No Depth Of Field Is Now Fashionable

[Jerry Robillard]

I have begun to notice that many photographers are now concentrating on getting a wide-open iris. I must be getting old because the photographers of old loved f32. They want DoF from inches to infinity. One of Ansel Adams better photographs taken in the Owens Valley of California, shows stones within inches of the lens with Mount Whitney in the background. Wonderful photograph!

What am I missing. I like photographs that focus on a woman's eye, but I still want to see the rest of her face - particularly her other eye, or just the bud but not the leaf. So, is it just me or have any of you also noticed this? Is this a new form of art?

 

[Chris Dodkin]

I think it's a case of people having the ability/tools to do it, so they do

Plus it's 'fashionable' at the moment - trends come and go

I'm busy adding to the shallow DOF content - love it!

 

[Jerry Robillard]

I don't like it, Chris. Bad lenses also give fuzzy pictures. Why do you like it? Is it that you can isolate the the object of your intent?

I am glad that Joe Rosenthal didn't concentrate on just the first Marine. I would hate bokeh in the flag.

 

[Chris Dodkin]

I like using it to evoke an emotional response in portraits Jerry - romantic is an over used description, but it fits the bill

When I'm shooting landscapes, I'm at f/8 typically or more if I need greater DOF

I can see its not for everyone, but I try to keep it appropriate

Having said that, I just shot a beach shot at f/2.8, to get the subject sharp, and the suffer nice and dreamy soft!

 

[Jerry Robillard]

I like the shot of the girl. Both eyes, the mouth and the nose are in focus. Her hand add nothing to the composition, and had it been in sharp focus, it could have been distracting. This is not an abuse of the DoF. The second shot is also very good. If the surfer had been fuzzy, I would not have been able to guess want you intended. I find both of these pictures very well done. It clearly demonstrates that you understand photography and composition.

I saw one sometime today while I was browsing that was a keypad with just one row of keys in focus. I have no idea what this is intended to convey.

 

[Tom Dunne]

Your comments are very interesting Jerry. I'm curious to know what you would consider to be an abuse of depth of field.

 

[Jerry Robillard]

The masters of painting had the skill to paint their subjects with clarity. The background and superfluous objects were placed so as to be of little notice. That was done with muted color or darkened paint. Those visual skills apply to the photographer. If a photographer can portray a subject that has a visual sensation or emotional response, he/she is an artist. A rose that is portrayed as simply as a pedal, is not a rose. It is a pedal.

The abuse comes when the photographer is so caught up in the technology that he or she is no longer involved in an art form, but instead presents the phenomenon of optical principles. The photograph should tell a story, and like good literature, the story is what it is all about. I see very little of that artistic abuse on this forum. Everything I see here represents good photography.

I didn't intend to be so lengthy, but I find it hard to describe the esthetics of photography. My question was what is the purpose of an extremely short depth of field?

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Great forum questions, Jerry! It has got me thinking. Not sure what my response is yet!

 

[Julian de'Courcy]

Jerry we all have different ideas, se

I didn't intend to be so lengthy, but I find it hard to describe the esthetics of photography. My question was what is the purpose of an extremely short depth of field?

Jerry to answer that question alone is quite simple, to isolate as you are aware. Now there can be very many reasons to do that, planed or otherwise. I took some portraits yesterday, I find myself in a situation where the shutter speed is 1/60 f2.8 as open as the lens will go. The character I wished to shoot will not pose or stay still and the better for that. So on a practical level the end result is to isolate. I'd have liked some images with more depth but it was not going to happen without a lot of extra lighting which would have stolen the ambience of the living environment the person occupied.

 

[Tom Dunne]

The purpose of shallow depth of field? Perhaps Jerry you answered on behalf of many photographers when you said "The background and superfluous objects were placed so as to be of little notice" Perhaps that's what we do but with different tools.
I think we can loose sight of what is really important here. And its not technical ability or what lens or camera is used. The question is Does It Work.?

