When did "shallow" become "thin"?

p38arover · 03-06-2017, 05:13 PM

When I started photography (the Sixties) up until I joined PF, depth of field for wide apertures was referred to as shallow.

On PF, I seem many (most?) use the term "thin". When did it change or is it an Americanism?

photolady95 · 03-06-2017, 05:24 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by p38arover

When did it change or is it an Americanism?

I think it depends on what you first heard. I call it shallow and I'm an American, so I wouldn't say it's an Americanism.

victormeldrew · 03-06-2017, 05:26 PM - **1 Like**

I've never seen 'thin' used, myself. I guess that, since 'depth of field' is more commonly used than 'thickness of field', and that shallow is the opposite of deep, it would seem the obvious choice. However, because 'depth' is generally defined in terms of horizontal planes, such as surfaces of water and such forth, actually thickness is more technically correct. On the other hand, if everyone gets the meaning, who cares?

SpecialK · 03-06-2017, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by p38arover

When I started photography (the Sixties) up until I joined PF, depth of field for wide apertures was referred to as shallow.

On PF, I seem many (most?) use the term "thin". When did it change or is it an Americanism?

I think of shallow as the depth of swimming pools, caves, and personalities. Thin seems better to define a relative thickness.

stevebrot · 03-06-2017, 05:37 PM

Good question...I have read and used both. I have also seen "large" and "small" and "generous" and "scant" used too. I have never see "low" or "high" used despite DOF having numeric units. I have also never seen or heard "thick" used.

Steve

normhead · 03-06-2017, 05:41 PM

I always say "Wide or narrow". But then i can also recite the definition off the top of my head.

emergo · 03-06-2017, 05:50 PM - **1 Like**

Quite frankly, "deep" and "shallow" in reference to depth of field have been accepted industry terms for decades upon decades - just like "dolly," "truck," "pan," "tilt," etc... (it drives me nuts when someone says "pan up," as such a direction simply does not exist). It is completely acceptable to view those that don't use industry terminology as amateurs in need of an education.

normhead · 03-06-2017, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by emergo

Quite frankly, "deep" and "shallow" in reference to depth of field have been accepted industry terms for decades upon decades - just like "dolly," "truck," "pan," "tilt," etc... (it drives me nuts when someone says "pan up," as such a direction simply does not exist). It is completely acceptable to view those that don't use industry terminology as amateurs in need of an education.

And really as long as people understand what they mean, and most folks understand all of those terms, no one really cares what you call it. But have to disagree with "deep". Never heard it used, never used it, but still, I know what it means, so who cares.

**monochrome** · 03-06-2017, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by normhead

I always say "Wide or narrow". But then i can also recite the definition off the top of my head.

Originally posted by stevebrot

Good question...I have read and used both. I have also seen "large" and "small" and "generous" and "scant" used too. I have never see "low" or "high" used despite DOF having numeric units. I have also never seen or heard "thick" used.

Steve

Wide Aperture - Narrow Aperture ; yeah, got that.
Large Aperture, small number - Small Aperture, large number;

Shallow DoF, Wide Aperture, Small Number;

**luftfluss** · 03-06-2017, 05:55 PM - **4 Likes**

Perhaps paradoxically, I aspire to be thin, but never shallow.

normhead · 03-06-2017, 05:56 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by monochrome

Wide Aperture - Narrow Aperture ; yeah, got that.
Large Aperture, small number - Small Aperture, large number;

Shallow DoF, Wide Aperture, Small Number;

Narrow Depth of Field or wide Depth of field, would be my use age, Aperture is more problematic.

photoptimist · 03-06-2017, 05:59 PM - **1 Like**

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

mee · 03-06-2017, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by victormeldrew

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

Me either.. and like you.. either way I don't really care as long as we understand each other.

Ah loo meh nuhm

versus

Aahl you mehn E uhm

normhead · 03-06-2017, 06:20 PM - **1 Like**

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

stevebrot · 03-06-2017, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by photoptimist

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

Think Z-axis...

