[photoptimist]

Now if someone said "big fat depth of field" I might find that objectionable.

Does this lens make my bokeh look big?

[DeadJohn]

I find shallow, thin, or narrow to be equally acceptable for describing depth of field. Although saying "narrow" depth of field could be confusing, since that requires a wide aperture.

Aperture can be a tough mathematical concept for new photographers. Bigger numbers = smaller opening. I was good at math before I picked up a camera but I've seen adults struggle with ratios, and multiplying by 1.4 = 1 stop.

[luftfluss]

Does this lens make my bokeh look big?

Your bokeh looks great.

Can we go now? The food court closes in 45 minutes...

[p38arover]

I've never seen 'thin' used, myself.

Now you will be more conscious of it and will notice it!

[pathdoc]

"What is it that by any other name would smell just as sweet?"

Stop worrying over minutiae.

[wildman]

When did "shallow" become "thin"?

I picked up my first serious camera in 1954 and use narrow and/or shallow and wide and/or deep.

[ccc_]

a lot of terms are interchangeable

shallow DOF vs thin slice...that's how I saw it first and I tend to think of an image in terms of strata stacked towards infinity

when I fish, shallow water is skinny...if the fish are near the surface it's nervous

just descriptors that reflect current thinking or current trends

[Digitalis]

depth of field for wide apertures was referred to as shallow.

Perhaps it is to avoid the connection with being fat and vacuous?

On PF, I seem many (most?) use the term "thin"

Thin, Slim, Trim are qualities often associated with health and compactness and being modern*. However, none of these qualities can be associated with fast glass which is almost invariably big, heavy and cumbersome.

*look how much has been shaved off the size of the apple iphones over the years, the newest is also most likely the slimmest ever...at least until the next phone comes along.

[ChrisPlatt]

Prolly happened around the same time they invented bokeh, and fixed focal length lenses became "primes"...

Chris

[p38arover]

Prolly happened around the same time they invented bokeh, and fixed focal length lenses became "primes"...

And railway stations became train stations.

[BrianR]

I've long since abandoned any hope of consistent vocabulary across photographers. It's my utopian dream that someone will come along and publish a definitive glossary of terms that everyone will cheerfully adopt without raging on one another.

[victormeldrew]

I've long since abandoned any hope of consistent vocabulary across photographers.

A consistent vocabulary across people of any kind is something that has never once happened in the history of language. The beauty of language (particularly English) is that it is quite so fluid and adaptable, but that does mean that between localities, countries, generations and eras, terms can differ significantly, but all the same we can use experience and context to understand easily what each other means.

Unfortunately a lot of people, particularly on forums, feign ignorance to claim that sombody else's use of language is definitively incorrect and that their own is definitively correct, whereas in fact neither can ever be true.

[goatsNdonkey]

And railway stations became train stations.

When did train depots become railway stations?

---

The term "depth of field" as a couple of people have suggested calls for the range of this characteristic to be described in terms of deepness or shallowness -- in order to be consistent with the metaphor.

To speak of what is in focus as "thin" implies a different metaphor, filled out better by the poster who spoke of what was in focus being only a "thin slice" of the subject matter.

Calling DEPTH of field THIN mixes the metaphors and is bound to irk or unsettle some people.


It doesn't bother me. I would prefer to be irked when people say "less" when they should be saying "fewer."

[jack002]

Hmmmm.... "thin" would only make sense if it was "width of field".

+1. I say shallow, not thin. Never heard of thin till just now.

[normhead]

+1. I say shallow, not thin. Never heard of thin till just now.

Naw, I'll just keep saying narrow, it's worked for 50 years. Why would I change?