Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,733   Posts: 1,515,304   Online: 861
      
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 73
  1. #31
    wiltw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    725
    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?
    Yes. It also accounts for the reverse tilt 'miniature' popularity of tilt movements, rather than the forward tilt to get wider apparent DOF

  2. #32
    irvd2x's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    41
    The narrow depth of field trend is apparent and as with any technique that affects that much change in the overall look to an image..prone to instant gratification and overuse.Heck..I remember having my set of fog filters that I would unsheath to help conquer the difficult landscape!.awful waste of kodachrome.There were a couple images that survived that unfortunate distraction in my photographic journey..but eventually the fog cleared in my technique.
    I must however add to the discussion my deep admiration for a book I came across published by Nazraeli Press of large format images derived from use of a very narrow depth of field.The subject of the monograph was a small region or town in the Swiss Alps.
    Very well executed..an effect application of narrow depth of field for my money.


    Sent from my LG-P509 using Tapatalk 2

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    MD
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    281
    Quote Originally Posted by fotch View Post
    I use it whenever I want to isolate something from everything else.
    My wife has been doing a lot of family photo shoots in a lot of different locations (that she doesn't necessarily choose), being able to have a real shallow depth of field helps her get a creamy background where otherwise it might be department stores or powerlines.

  4. #34
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,153
    Images
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by horacekenneth View Post
    My wife has been doing a lot of family photo shoots in a lot of different locations (that she doesn't necessarily choose), being able to have a real shallow depth of field helps her get a creamy background where otherwise it might be department stores or powerlines.
    Then it becomes one tool for her to use to get the best out of each situation. In a different setting she might choose to include more of the background, the point being that it's a choice and something to use for whatever advantage it gives at the time.

    Sometimes I'm not sure what I like at first, so I shoot a close-up at f/11 and another at f/5.6, and print both to see what works best.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  5. #35
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,008
    Images
    60
    Another factor might be the now ubiquitous "kit" zoom with a maximum aperture of something around f/4.

    If a beginner adds something like a 50mm f/1.8 (or equivalent for your format) they will discover (and most likely over-use) a fascinating new tool.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  6. #36
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    Actually I remember seeing more extreme selective focus back a number of years ago with people playing with their view cameras doing portraits.

    Also everything has trends, when people are tired of one thing they do other things. Sharp vs "romantic", color vs black and white, big bundles of bokeh vs sharp backgrounds, everything old is new again.
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    NE USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    198
    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.
    Good reply.

  8. #38
    Chris Lange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    734
    Images
    32
    Today?
    See my work at my website CHRISTOPHER LANGE PHOTOGRAPHY

    or my snaps at my blog MINIMUM DENSITY
    --
    If you don't have it, then you don't have it.

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    rAdelaide
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    965
    I was just thinking, people here who do film exclusively have probably not heard of The Brenizer Method. In short, it's not just shooting wide open, but it's shooting a subject wide open, then a few shots around the edges at the same aperture/focus distance and digitally stitching together. In effect, what you get is an MF or even LF-sized imaging surface shot with something as fast as an f/1.2 (which doesn't really happen otherwise unless you buy one of those $20k Zoomar 180/1.3 or 240/1.2 for a hassy or something).

    I'm all for shooting f/1.2 if you need the aperture for the given light level, even for the artistic effect (as long as it 'works', like that clothesline pic earlier 'works'). But somehow this Brenizer method is a bit of a step too far. (because both a: I wouldn't go to all that effort, and b: I just don't like the effect in that example at the top of the linked page with the girl in the dress, it just doesn't look good to me. And the one down the bottom with the couple on the road, I can see the digital stitch-marks)
    An awful lot of electrons were terribly inconvenienced in the making of this post.

  10. #40

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Aurora, IL
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,923
    Thank you everyone for the replies! I don't think a lot of DOF or shallow DOF is good or bad if use correctly. Only that I see more people seeking for narrow DOF these days than looking for more DOF. In some forum the goal of narrow DOF seems like the norm as one only need to say how do I get better DOF and everyone understood that how do I get LESS DOF.

Page 4 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