Steve

03-06-2017, 05:13 PM	#1
p38arover Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Western Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,084	When did "shallow" become "thin"? When I started photography (the Sixties) up until I joined PF, depth of field for wide apertures was referred to as shallow. On PF, I seem many (most?) use the term "thin". When did it change or is it an Americanism?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Did You Think That Thin Mountain Road Was Scary?	magkelly	General Talk	11	10-12-2014 02:52 PM
How did you become a pro photographer?	Alizarine	Photographic Industry and Professionals	22	04-07-2012 06:40 AM
How did you become a pro / semi-pro photographer?	Light_Horseman	Photographic Industry and Professionals	12	09-26-2009 08:29 PM
Did my 77ltd just become a paperweight?	kristoffon	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	09-14-2009 06:19 PM

03-06-2017, 05:24 PM - 1 Like	#2
photolady95 Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: May 2009 Location: Cruising the forum watching his back Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,712	Originally posted by p38arover When did it change or is it an Americanism? I think it depends on what you first heard. I call it shallow and I'm an American, so I wouldn't say it's an Americanism.

03-06-2017, 05:26 PM - 1 Like	#3
victormeldrew Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2015 Location: South West UK Photos: Albums Posts: 1,493	I've never seen 'thin' used, myself. I guess that, since 'depth of field' is more commonly used than 'thickness of field', and that shallow is the opposite of deep, it would seem the obvious choice. However, because 'depth' is generally defined in terms of horizontal planes, such as surfaces of water and such forth, actually thickness is more technically correct. On the other hand, if everyone gets the meaning, who cares?

03-06-2017, 05:33 PM	#4
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,481	Originally posted by p38arover When I started photography (the Sixties) up until I joined PF, depth of field for wide apertures was referred to as shallow. On PF, I seem many (most?) use the term "thin". When did it change or is it an Americanism? I think of shallow as the depth of swimming pools, caves, and personalities. Thin seems better to define a relative thickness.

03-06-2017, 05:37 PM	#5
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Good question...I have read and used both. I have also seen "large" and "small" and "generous" and "scant" used too. I have never see "low" or "high" used despite DOF having numeric units. I have also never seen or heard "thick" used. Steve

03-06-2017, 05:41 PM	#6
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	I always say "Wide or narrow". But then i can also recite the definition off the top of my head.

03-06-2017, 05:50 PM - 1 Like	#7
emergo Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Coloroado Photos: Gallery Posts: 271	Quite frankly, "deep" and "shallow" in reference to depth of field have been accepted industry terms for decades upon decades - just like "dolly," "truck," "pan," "tilt," etc... (it drives me nuts when someone says "pan up," as such a direction simply does not exist). It is completely acceptable to view those that don't use industry terminology as amateurs in need of an education.

03-06-2017, 05:53 PM	#8
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by emergo Quite frankly, "deep" and "shallow" in reference to depth of field have been accepted industry terms for decades upon decades - just like "dolly," "truck," "pan," "tilt," etc... (it drives me nuts when someone says "pan up," as such a direction simply does not exist). It is completely acceptable to view those that don't use industry terminology as amateurs in need of an education. And really as long as people understand what they mean, and most folks understand all of those terms, no one really cares what you call it. But have to disagree with "deep". Never heard it used, never used it, but still, I know what it means, so who cares.

03-06-2017, 05:53 PM	#9
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by normhead I always say "Wide or narrow". But then i can also recite the definition off the top of my head. Originally posted by stevebrot Good question...I have read and used both. I have also seen "large" and "small" and "generous" and "scant" used too. I have never see "low" or "high" used despite DOF having numeric units. I have also never seen or heard "thick" used. Steve Wide Aperture - Narrow Aperture ; yeah, got that. Large Aperture, small number - Small Aperture, large number; Shallow DoF, Wide Aperture, Small Number;

03-06-2017, 05:55 PM - 4 Likes	#10
luftfluss Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,619	Perhaps paradoxically, I aspire to be thin, but never shallow.

03-06-2017, 05:56 PM - 1 Like	#11
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by monochrome Wide Aperture - Narrow Aperture ; yeah, got that. Large Aperture, small number - Small Aperture, large number; Shallow DoF, Wide Aperture, Small Number; Narrow Depth of Field or wide Depth of field, would be my use age, Aperture is more problematic.

03-06-2017, 05:59 PM - 1 Like	#12
photoptimist Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2016 Photos: Albums Posts: 5,126	Hmmmm.... "thin" would only make sense if it was "width of field".

03-06-2017, 06:09 PM	#13
mee Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 7,403	Originally posted by victormeldrew I've never seen 'thin' used, myself. Me either.. and like you.. either way I don't really care as long as we understand each other. Ah loo meh nuhm versus Aahl you mehn E uhm

03-06-2017, 06:20 PM - 1 Like	#14
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Now if someone said "big fat depth of field" I might find that objectionable.

03-06-2017, 06:27 PM	#15
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by photoptimist Hmmmm.... "thin" would only make sense if it was "width of field". Think Z-axis... Steve