[Na Horuk]

It's just another variable that a photographer has control over. Shallow is better than deep in the same way that a fast shutter speed is better than a short shutter speed.

I agree with this. And this is exactly why I think that "making DoF as shallow as possible for its own sake" is wrong. You are right that subject isolation can be achieved by thinning DoF, but its not the only tool and often it invalidates the rest of the photo. A portrait with a good background, to me, is much more interesting than one with just blur. And some even go so far that the nose of the person is blurry

I really don't care about your words mate.. lets see a few pictures that prove your point. ;-) I suspect that there aren't any.

Again, they are in the first post. I respect you as a person and as a photographer, but please stop responding if you won't even look at my first post. This is very irritating.

---

Last edited by Na Horuk; 11-19-2012 at 07:01 AM.

[D4rknezz]

Ok guys.

I have gotten myself a FF - and let me tell you - that - it is heavy.

On the brighter side, here is an article that sufficiently explains my position on dof, and rather than plagiarizing it word per word, i will just copy and paste the link here :

The Online Photographer: In Defense of Depth

[XMACHINA]

Again, they are in the first post. I respect you as a person and as a photographer, but please stop responding if you won't even look at my first post. This is very irritating.

Well, you'll be relieved to know that I am responding only after having read your original post, and after having seen the pictures linked within. Let me add that I also looked through your entire 500pix gallery; that action being consistent with my policy of discovering the ability of a photographer who publicly criticizes the way other people choose to shoot.

The photos to which you've linked in the original post are supposed to be examples of photos which would be "better" were the DOF less shallow. As they are your photos you would be the ultimate arbiter as to how they could be improved. However, in the post you wrote, the one which I read, you direct your reader to "notice also that the photo would be better if the DoF were wider, if more stuff would be in focus." So it's obvious that you believe that there is an objectively definable method of aesthetically improving the photo; because YOU think it would be "better," naturally every one else must as well. That's a good thing for a reader of your original post to know. It explains a lot.

But the photos that I, and perhaps others, are looking to see are the ones that would be, in your estimation, ruined by more shallow DOF. Neither you, or the people who've supported you, have supplied any such. And when people writes how they hate this fad of portraits taken with shallow DOF, I expect to be able to look at their photos and see loads of examples of [non-studio] portraits taken in the preferred fashion. If someone writes how much better it is to take portraits against interesting, rather than blurred backgrounds, I expect that if I were to look it that person's photos, that I'll see examples of that.

But, as has often been the case here on Pentaxforums.com there's lots of disdain for the technique used in types of photography that the criticizer doesn't do. It's like that time when a forum member expressed his bemusement over the desire to have better high-ISO performance stating that if better image quality could be achieved at low-ISO if only one gets up at the crack-of-dawn and shoots using a tripod. "Better autofocus?! It's perfect right now! It's the poor workman who blames his tools! POOR WORKMAN!" Look at his pictures: macro and landscape. "You posted that without retouching?! Outrageous!" Look at his pictures: macro and landscape [maybe wildlife too].

In contrast, several members have posted photos in this thread that are meant to illustrate how shallow DOF was vital to those compositions.

I've got to give you and your supporters credit. You've got guts. I could never have so publicly called out other people on their shooting style because I would worry that someone would look at MY pictures, see examples of cluttered compositions, overexposures, shots taken in harsh uneven light, wide-angle shots with no discernible subject in the frame, portraits so soft that focus seems to have been missed altogether, portraits taken with the flat and unflattering light of an on-camera flash, portraits with subject(s) set against fairly-sharply-rendered background distractions. I'd be afraid that someone would see all of this and start a thread about the biggest cliche in photography being bad technique, and how he/she wished people would just stop doing it. I'd worry that someone would call ME out at suggest that there's a lot about my own photography that I should improve before I make keystrokes in a rant about how other people shoot.

But that's just me. I've only been shooting for a little over 5 years, so I'm hoping that with experience I'll get gutsy like you. For now, I'm going to continue to shoot portraits in the field using as wide an aperture as I can without losing sharpness on my subjects' eyes. And if I ever do have your guts, and decide to complain about how macro/landscape/wildlife shooters are doing their thing, I'll for damn sure have loads of examples to show of how to do it the "right" way.

