What do you guys think about people shots with in focus background?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lawrencejunjielee/1476165454/in/set-72157602251380356/

The above link is an example of what I'm talking about. I don't see many threads about this. Is this the type of photography that is generally frowned upon from doing? I get the sense that it's either landscape photography with no people in it (of course) and or portraits (out of focus background with a person or couple of people).

Sometimes, the background is part of the story. Are you trying to show a photo of the people, or of the people standing in front of the shrine? In this case, I feel like the background should be in focus. (opinion submitted humbly)

I agree with the previous poster, the caption clearly mentions the shrine so it would be appropriate for it to be in focus.

Have you thought how you could possibly get the background out of focus with that composition, even shot at 2.8 with the people that close it would not be possible to render the backgroung completely out of focus as it seems to have been shot with a fairly wide lens.
Regards,
Bruce.

Two times the background is in focus.

1-if it's part of the photo. Who wants to see travel photos of people that have so little background subject they could have been shot in the back yard? In fact, I often place the people in these photos off center, since they're only part of the photo, not all of it.

2-If you just don't have enough aperture to make it look right. A crisp (or at least moderately in focus) background may be preferable to one that's blurred only to the point of distraction. In those cases, I usually do it both ways, since you may not know what looks best until you get it on a big monitor. I try to create what blurring I want in camera-the blur tool just doesn't look quite right most of the time. It can be close, but it's never exactly what you'd get with the lens blur.

--
Jim Dean
Paid professional rubbernecker. I stop at the car wreck so you don't have to.

This is an extremely common amateur snapshot-type image and not necessarily the kind of shot a pro would ever NEED to produce. In fact, one could easily just extract the couple and put them in similar photographs of the Eiffel Tower, the White House, Disney World, Grand Canyon, etc ad nauseum.

As an amateur snapshot, sure, it's fine. It says, "Here is what I saw, and there I am to prove it." I cannot imagine too many instances in which this would be necessary for a pro to follow suit similarly. Although pros may frequently be asked to feature both a human subject and a scenic background, there is typically a different CONTEXT involved that either permits or requires a little bit more imagination and creativity.

Sgt_Strider said:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lawrencejunjielee/1476165454/in/set-72157602251380356/

The above link is an example of what I'm talking about. I don't see
many threads about this. Is this the type of photography that is
generally frowned upon from doing? I get the sense that it's either
landscape photography with no people in it (of course) and or
portraits (out of focus background with a person or couple of people).

Click to expand...

--
Michael Thomas Mitchell
http://michaelphoto.net

I believe that an effective photograph needs to have a point... both visually and 'conceptually'. For instance, I think there needs to be a solid and definative 'point' answer to "why did I take this picture" and there also needs to be a imageryfocus of the shot.

If the point of the picture is simply to 'prove you were there'... then I suppose a shot like what you posted as an example would succeed. But visually, it fails (imho) due to there being two competing elements fighting for 'top billing' - the shrine, and the people.

I think you need to either showcase the location with the people as secondary charecters or showcase the people with their location as secondary. Secondary doesn't have to mean blurred, out of focus, or smaller... creativity can make this work.

--
JOE
Websites:
Hiking and nature @ http://hiking.federerphotography.com
Wedding and event photography @ http://federerphotography.com

I think having the people so far from the camera that they're barely recognizeable is worse. You don't need to see them from head to toe - that's a pet peeve of mine. When strangers ask me to take photos of them I compose appropriately for the scene and make sure they are recognizeable and properly exposed in relation to the background. Of course 99% of the time I do that I'm using an unfamiliar p&s so I don't concern myself with DOF - just composition and exposure.

It rather depends on the photo, both ways can be good:

http://lordofthelens.smugmug.com/gallery/3036374#202758147

but

http://lordofthelens.smugmug.com/gallery/3036374#165023992

It’s somewhat difficult to illustrate your question with the image you’ve posted. It’s really just a vacation snap with no real creativity behind it. However, it does tell a story. It says, "We were here." So with that in mind I'd expect the background to be in focus so I can see where they were. Like most snaps, however, its common place to have everything in focus.

Assuming you are trying to be creative what's in focus all depends on what you are trying to achieve in your photo; where do you want to draw the viewers attention. For example, in the first image below I hope the story conveyed to the view is something like “sisters looking out over the city skyline.” Hence, since the skyline is a part of the story it should be in focus. Being in focus helps draw the views attention to the same skyline the kids are enjoying. It’s an important part of the entire image.



On the other hand, the second image below taken in the same place, is trying to draw the viewers attention to something completely different. In this case since I want the viewer to notice the girl and the visual affect so I don't want the background in focus. The background however is important because it set the scene and mood of the over all image. In this case the background places some context to the subject but if it were in focus would just be a distraction. In addition it would be a boring picture if the background was just some colored backdrop.



So there you have it. I'm sticking my neck out, especially here on DPR ;-) by using my own images but I hope they actually do demonstrate my thoughts on the subject.

