[Sagitta]

Another factor is that using vintage photographers and the lack of use by them of depth of field is slightly disingenuous. The early 20th century was dominated by either medium format cameras used to take in huge landscapes, or smaller cameras with lenses that would be considered very slow by modern standards. Where a modern lens has to be stopped down to at least 5.6 to 8 to start hitting the sweet spots for them, older lenses tended to have minimum apertures of at least 3.5 - 8.0, and would need to be stopped down even further (if stopping down was even possible) to get crisp results.

When shooting digital when you muff a wide aperture shot you can go whups and delete it on-camera. You didn't have that luxury with a Rollei or a press camera or whatever you would be using back then. Photography was far, far less forgiving to error, and playing with narrow depths of field is one of the most error-prone things you can do.

Another factor is the fact that prior to 1900, the fastest you would ever get would be f/8. Faster glass didn't exist. You didn't see lenses start creeping down towards f/2.8 or so until the 1930's, and these were expensive and rare and - as with all lenses - would need stopping down to get the best results from them. Again, no narrow DoF involved purely due to technological limitations.

Joe Hobbyist was probably running around with a Brownie or something at this point which was the early 20th century version of a 110 camera anyhow. Cheap, fixed aperture things designed to be sharp so they would sell.

It wasn't until the middle of the 20th century that TLRs and SLRs started to really come into their own and lenses would start getting fast enough that crazy-narrow depths of field would even start to become something you would even have to start thinking about in your composition process. Even then, the average hobbyist would be prone to avoid shooting that way because of the odds of blowing a shot.

You could argue that those f/1.2 - f/2.8 kinds of shots didn't become common until the last decade or two simply because technology now allows people to safely shoot at those settings and not have to worry about losing half a roll of film because they screwed up.

For fun, look at some vintage studio photos at some point - ones done in the 1800's into the 1900's. Take a good look at the backdrops. A sizable number would be softly painted landscapes. They aren't soft due to the background being blurred - they're painted that way on purpose. They were faking a narrow DoF because in-studio shots would be too sharp. A crisp backdrop would then be distracting to the subjects, so were made fuzzy on purpose.

EDIT: FWIW, I wasn't insulted or anything by the title. I disagree with your statement in it, but there wasn't any insult taken.

[johnyates]

Every picture tells a story. The photographer makes decisions about how best to tell that story. She makes decisions on angle--high, or low. She makes decions on lighting--above, to the side, backlit etc. And also a decision on depth of field. Does narrow or broad tell the story better. The impact of the picture depends on the cumulative quality of all those decisions. Narrow DofF is good if it makes the storytelling stronger, and not so good if it doesn't. It's nice for us as photographers to have the choice. And to discuss for 4 pages of comments ;-)

[tuco]

...
Another factor is the fact that prior to 1900, the fastest you would ever get would be f/8. Faster glass didn't exist.

Bear in mind f5.6 on a 4x5 is approx equal to f1.8 on a 35mm camera in terms of DOF for equivalent focal lengths. So having faster glass was not very practical in large format. I'd have to work it out for an 8x10 but you can see f8 on that size camera is pretty "fast".

[Sagitta]

Bear in mind f5.6 on a 4x5 is approx equal to f1.8 on a 35mm camera in terms of DOF. So having faster glass was not very practical in large format. I'd have to work it out for an 8x10 but you can see f8 on that size camera is pretty "fast".

True, I hadn't considered the sheer size of the rigs back then. Then again, once cameras went down to 'portable' size, it still took quite a while for lenses to catch up. The point still stands that back in 'the day' you'd rarely if ever come across a shot with what we'd call a lot of bokeh today.

Simply due to the way the typical process went such shots were generally simply not done. The earliest examples I can think of without actually digging on the internet would be when movies started to really kick off and you'd start having film noir and the like, because movie cameras would allow shots to zoom in and out and the cameraman would have to compensate for the focus as a result.

---

Last edited by Sagitta; 11-13-2012 at 11:19 AM.

[audiobomber]

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.

I did not call you a troll, in fact I do not think you are a troll. I said your title was trollish because the wording was inflammatory.

[rbefly]

Just because YOU do not approve of a certain opinion does not make it worthless, thank you

And I never said that your opinion was worthless, thank you very much. Just that I felt it was wrong. For someone who says they wanted to prokoke serious discussion, you don't seem willing to accept it when that happens. I guess it's only serious when they agree?
And Audiobomber is correct. Your title isn't vague in the least. It's definite. And trollish.
Ron

[Clavius]

The OP fully complies with the forum rules. On top of that, he has a valid point too. So I don't understand the fuss. Guess some people just feel they are the topic of discussion maybe.

[Jonathan Mac]

Lots of people go overboard with DoF, just as they do with HDR or PP. It's a common result of people moving from digital compacts with massive DoF to SLRs with a much narrower DoF and generally higher capabilities. It's a new effect and will have it's trial period for everyone. However, if you don't grow out of it and learn when it's good use and when it's gratuitous, then your photography will be boring. On the other hand, outright dismissal of a shallow DoF will also limit your photography. It's another tool in the box.

[ihasa]

You want what you haven't got. Becuase early large format camera had tiny DOF, photographers craved deep focus. With P&S cameras and to an extent APSC DSLRs with kit lenses, it's the other way round - achieving narrow DOF is hard(er). So people seek faster lenses and perhaps even larger sensors. Faster lenses are expensive, and this bumps their photography spending into the region where buying a FF DSLR seems more justifiable.

[MBT74]

While not the main reason why I bought fast primes (the main reason being the need for more light in small concert venues), the added advantage is that shooting at f1.6 allows me to negate a very busy background in a way that even an f2.8 lens won't do properly from the same shooting distance. For example

[p38arover]

Why do people now say "thinner" DOF? When I started in photography it was called shallow DOF. Has terminology changed?

[HSV]

For me, I wouldn't buy a camera and lens for shallower DOF...but having the capability of getting shallower or deeper DOF (at will) allows more creative possibilities.

In that regards, I'm pretty happy with my APS-C, it allows me to do everything I need it to do...one time a guy told me "try doing macro with medium format, without cropping".

[JimJohnson]

A couple decades ago, the biggest difference between my brother-in-law's K-1000 and my Super Program was my DOF preview lever. He used a M-50mm f/1.2 and I used an A-50mm f/1.7. Assuming we used the same speed film and same shutter and aperture, we would both focus on a subject, but any number of my shots looked better. The 'trick' if you can call it that, was that I stopped down my lens and front or back focused to pickup detail in front of or behind the primary subject while still keeping our primary subject in acceptable focus. The DOF preview lever made that action downright simple.

[Parallax]

A couple decades ago, the biggest difference between my brother-in-law's K-1000 and my Super Program was my DOF preview lever. He used a M-50mm f/1.2 and I used an A-50mm f/1.7. Assuming we used the same speed film and same shutter and aperture, we would both focus on a subject, but any number of my shots looked better. The 'trick' if you can call it that, was that I stopped down my lens and front or back focused to pickup detail in front of or behind the primary subject while still keeping our primary subject in acceptable focus. The DOF preview lever made that action downright simple.

This is a perfect example of how skill can compensate for equipment shortcomings. I wander how many people who have jumped ship for FF have found out that the reverse is not necessarily true.

[newmikey]

DOF (or rather the lack of it) can certainly be handy sometimes but covers a small part of what I do and yes, it can be had with APS-C cameras. I wouldn't make that an argument to switch to FF, but that is entirely personal - I love the size/price/nice factor of my K-5!