-XM

[bossa]

I agree with this. And this is exactly why I think that "making DoF as shallow as possible for its own sake" is wrong. You are right that subject isolation can be achieved by thinning DoF, but its not the only tool and often it invalidates the rest of the photo. A portrait with a good background, to me, is much more interesting than one with just blur. And some even go so far that the nose of the person is blurry


Again, they are in the first post. I respect you as a person and as a photographer, but please stop responding if you won't even look at my first post. This is very irritating.

Apologies to you. I had forgotten that you had posted some picture links.

I like the option of shallow DOF because I like the way everything breaks up (with some lenses) and almost paints a metaphorical image of the way the world is assembled at a subatomic level.


I cannot stand shallow DOF for it's own sake but I do appreciate how it can isolate a subject (or at least separate by degrees) from a busy background where needed.

Shallow DOF would have destroyed the following pictures flat surface and thus would have failed as a composition


Visual Art is not necessarily about 'things' but ideas and finding ways to visually explore them. It's when people start repeating a formulaic approach to everything they do (mannerist) that it becomes worthless. And that can apply to ANY technique, not just thin DOF. The hardest part of becoming a Visual Artist is in defining your own set of parameters to function within. This is where style comes from and it relies as much on having the strength to ditch what 'looks good' in favour of what works visually (has purpose, balance etc) within your chosen set of parameters.

I find the most annoying aspect of many shallow DOF pictures is the lack of relationships the main subject has to any other real-world secondary and tertiary subjects. If all you are doing is obliterating the background for it's own sake then an entire realm of relational possibilities is wiped out (literally).

This shot would miss out of the ships in back if it were taken with a faster, longer lens and wide open:


The most interesting aspect of that image for me is the tension between the surfer and the ships.

---

Last edited by bossa; 11-19-2012 at 03:47 PM.

[normhead]

But that's just me. I've only been shooting for a little over 5 years, so I'm hoping that with experience I'll get gutsy like you. For now, I'm going to continue to shoot portraits in the field using as wide an aperture as I can without losing sharpness on my subjects' eyes. And if I ever do have your guts, and decide to complain about how macro/landscape/wildlife shooters are doing their thing, I'll for damn sure have loads of examples to show of how to do it the "right" way.

Those are some nice photos you posted there xmachina, there's nothing wrong with them. I don't think any of us can ever eliminate DoF as a function of our photos... I'd say, listen to the arguments against, and use them to try and build an understanding of how you might do things differently. You can't just get rid of narrow DoF as a tool. Every photographer uses it, but when you have full control of the situation, you can do better.

From the following link...

[JohnBee]

Very nice !

[Sagitta]

XMACHINA posted a bunch of very good examples of DoF being used properly. When its done right, you get a very decent '3D' effect.

If you can make your subject literally 'pop' from the frame, its entirely dependent upon a combination of a halfway decent lens, and, more importantly, knowing how wide to set your DoF for the shot. On a lot of lenses, as you start stopping down the background starts getting ugly and distracting - hence why a lot of times the shooter will go wide open for the shot.

One big reason I upgraded to a DSLR was for the fact I *could* actually use depth of field for the first time. Depth of Field could properly be cited as THE reason I upgraded.

I just poked through my Flickr, and revisited the first shots I posted once I had my K-x. About half incorporate DoF, the other half are landscapes. I'm not seeing where the portrait/somewhat shallow DoF shots would be improved much if at all for most of them with the background focused.

[normhead]

Very nice !

If you follow the link to the the page of the guy who took it, the guy has a rather unique and amazing photographic vision.

[JohnBee]

If you follow the link to the the page of the guy who took it, the guy has a rather unique and amazing photographic vision.

Yea, I saw that.
Found some very nice images with some excellent use of DOF(): http://www.billgekas.com/p1014938437/hC49D329#hc49d329

[bossa]

If you follow the link to the the page of the guy who took it, the guy has a rather unique and amazing photographic vision.

