Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,503   Posts: 1,543,419   Online: 838
      
Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 73
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    620
    Quote Originally Posted by benjiboy View Post
    I notice that many people who have paid a small fortune for ultra fast lenses insist on using them wide open even in most unsuitable circumstances to ensure they.get their money's worth, I get sick of portraits shot with 85mm f1.2 lenses where only the sitters nose and eyes are in acceptable focus.
    I think this sums it up pretty well.

    I think it's more about gear than it is a style. I expect it'll go away like any other fashion.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Finland
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    142
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Croubie View Post


    "Today when every other amateur photographer is probably using the same camera (or better) than you are, one way to stand out and win more jobs is to master a lens like this and give your images something that weekend amateurs can't copy. "

    "Will this lens make you a pro? Of course not, but if you are a pro, it will help set your work apart from the weekenders who offer to do your job for free... Digital makes it far tougher to stay ahead of the pack who probably already use the same camera you do. It's not like 1970 when you, as a pro, had the Hasselblad no hobbyist did. This lens is one way today to regain your edge. "

    (except that I don't think many Pros really read KR reviews, so it's just really telling cashed-up amateurs to get this to stay ahead of other amateurs)
    Cameras don´t make photos, neither do lenses. Photographers are making photos. And the trend of lower and lower f-numbers and extremely thin depth of field, if not used as a creative tool for a specific purpose, is like the war of the megapixels in the digital world. Just a way to sell more and to show off "who´s best" by how thin is the plain of focus.

  3. #13
    hoffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,897
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    57
    Pffft, some people like the look, some don't. Who am I to judge

    Seriously, this place is becoming more judgmental then, whoops, I mean than most religions...
    Last edited by hoffy; 11-25-2013 at 04:33 AM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: Fixed it Kevin

  4. #14
    Prest_400's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Spain
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    543
    A bit OT but related. It just cracks me up how some people say "This format has more DoF control", when it's just because of the format size it has got more or less DoF.
    "Hey man, 4x5" is soo much better than 35mm because it has a huge DoF control"
    "Use a ND so youcan shoot a f1.2 on full sunlight, that is DoF control!"

    Quote Originally Posted by summicron1 View Post
    i think it's a reaction (over?) to the point and shoot digital camera trend -- folks are so used to seeing everything, near and far, in sharp focus because p and s digital cameras are pinhole cameras, pretty much...or at least have the same DOF of a Minox camera.

    So when they see actual depth of field effects -- selective focus! -- they think it is something nifty and cool and want to do it more.

    So they do. I've even seen NY Times camera reviews refer to selective focus as a "professional" effect, as if it weren't something that everyone was able to do at one time.

    I like using it to shoot portraits with my Rollei and a Rolleinar #1 -- makes a nice effect.
    Indeed. There was an article published in Mike Johnston's TOP about this topic. A general consensus is that now, as the snapper uses small formats, it's very difficult to have little DoF. There was even a mention of times by when it was the opposite: Pros wanted as much DoF as they could.

    Even though selective focus is a nice tool to use. I did fall into the "bokeh craze" a few years ago.
    Nowadays I prefer Depth. Try to do the best on low light conditions at <f4 and with little DoF choose and compose well.
    f1.2 lenses are very useful for shooting cats under moonlight, but I haven't got the $ yet.

  5. #15
    Kevin Caulfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,101
    Blog Entries
    5
    Images
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by hoffy View Post
    Pffft, some people like the look, some don't. Who am I to judge

    Seriously, this place is becoming more judgmental then most religions...
    "than" not "then". Sorry, Ashley, I couldn't resist.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    436
    Quote Originally Posted by hoffy View Post
    Pffft, some people like the look, some don't. Who am I to judge

    Seriously, this place is becoming more judgmental then most religions...
    I couldn't agree more. Maybe it's people shooting 35mm who are having this issue? It's hard enough to get large DOF with medium format camera and standard lens, I will not even mention LF.

  7. #17
    hoffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,897
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Caulfield View Post
    "than" not "then". Sorry, Ashley, I couldn't resist.
    I know, I know. Its hard when Jibberish is my first language I should really polish up my English

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    620
    Quote Originally Posted by hoffy View Post
    Pffft, some people like the look, some don't. Who am I to judge

    Seriously, this place is becoming more judgmental then most religions...
    If we're not here to exchange points of view, what are we here for?

    Shallow DOF can look nice, and often does look nice, but the OP asked if we saw a 'trend' in this, and I certainly do. The problem with trends is that it's based on what other people do, not what an individual wants to do. I have no problem with shallow DOF, but I do find fashions slightly grating in a field which is supposed to be creative, rather than reactive.

  9. #19
    hoffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,897
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by thegman View Post
    If we're not here to exchange points of view, what are we here for?

    Shallow DOF can look nice, and often does look nice, but the OP asked if we saw a 'trend' in this, and I certainly do. The problem with trends is that it's based on what other people do, not what an individual wants to do. I have no problem with shallow DOF, but I do find fashions slightly grating in a field which is supposed to be creative, rather than reactive.
    No problem with debate. It just so happens that this place becomes quickly into "them folks shooten those damn fangled 'lectronic cameras...."

    Remember, once apon a time, not a single portrait of a woman could be taken without a strong back light and Vaseline smeared all over the lens. I suppose its a trend as you have rightly suggested, and like Shallow Depth of field, its just a technique. (And yes, I actually quite like shallow depth of field).

  10. #20
    jjphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    137
    Quote Originally Posted by Chan Tran View Post
    Do you notice it too or just me. Reading posts in many photo forums, it seems that today there is a trend in very thin depth of field. A lot of people talking about it and make it a very important feature of their equipment. In the old days I think people tried to get more depth of field as I remember. Neither way is wrong but do you notice that there is a trend toward narrow depth of field today?
    It's always been there, to varying degrees. You've just noticed it now.

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin