[rawr]

Right, but the answer is not eschewing narrow DOF at all times

Of course. But it has become an over-used device, I think, hence the issue of cliche. Used judiciously, or for a creative or technical purpose, shallow DOF can look great. Shoot wide-open just for buckets of bokeh everywhere, then the effect gets boring, and every pic starts to look the same.

2000mm

Great shot. Doesn't look like a southern-hemisphere catbird, but I could be totally wrong. What is the lens or camera? That reach is awesome.

[wildman]

For me the DOF question is a non-issue.

DOF is intrinsic to any optical system.

The only question is do you understand it, and your gear, and your own photographic intentions well enough to get the results you want?

There is no right or wrong only choices.

[wildman]

Great shot. Doesn't look like a southern-hemisphere catbird, but I could be totally wrong. What is the lens or camera? That reach is awesome.

It's the Gray Catbird (Dumetella carolinenis). Winters in extreme SE USA and Summers all 0ver USA and Southern Canada.

It's not a "lens" its a 1000mm scope with, in this case, a 2x Barlow (a TC in photospeak). It's an old file from my ist DL days shot in jpg.

[Na Horuk]

lol I like how so many people are saying that I am wrong and then using arguments I already wrote in the OP.
But I am truly glad this thread sparked some discussion. Let me just reiterate that I never meant "ignore DoF when taking photos" or "don't buy fast lenses" or "thin DoF is always bad." Of course, the thread title had to be vague and provocative - to get people interested

[GibbyTheMole]

Na Horuk has some good points. I was a member of a photo club & the "teacher" was obsessed with shallow DOF. I wouldn't call it worthless, but sometimes too much importance is placed on it. You also have a good point about DOF in regards to portraits. I usually don't shoot portraits below f5.6. Too thin a DOF and parts of the face become out of focus, which isn't good.

[JimJohnson]

DOF is important to me. Sometimes it is to make it thin enough, but most of the time it is to find the largest aperture I can use that includes all my primary elements in reasonable focus. One of my favorite features on my old Super Program was the DOF preview lever on the right side of the lens (with the camera to my face). My finger naturally moved between shutter release and this lever. I have the green button on my K-r programmed to perform the same function, but it is no where near as convenient and natural.

[audiobomber]

Of course, the thread title had to be vague and provocative - to get people interested

"DOF is worthless!" is a definitive statement, not at all vague. It is a provocative title, but not in a good way, i.e. more like a troll job. I would point out that your title is provocative mostly because it is wrong. DOF is clearly not worthless. Whether the photographer selects to use deep or shallow, DOF is a hugely important facet of photography. There are many ways you could have phrased the title and provoked a discussion on DOF without the trollish title.

---

Last edited by audiobomber; 11-13-2012 at 09:34 AM.

[wildman]

"DOF is worthless!" is a definitive statement, not at all vague. It is a provocative title, but not in a good way, i.e. more like a troll job. I would also point out that your provocative title is provocative mostly because it is wrong. DOF is clearly not worthless. Whether the photographer selects to use deep or shallow DOF is a hugely important facet of photography. There are many ways you could have phrased the title and provoked a discussion on DOF without the trollish title.

Ditto

[normhead]

There are many ways you could have phrased the title and provoked a discussion on DOF without the trollish title.

Ya, but what fun would that be?

I have gotten into so many useless arguments by people who use spread sheets, that's right in a world of infinite picture possibilities, they choose to use spread sheets to prove all kinds of useless stuff about DoF. Honestly, sometimes you just want to slap them upside the head. So consider the title a slap upside the head. Not politically correct, but it might do what rational discussion hasn't. That not having maximum control over DoF is not the end of the world, and in many instances isn't worth anything, because in most shots, where you are actually trying to maximize depth of field or use an intermediate setting, the ability to create shallow depth of field is worthless. I'd guess more shots have been missed here by people trying for razor thin DoF when it wasn't appropriate than made by exellent use of DoF.