Very nice work but not unique. All of the portraits on his website look a lot like traditional painted portraits . There are even some scenes that reference Vermeer.. I'm not saying that it is not good so keep my comment in context please. You could look at Van Dyck, Vermeer, Rembrandt, Rubens, Velazquez.. etc etc and find similar compositions. Even the lighting is set up to reference Chiaroscuro.

PS: All of the shots where there is a sidelight window are pretty much Vermeer. And since Vermeer used a Camera Obscura to trace his images onto canvas I'd say his was the unique photographic vision in this case. This is why Vermeer used side lights and you see curtains and carpets in odd positions in the foregrounds of many of his paintings. He used that set up to trace the images in a secondary darkened room (or space) to avoid light.

[normhead]

Very nice work but not unique.

Of course not, I used him because he's a photographer working in a style where isolation is achieved by using techniques other than DoF. If he's like most photographers, he also isolates using DoF as well. But, from my training in studio, DoF was used for effect. One of my early black and whites is of a bottle of Chianti in focus and my freind's head and crooked arm out of focus behind it. My friend said " It makes me look like a drunk." But that was my point, the sharp wine bottle and blurred background was instantly recognizable as a comment on how you feel after drinking a bottle of Chianti. The Shallow DoF was part of the concept of the photograph. Planned and a necessary part of the composition. I see a lot of DoF where the shallow DoF isn't part of the concept of the photo, it's just the technical technique (possibly the only one available) that could be used to achieve subject isolation. Often when you have only one way to do something it isn't necessarily the most appropriate way. It's just the only way.

[Na Horuk]

This thread really picked up! The purple flower that Bossa posted actually might be an argument for a shallow DoF, but I think the photographer probably had to stop down to get the DoF to be as wide as it is. From my understanding, macro photography usually sees a shallow DoF as an obstacle. But I have to say that of all the photo genres, abstract is probably the one where maximizing a shallow DoF can be the most justified. But, for example, in Sagitta's Day 5 - Windy the shutter had to be bumped to compensate for the wind. So DoF took a secondary role to other concerns, which to me is how it should be. But Day 26 - Shoes doesn't really gain anything by making DoF shallow. At least I don't see it. Its the subject, colours, and composition that give the photo a sentimental mood, make the viewer think of their own children or childhood. But if the same photo had a narrower aperture, it would keep the mood, but remove some chrom abs and the blur wouldn't be as distracting (at least, that is how I find it). This is what I mean - maximizing shallowness of DoF does not magically improve photos. But this is still a good photo. It could have been ruined if the lens were faster and the DoF even shallower.

So it's obvious that you believe that there is an objectively definable method of aesthetically improving the photo; because YOU think it would be "better," naturally every one else must as well.

Thanks for viewing my photos and critiquing my personality. While I argued against the abstract fetishization of a thin DoF, you actually researched my photos and attacked my personal shooting preferences.

[Venturi]

Very nice work but not unique. All of the portraits on his website look a lot like traditional painted portraits . There are even some scenes that reference Vermeer.. I'm not saying that it is not good so keep my comment in context please. You could look at Van Dyck, Vermeer, Rembrandt, Rubens, Velazquez.. etc etc and find similar compositions. Even the lighting is set up to reference Chiaroscuro.

That has kind of been Bill Gekas' schtick for some time now. He has been using his daughter as his primary model, reproducing classic paintings via photography (using Pentax DSLRs, btw). His understanding and use of light is really impressive.
He has a fairly large portfolio in the PPG, too.

[bossa]

Of course not, I used him because he's a photographer working in a style where isolation is achieved by using techniques other than DoF. If he's like most photographers, he also isolates using DoF as well. But, from my training in studio, DoF was used for effect. One of my early black and whites is of a bottle of Chianti in focus and my freind's head and crooked arm out of focus behind it. My friend said " It makes me look like a drunk." But that was my point, the sharp wine bottle and blurred background was instantly recognizable as a comment on how you feel after drinking a bottle of Chianti. The Shallow DoF was part of the concept of the photograph. Planned and a necessary part of the composition. I see a lot of DoF where the shallow DoF isn't part of the concept of the photo, it's just the technical technique (possibly the only one available) that could be used to achieve subject isolation. Often when you have only one way to do something it isn't necessarily the most appropriate way. It's just the only way.

