Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,902   Posts: 1,584,554   Online: 1029
      
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 73
  1. #41

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    northern england
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    735
    The fashion for shallow DoF is mainly about pursuing a cinematic look. Movie is generally shot at wider apertures (except for the Film Noir era and a few other exceptions). It's easier to edit than deep focus. Wide apertures and specular highlights allow the photographer to portray the subject in his own personal film. I'm more of a wide angle street type, personally.

  2. #42
    Photographica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Indiana
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    109
    From my observations, selective focus was (is) another trend in an artistic medium. Just like bokeh, B&W wedding portraits, and textured photos. Sometimes these trends are overused simply because they are trendy. Sometimes they hang on a little too long. Sometimes they wane, then resurge.

    in all cases, they are not 100% appreciated.

    Bill

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Midlands, UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    920
    It's definitely an "I just got an SLR" phase and like every other beginner trapping, it becomes perpetuated on the photo sharing websites. Agree with post #41 about it being a cinema borne thing (films are however mostly made up of portraits, so it's more practicality than aesthetic here). But cinematography does appear to have a bigger influence on amateur photography today than actual still photography does, which is concerning.

    I did it for a while when I first started with film on the Hasselblad, despite my interest in photography being rooted in landscape work at the time! So from personal experience, I'd say it's just one of those 'quality' infatuations that people are afflicted with against their better judgement, particularly with a recent step up in format.

    But the issue arises, like I say, when it's perpetuated because it's celebrated on sites like Flickr out of ignorance. Some people have difficulty nipping it in the bud because it's the easiest way to make a 'quality' statement, especially with characterful optical systems like the Hasselblad, Pentax 67 and Mamiyas.
    'Cows are very fond of being photographed, and, unlike architecture, don't move.' - Oscar Wilde

  4. #44

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Finland
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    168
    Quote Originally Posted by chriscrawfordphoto View Post
    I agree that it is ugly on portraits, but there have been a few times that I shot other types of things with little depth of field to achieve a look that I wanted, like here:





    THe photo has sold well, and was even used for the cover of a Canadian novel published a few years ago:

    The photo was shot with an Olympus 50mm f1.4 lens on Tmax 400. I think I shot it at f2 or f2.8, can't remember for sure.
    Sorry for being now out of topic but I just wanted to say that your photo is really wonderful, it has moved something in me, which did not happen in a long time. It made me want to go out and use more film. Can I ask how did you market it, I mean it is a great image but how did you find people who were interested in it?

  5. #45
    chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fort Wayne, Indiana
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,011
    Quote Originally Posted by mauro35 View Post
    Sorry for being now out of topic but I just wanted to say that your photo is really wonderful, it has moved something in me, which did not happen in a long time. It made me want to go out and use more film. Can I ask how did you market it, I mean it is a great image but how did you find people who were interested in it?
    I'm sending a PM
    Chris Crawford
    Fine Art Photography of Indiana and other places no one else photographs.

    http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com

    My Tested Developing Times with the films and developers I use

    Become a fan of my work on Facebook

    Fort Wayne, Indiana

  6. #46
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,835
    Images
    1
    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,I noticed that DOFIS OVERRATED. WHAT WE NEED MORE OF IS DEPTYH OF THOUGHT.
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  7. #47
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,054
    Quote Originally Posted by batwister View Post
    It's definitely an "I just got an SLR" phase and like every other beginner trapping, it becomes perpetuated on the photo sharing websites. Agree with post #41 about it being a cinema borne thing (films are however mostly made up of portraits, so it's more practicality than aesthetic here). But cinematography does appear to have a bigger influence on amateur photography today than actual still photography does, which is concerning.

    I did it for a while when I first started with film on the Hasselblad, despite my interest in photography being rooted in landscape work at the time! So from personal experience, I'd say it's just one of those 'quality' infatuations that people are afflicted with against their better judgement, particularly with a recent step up in format.

    But the issue arises, like I say, when it's perpetuated because it's celebrated on sites like Flickr out of ignorance. Some people have difficulty nipping it in the bud because it's the easiest way to make a 'quality' statement, especially with characterful optical systems like the Hasselblad, Pentax 67 and Mamiyas.
    I first saw it in the " portrait field" back in the 80s when we were seeing 300mm lenses being used by fashion photographers at the time creating cool backgrounds. So a lot of people were buying massively long lenses for their Hasselblads to copy the look. Which cost a fortune.

    Unfortunately dealing with amateur subjects from a long distance became too difficult so it fell out of favor. Then later 4x5s with shift lenses were experimented with to mess with "eyes in, ears out" look but like all trends it died after a short time.

    Then there was Lens Baby. Then photoshop Gaussian blur.

    As someone said, these are just another set of tools to modify our work, that can get overused.
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  8. #48
    analoguey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bangalore, India
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    935
    Images
    2
    Shallow DoF actually can make some otherwise crappy/inane photos look better.
    But what about Bokeh being something like this or a colourful version of this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/chancy51/11105542315/
    (I dont know that photographer, seems to have some other good pictures, I just picked what most closely resembled the commonly seen 'idea').

    I wonder whether people who post such pictures actually look at them any larger than a 2/3" lcd or a phone screen.

  9. #49

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    northern england
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    735
    This thread raises the interesting philosophical question of what 'aperture' we naturally see at, and does it matter for our photographic methodology. We don't naturally see in deep focus, so wide angle street photography is essentially an exercise in surrealism rather than realism, which is one of the factors that differentiates it from photojournalism. Everything happens at once and is captured three dimensionally.

    Shallow DoF, when taken to extremes, is also anti-naturalistic, locking the viewer into an uncompromising linear space. I would argue that the most naturalistic depiction of a subject (if we can talk about a mental phenomenon in optical terms), is clear focus on the subject with slightly larger defocused circles on the background, or the 'f4 effect'. None of this matters in a medium where time is an abstraction - with the unreality implicit in that deficit - but it's interesting to muse on the messages optics confer to an image.

  10. #50
    MDR
    MDR is offline
    MDR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Austria
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,164
    Some see it as cinematic look narrow depth of field while shooting a person. Compare modern movies (dialogue scenes) to old films older films had a lot more dof especially when shot by Greg Toland, ASC.

    To quote Blansky "As someone said, these are just another set of tools to modify our work, that can get overused."

    As a side note as a film user I wouldn't complain about the wet-plate revival, film is an alt-process these days so using film is no different than using wet-plate. The swirly bokeh from Petzvals can get boring but wet-plate photography is another tool to help a photographer create his vision.

Page 5 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