Ultimately, it’s the viewer who will decide if they like the image or not, but it’s the photographer who should decide what should and shouldn’t be in focus. There are really no hard fast rules other than the creativity of photographer and that is what makes photography an art form as apposed to just another recording media. Experience will help dictate what works and what doesn’t work as one is trying to be creative.

--



Rob Kircher
My Stuff: http://www.pbase.com/rkircher

Sgt_Strider said:

I get the sense that it's either
landscape photography with no people in it (of course) and or
portraits (out of focus background with a person or couple of people).

Click to expand...

Depends entirely on what your trying to achieve.

Dave Hill, (apologies for bring him up again), successfully combines portraiture with infinite depth of field.

http://www.davehillphoto.com/

bazz.

Thanks for the comments guys. I just got into this hobby of photography after I came back from China. I want to improve my skills and the quality of my photos, but I need to learn from you guys so I thought I would create this thread. I have to start somewhere so I apologize if one of you guys were agitated by this thread.

Well said, my thoughts exactly.

Sgt_Strider said:

Thanks for the comments guys. I just got into this hobby of
photography after I came back from China. I want to improve my skills
and the quality of my photos, but I need to learn from you guys so I
thought I would create this thread. I have to start somewhere so I
apologize if one of you guys were agitated by this thread.

Click to expand...

If they were it's their problem. You're here to learn - no harm in asking... uh - unless you're asking "Is this price too good to be true?" - that one's been done to death ;-)

iMac said:

Sgt_Strider said:

Thanks for the comments guys. I just got into this hobby of
photography after I came back from China. I want to improve my skills
and the quality of my photos, but I need to learn from you guys so I
thought I would create this thread. I have to start somewhere so I
apologize if one of you guys were agitated by this thread.

Click to expand...

If they were it's their problem. You're here to learn - no harm in
asking... uh - unless you're asking "Is this price too good to be
true?" - that one's been done to death ;-)

Click to expand...

Or how much should I chage aunt betty to shoot her court house wedding. ;-)

--



Rob Kircher
My Stuff: http://www.pbase.com/rkircher

I see no problem with the background in focus as it lends context to the image. Otherwise the pose of the people looks a bit stiff. There are some great images (not this one) using foreground subjects and the background in focus (shot with a wide angle lens).

When the background adds nothing but only competes with the subject for the viewers eye it is usually better to have it out of focus.

In the case of the image you used I would use PS to slightly darken and blur the people in the background but not the architectural elements. I would possible vignette the couple to make them stand out a bit as well.

Nicely done. Sums up the gist of what most of the posters are saying, and even provides an example relevant to pro shooting, as opposed to a point&click holiday shot.
--
http://www.instantphotos.co.nz

Here is my opinion:

When it is an environmental portrait, the background does not need to be blurry, but the subject should fill the frame so that it dominates and the rest or background just supports it.
In that example, everything as far as composition is concerned is off.

Center of interest too centered, background too dominant, and too much juxtaposition, the photographer failed to see two poles growing from the top of their heads plus the rock and a human figure. Too much activity in the background which is very distracting. Of course it is a snapshot and nothing else.

Sgt_Strider said:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lawrencejunjielee/1476165454/in/set-72157602251380356/

The above link is an example of what I'm talking about. I don't see
many threads about this. Is this the type of photography that is
generally frowned upon from doing? I get the sense that it's either
landscape photography with no people in it (of course) and or
portraits (out of focus background with a person or couple of people).

Click to expand...

isaac4130 said:

Nicely done. Sums up the gist of what most of the posters are saying,
and even provides an example relevant to pro shooting, as opposed to
a point&click holiday shot.

Click to expand...

Thanks Isaac, I really appreciate it.

--



Rob Kircher
My Stuff: http://www.pbase.com/rkircher

MICHAEL_61 said:

It rather depends on the photo, both ways can be good:

http://lordofthelens.smugmug.com/gallery/3036374#202758147

but

http://lordofthelens.smugmug.com/gallery/3036374#165023992

Click to expand...

--I agree, for me it depends on the subject/moment & if will this help the visual appeal. to rule out that no pro would use it is wrong.



I used a zoom to compress the distance between the people to give a more crowded look.
I blurred the background to draw more attention on the vase with the same zoom.



25 years as a freelancer,(news,magazine, wedding photography) camera equip. over the years: Practica MLT, Canon A1, Minolta 9xi, 7xi, Dimage Z1,Fuji 5200,Canon S2,Pentax K100D,Olympus 380(see my Z1 shots at http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v104/Buckl/ the COMMUNITY album was done with the Z1, and most of the photos in the album:Other were w/the Z1)

lanef said:

Sgt_Strider said:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lawrencejunjielee/1476165454/in/set-72157602251380356/

The above link is an example of what I'm talking about. I don't see
many threads about this. Is this the type of photography that is
generally frowned upon from doing? I get the sense that it's either
landscape photography with no people in it (of course) and or
portraits (out of focus background with a person or couple of people).

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Do you think you can provide me with an example?