But who decides? No one should in my opinion unless it's their own image. We can only just look and enjoy or not enjoy and talk about it.

 

[Ivar Dahl-Larsen]

It is obviously a matter of taste and not of understanding. There are times, as actually Jerry pointed out in Chris's picture of the lady, where defusing the background is important where in some cases the background may be of desturbance to the eye. It's all about what one wants to show that is important. And all the ones here do know the abillity of apertures.

 

[Kev Pugh]

Great topic, And again one that highlights how subjective an artform photography is, one persons taste opposite anothers, I think, like Tom states does it work? And that often comes from whether the result was intended or achieved partly by accident. Composition and structure, I feel again to be very subject, we all know what works in terms of the rules, but if we constrain ourselves to those rules how do we know what else works. A carpenter doesn't use just one chisel to fashion and carve his work he has many different ones at his/her disposal we too have different tools at ours aperture is just one. Like chris also there is a time and place for its use.
With the keypad example maybe just the keys in focus were the subject of the image if you were running an advert or training operators in the use of the keypad then it might be appropriate to have everything else in the background....
for me, I like the soft feel shallow DoF offers, it takes some of the harshness and hardness away and I think it can be used to allow the viewers mind to wander and let there imagination be exercised.....

just my personal views

 

[Dan Cattermole]

Interesting thread, and good discussion Jerry.

In my opinion I suppose it can depend on circumstances, preferences, and the intentions of what the photographer visualises, however, in other cases it can be what clients are in favour of. It's quite irrating when people descibe it as a 'blurry background effect' which indicates their lack understanding in photography (and that's not to have a dig at them), but never the less, if that is what is being asked for then that is on the agenda for delivery.
I think I recall a conversation with @Hamish Gill a while back saying the client he'd done some photog for wasn't happy about the 'blurred' background (I'm sure he can elaborate on that more), but it can work both ways as a matter of taste and what is possible given the enviroment.
But you you are right Jerry, it is fashionalble and very much requested, however, not just fashionable today.
Nikon first produced a manual-focus 50mm f/1.8 lens in 1978 I beleive it was, and I'm sure there are other lenses dating much further back than that which had the ability to acheive a shallow depth of field. I couldn't say it is a fashion of 'today' as the commodity has been available for over 30, if not more years in which I'm sure someone will correct me.
But photography required a better understanding before the ages of digital was introduced. I have a few manuals for most of my film cameras dedicating a page or two explaing depth of field. I don't see that in modern manuals today. People knew what they where doing behind an shooter which required a bit of brain power on the principal of no grant in forgiveness.

I do believe the current circumstance does play a huge role in the end result. Darkened environemts require the necessity for wide open shooting resulting in shallow DOF, maybe a bump on ISO to help out too to acheive lets say, a sharp motionless portrait of a person hand held, it's all relevant. With a 35mm film camera you're almost much to the ASA/ISO film thats in it throughout the roll.
I swing both ways (in terms of depth of field). I'll even do night photography with apertures higher that f/11 mounted on a tripod acheiving what it is I envisage. But I have an undersatnding in what I do in my own panache. I have a fanstastic Zuiko 50mm f/1.4 and don't necessarily use it wide open, only in the right circumtances to meet my creativity that I propose.

This is a very good thread.
Very interested to hear other peoples thoughts

 

[Rob MacKillop]

I have some sympathy with Jerry, in that some people are clumsy with dof (I certainly can be) while some use it well. I find it interesting, Jerry, that you discuss the work of painters in this regard. As we know, the early period of photography was heavily influenced by painting, and sought to validate itself by copying the skills of old masters. And there is a painterly influence in photography, with some photographers deliberately referencing it. But we are in a new age of photography, mainly digital, and that means many of the old ways have been overturned. I've noticed on television that many new programs have one camera set to a very narrow dof - forum members in the UK should check out Mary Berry Cooks on the BBC - and it can be very distracting, to me at least. But the digital world is making up its own rules. As ever, it comes down to the photographer and the message, and there are some who are good at that, some who need to work at it.