It's all about the control thing. Sometimes with DoF, there is an area in a picture that is out of focus, that I'd really like to have a look at. Then I just feel manipulated. The photographer has assumed that he knows better than me what is interesting in the frame and takes steps to make sure I adhere to his point of view. Sometimes it works, because we are in agreement on what's interesting in the picture. Sometimes I'm just annoyed, because he blurred out information in the frame that could have added interest to the photo. The conceit people seem to have when presenting pictures is that the narrow DoF they present adds value to the picture. In many cases doubling the DoF would make the picture more interesting. There seems to be a strange cult of DoF worshippers, who have gotten locked in to this aspect of photography that really need to learn to come to grips with using it appropriately. SO ya, saying "DoF is worthless" is going a bit far, but there are a lot of people who really need to find out what the real message is. Which is that DoF is one of the tools used to create subject isolation... but there are lots of them, and your photogrpahy will suffer if you make it the main one. Most scenes present at least 6 or 7 different possibilities. DoF is not the most preferable. It's the technical fall back used to create an interesting shot, when nothing else is available. At least that's the way I see it.

IN traditional art you have many guidelines.

The five basic elements of visual communication - Lines, Shapes, Contrast, Colour and texture
Six principles of organization - Rhythm, Variety of Size and Shape, Emphasis, Balance , Unity/fragmentation, and Placement in Space
And the five favourite rules of pictorialist composition. One center of interest - Lines of direction , rule of thirds, Placement and S curves.

How many of those could you even incorporate into a Shallow Depth of field photo? Most of them depend on wide depth of field. DoF seems to have become the lazy photographer's way of avoiding learning composition. So yes, once you've failed achieving a great image with the more traditional methods, maybe give narrow DoF a try. But let's not even pretend it's something that can rescue an otherwise poorly composed photograph. Or should be the first thing you consider. Not worthless, but way down the list.

[tuco]

...
I only brought up f/64 to highlight that some of the greatest photographers in the world wanted more, not less, depth of field as is the fad today.

When your normal lens is around 360mm (8x10 view camera), yeah, DOF is more of a concern and hard to get when you can't tilt the front standard due to type of shot. And, not to offend, but landscape photography, IMHO, is one of the least creative categories of photography. Landscapes are well defined and have been for a long time. So some of those famous photographers were probably not too interested in selective focus as a creative form of expression. Yes, I know I climbed out on a very long and thin limb.

[Rondec]

I am convinced that one of the main reasons that people fall in love with narrow depth of field is that it is one obvious area that separates point and shoot cameras from their own (more expensive) SLR. But just because your camera can do something, doesn't mean that you should do it all of the time.

[normhead]

And, not to offend, but landscape photography, IMHO, is one of the least creative categories of photography.

And setting your camera to achieve narrow DoF is somehow more creative? Pullease....

[tuco]

And setting your camera to achieve narrow DoF is somehow more creative? Pullease....

Yes in the same sense of getting infinite DOF somehow makes you Ansel Adams.

[reeftool]

DoF is a characteristic of every lens. You have to understand it to take good photos. You can never say it's not important. Of course you buy a fast lens because it's better in low light. That's why they were made but if you don't understand how f/1.4 and DoF interact, you're going to be freaking out when that late day landscape shot wide open looks "soft". It's also a common practice to use narrow DoF to blur the background. If you know a lens well, you can use any characteristic, even flare, in your shots. Every aperture a lens offers has it's place, depending on the photo. A fast lens is always worth owning because it's offers more possibilities, from low light shooting to narrow DoF, depending on how you choose to use it. Fast lenses are generally better made too and are excellent stopped down.

[Na Horuk]

Just because YOU may not like or approve of a certain aspect of photography does not make it worthless.

Just because YOU do not approve of a certain opinion does not make it worthless, thank you. I also wrote a long explanation of my opinion and listed exactly in what way DoF is worthless.

There is no right or wrong only choices.

Right. So logically, all photos ever made are just different choices, but exactly equally good and bad? Clearly there are standards that we, as cultures, use to judge and value photos - their form and content. I merely said that a specific thing is being raised above other, more important elements, that photographers are often trying to achieve thin DoF, when a wider one would make a much better photo.

I would point out that your title is provocative mostly because it is wrong. DOF is clearly not worthless.

You are right, next time instead of writing an essay that explains what I mean into the thread body, I will simply put it into the title. Seems a lot of people only respond to the title anyway, then they tell me about things I already admitted and agreed with as if it is news to me.

I wrote my thoughts about a photographic technique in a photographic technique forum. I got many great responses, some agreeing some not. But some of the responses are getting out of line. Calling me a troll is offensive and I will have none of it. I did not attack any person, nor did I have anyone specific in mind when writing.