I responded to the following statement by you:
" ..the guy has a rather unique and amazing photographic vision."

So saying "of course not" in response to my comment doesn't seem to follow too well from your previous statement. Forgive me if am a little confused here..

[XMACHINA]

"There are many reasons to get fast lenses, but DoF should NOT be among them."

Declarative statement concerning what should motivate other people's choices.

"FF has its pros and cons, as does APS-C. DoF is the least important thing."

Declarative statement as to what other people's priorities should be.

"Portraits are more than just the eyes! It is not romantic, it is not sexy, it is not "deep" to take photos with overly-sharp and saturated eyes, with everything else being blurred out."

Declarative statement as to what other people's aesthetic sensibilities should be.

What would you say about the personality of someone who, without any apparent reservation, makes authoritative statements to people in a highly-trafficked public forum about what should motivate them, what should be important to them, what they should like? Whatever you would say about such a person, after having read these and many more similarly imperious statements, I offered no comment whatsoever about the personality of their author. None. Whatsoever. I defy you to show otherwise.

When you wrote, "And notice also that the photo would be better if the DoF were wider, if more stuff would be in focus," you made a declarative, completely unqualified statement about what would be, as if this was an objective truth. "Notice that I'm holding a playing card." "Notice on your left is a stained-glass window." "Notice that sailboat in the harbor." One directs others to "notice" what one knows will be observed by whomever will look. So tell me, how is it a "critique of [your] personality" for me to write: "So it's obvious that you believe that there is an objectively definable method of aesthetically improving the photo; because YOU think it would be 'better,' naturally every one else must as well." You didn't write the equivalent of "Look there, is that a sailboat?" You didn't write: "I think this would be better..." You directed that your reader "notice" that which, ostensibly, could be objectively perceived.

I "researched" your photos?! I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean, but it sounds way more involved than what I actually did, which was merely to click on the link in your signature and browse your 500pix gallery. Admittedly, there were moments while I was reading through this thread that I wondered whether you remembered that you had provided that link; your accusation as to my "research" only serves to support the notion that you didn't. Even if it were true that I "researched your photos," exactly why would that be inappropriate to know the qualifications of a self-appointed instructor and arbiter of aesthetics? I'm going to assume that real live people who shoot in the way you're deriding are reading this thread, and if their photographic technique is fair game for criticism, what makes you more worthy of respect than them?

"While I argued against the abstract fetishization of a thin DoF, you actually researched my photos and attacked my personal shooting preferences."

I "attacked [your] personal shooting preferences"?! Show me where I even mentioned your "personal shooting preferences" let alone "attacked" them. There is a part of my post where I list many examples of what is commonly considered bad photographic technique. I did so in the course of suggesting that these would make one vulnerable to the type of criticism you're directing at others. Are you telling me that you believe that my citation of issues such as "overexposure," "cluttered composition," "portraits with subject(s) set against fairly-sharply-rendered background distractions" are meant as specific references to your photos? That would be an interesting confession for you to make, and if that's the case then it's you who examined the shoe and decided it fit you. I'm certainly not the one who made any such assignation.

You logged in to a website, started a thread in a section dedicated to "photographic technique," and prosecuted a case against a style of photography that is popular enough to have motivated what you yourself call a "rant." So am I to believe that you didn't think that your lecture would reach the monitors of any of the real live people guilty of this allegedly offensive use of DOF? Or did you decide that you would lecture people on how misguided, and aesthetically unpleasing it is to [mis]use shallow DOF, knowing full well that it would be taken personally by anyone to whom it applied?

So when you write a whole lecture about bad photographic technique, it's to be regarded as purely academic. You demonstrate not the slightest concern that it might offend someone. But when other concepts of bad photographic technique are merely invoked into the discussion, and these concepts are ones that you find can be applied to you, then you complain that you're being "attacked." Shall I identify that bitter taste for you? That's the flavor of your own medicine.

Notice *ahem* what I've done here. I've just steered you into declaring the offensiveness of your own thread.

Mission complete.

-XM