One last thing. I play music. I learned early on that you can only please SOME of the people, SOME of the time...

 

[Hamish Gill]

my client had issue because the images produced were not all in focus, but my use of narrow dof on that occasion was down to low light over artistic requirement.

 

[Jerry Robillard]

I think that you make a strong point, Rob. I have been influenced by painting.

There are trends and fads in photography. A few years ago it seems all photos were tilted at weird angles, but I submit that Ansel Adams mountains, Henri Cartier-Bresson people, and Edward Weston peppers were all in focus. Perhaps that is considered "old-fashioned" art. If that is the case, then I am wrong to bring it up. I certainly did not intend to create an argument. It may simply be a matter of taste. But, not mine. I asked the members, is this a new form of art.

 

[Dan Cattermole]

@Jerry Robillard, you certainly have not created an argument, and should not feel guilt for bringing matters up for discussion. This is a place like no other that can discuss opinions in a mature manner. That's what makes this forum unique!
I think it's an interesting subject to express ones opinion freely......
Don't feel that you are wrong to discuss

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Jerry, I don't think people are arguing at all, and I think most of us believe this a great topic for discussion. Thanks for bringing it up. We have a very supportive group here, and all opinions are valid.

To be honest I like everything in focus - those Weston peppers are wonderful. I dof my hat to him, but not my camera

And we all know that Chris [ @Chris Dodkin ] is a fantastic and inspiring photographer, so I know he won't mind if I use his beautiful portrait of the girl in the pink dress to make a point - even one which he might disagree with. I think Chris is strong enough to take what I'm about to say

When I look at that image, my first thoughts are, "God, she's gorgeous..." And I'll look at her beautiful face. Chris has done his job. Then I look down at the rest of the image, but very quickly I'm brought back up to her eyes, and I think, "Yes, she's gorgeous". Then I look away again, but within a second I'm back on those eyes, and again, and again. It's like I can't escape from her face, beautiful though it is, but I want to look at other parts of the image...and it seems impossible to get away from those damned eyes. LOL! Sorry, Chris!

Looking more generally, I think it might have some connection also with advertising. The company paying the photographer wants us to literally focus in on one thing, knowing that we are maybe just going to give the ad a glance. Something has to grab us straight away, pull us in. So a genre of photography has developed to guide us immediately to one aspect of an image, and it has grown away from the ads into general portraiture or still life. It can look really cool, and I would still say Chris's portrait is very beautiful indeed, nothing wrong with it AT ALL.

So I'm glad you've raised the question of the validity of the growing practice of extremely shallow dof. I like it, have used it, and yet...

 

[Tom Dunne]

I would never have considered that you have caused an argument Jerry; on the contrary, you have provided a good opportunity to talk about what we all enjoy doing.
I am tired of forums and file sharing sites where the only language used is "cool image' or "nice" and your image will be added to their favourites, without comment or even a hello, just to entice you to visit their pages and vote for their images.
I am not a great fan of Ansel Adams landscapes but I could not imagine them without sharp focus throughout. But I am a big fan of Bill Jacobson who produces beautiful images that are totally out of focus throughout. It's all a matter of taste to use the old cliche.
Personally I found Chris's to be a welcome and original take on portraiture and the full face being in focus is enough for me. While the rest of her body is not sharp, I can still see enough to understand and appreciate what is not clearly revealed. And the hand for me is important to be seen because of the pose she has adapted. Without it, I am visualising that I would be wondering where are her hands as she might look a bit limbless.
It's god that you are around here Jerry.

 

[Davie Hudson]

i have a habit of shooting with the highest f-stop i can get and often sharpen more because i want EVERYTHING to be ultra sharp ... it's what landscapes are about for me