaster

And it works very well for product photography for the same reason, you can isolate a product on a table and soften other items around it.

But... the effect is so heavily used in advertising, that it is difficult to avoid making photographs using the technique look like anything but a magazine ad.

It can also work well for formal portraits and the like. So it is something all pros need in their arsenal of techniques.

Sports and wildlife as well, I'd say.

There are exceptions of course, in the art and journalistic world, but many examples shown by proponents, are the product of accident, not intention.

I've shown this one before, so my apologies, but it was quite intentional. Neither too much nor too little, I wanted not just to throw the background of focus, but also to create a particular feeling. I intentionally used an 85mm lens of old design and made creative use of exposure as well to get the effect I wanted.

[FrankS]

Originally Posted by nikonhswebmaster

Oddly I was thinking of Andy Warhol's polaroid photos when I wrote that.

http://tmagazine.blogs.nytimes.com/2...hol-polaroids/

IMO, those jock photos may be considered good or worthwhile, only because of the celebrity of the photographer and/or the subjects. Art dealers can sell these for profit, that explains their interest. If I presented these photos, but of ordinary people, do you think a gallery would be interested?