DOF

There have been a couple of threads on DOF as of late:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=28013538

and

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=28146168

Both of which have an overall negative, and even disparaging view of shallow DOF. Comments that shallow DOF on UWA is "dumb":

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=27563516

that shallow DOF just makes things "blurry and confusing":

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=28149557

seem to come almost exclusively from 4/3 shooters. So, what I'm wondering is if such attitudes towards shallow DOF are universal, or if they come primarily from people that use systems that are not optimal for shallow DOF.

You see, I'm an ultra shallow DOF shooter:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=28016905

that only occasionally shoots deep DOF:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=28017028

So while I love shallow DOF, I don't disparage deep DOF shooting. It's merely a different style of shooting. Much in the same way that while I love the 5D as it is the best system I can afford that caters to my style of shooting, I don't disparage other systems that cater to different styles of shooting. In fact, aside from studio portraits, are there any of you who are people shooters that use deep DOF? I've certainly seen deep DOF people pics, but they're almost always UWA and, with most systems, you have little choice but to get deep DOF with UWA.

Thus, my question: do you believe that shallow DOF sucks, or is it simply a different style of shooting that you may, or may not, have an interest in?

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

I like a shallow DOF sometimes. If I want you to only be able to focus on the subject I will go as shallow as possible while keeping the whole subject in focus (whatever fancy name they call that now).

I guess its lame but I am not an artist or a professional, I take my pictures for myself or my friends/family. Everyone in that circle seems to like it so I will keep doing it.

When the old masters would take a picture of a local creek with a view camera, they had to use long exposures, because photo emulsions of the day were below at ISO 25. So their shots would get "dreamy" quality.

The later-day imitators thought that the key to great images was in long exposure, and would use long exposure for anything and everything.

The shallow DOF is just another artefact of imperfect optical systems. Sure, masters are able to create great art in spite of it, or even use it to their advantage.

And of course, the imitators decide that a swath of ultra-sharp hair, cut through a fuzzy head, is somehow "art". Or that a line of sharp cracks in across the pavement somehow "leads the eye towards" the lady they are actually photographing.

joe mama said:

Thus, my question: do you believe that shallow DOF sucks, or is it
simply a different style of shooting that you may, or may not, have
an interest in?

Click to expand...

I think it's an often-abused special effect. Useful or "sucks", depends on what the photographer wants to capture.

joe mama said:

...
Thus, my question: do you believe that shallow DOF sucks,

Click to expand...

No. It is just a technique.

joe mama said:

or is it
simply a different style of shooting that you may, or may not, have
an interest in?
...

Click to expand...

That's right. It's the final image that counts. I don't shoot shallow DOF much, but I often like what others do with it.

Jeff

...but rather to get similar DOF on larger subjects.

I can get ultra-shallow DOF with a compact camera with a slow lens, but I'll need to shoot macros to do it. On larger subjects, everything will be in-focus.

If I want subject isolation on larger subjects, I need larger sensors and faster apertures.

I like ultra-shallow DOF sometimes, but what annoys me more is inability to get even modest subject isolation on larger subjects, especially with wider angle lenses. Hence 5D+35/1.4L.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

joe mama said:

There have been a couple of threads on DOF as of late:

Click to expand...

Indeed, there have.

joe mama said:

Both of which have an overall negative, and even disparaging view of
shallow DOF. Comments that shallow DOF on UWA is "dumb":

Click to expand...

That's Riley. He's a lot like me, every now and then he has his moments of extremism, but in general, he's good people.

I missed that thread, or I would have posted some counter examples. One of my favorite shots was taken in a beautiful Victorian bedroom, about 3 feet from the model's face, with a 14mm on a Nikon D2X, wide open. Her face was sharp, but the room soft enough to be "dreamy", but detailed enough to still show what it was.

Painters do this constantly, simplify a complex background because it is both distracting and a bloody lot of work to paint.

joe mama said:

that shallow DOF just makes things "blurry and confusing":

Click to expand...

I think that, properly used, the shallow DOF can reduce the confusion of a background with "unnecessary" and "compelling" detail.

joe mama said:

seem to come almost exclusively from 4/3 shooters. So, what I'm
wondering is if such attitudes towards shallow DOF are universal, or
if they come primarily from people that use systems that are not
optimal for shallow DOF.

Click to expand...

It's called "making a virtue out of necessity". Such as when someone from a colder climate turns the "necessary" warm clothing into "virtuous" modesty.

joe mama said:

You see, I'm an ultra shallow DOF shooter:
that only occasionally shoots deep DOF:

Click to expand...

That's the "hammer" effect. When all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. You've made a virtue of a capability, instead of a necessity.

I don't find either approach (making virtues out of necessities or capabilities) to be "correct", as in the "one true way".

I shoot the whole range of depth of field. Sometimes, I wanted images razor sharp, and I learned to control a 4x5 view camera, or to shoot multiple shots with 35mm focused on different areas, make masks, and combine them in the darkroom (before "focus stacking" programs like CombineZ and Helicon Focus, even before PhotoShop and layers).

And about 35 years ago, I first learned the joy of the 50mm f1.4 and shallow DOF portraits. My "film days" lenses included a 35mm f1.4, 50mm f1.4, 50mm f1.2, 85mm f1.4, and 135mm f2.0 DC.

20 years ago, I learned how to put a pair of 50mm f1.4 lenses together face to face, and make a 25mm f0.7 macro lens, to explore ultra shallow DOF macro.

joe mama said:

So while I love shallow DOF, I don't disparage deep DOF shooting.

Click to expand...

I hope you don't mind if I point out that I detect a certain bias in your choice of words that says otherwise.

joe mama said:

It's merely a different style of shooting. Much in the same way that
while I love the 5D as it is the best system I can afford that
caters to my style of shooting, I don't disparage other systems that
cater to different styles of shooting. In fact, aside from studio
portraits, are there any of you who are people shooters that use deep
DOF?

Click to expand...

I've used it outdoors against backgrounds of flowers for incredible effect.

joe mama said:

I've certainly seen deep DOF people pics, but they're almost
always UWA and, with most systems, you have little choice but to get
deep DOF with UWA.

Thus, my question: do you believe that shallow DOF sucks, or is it
simply a different style of shooting that you may, or may not, have
an interest in?

Click to expand...

And that's the choice of language, again. You're leading us with sarcasm.

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

I started out w/a small sensor point and shoot, shooting mostly landscapes. Everything was in focus. Now, 5 years later I've got a dSLR and some fast primes. I love shallow DOF, probably too much so:

24MM F1.4
50MM F1.4
85MM F1.8
135MM F2.0 (wonderful lens, amazing backgrounds, just purchased it)

My zooms are a 24-70MM and 70-200 F2.8, so I can go from 24-200MM @ F2.8. I usually shoot wide open all the time, which is probably overcompensation for all those early years, but learning to control DOF and setting up the photo for this type of shooting is a lot of fun. I can't tell you how many HORRIBLE photos I've taken w/limited DOF, but the few great ones more than make up for it.

Yes, my wife frequently doesn't like the shallow DOF, but fellow photographers do, so I think there is some truth to it being an acquired taste.

The hardest thing to remember is that DOF has everything to do with image size. Shoot a 30 foot stage at F1.4 and you might have a 20 feet DOF. Shoot an insect at F14 and you might only get part of an eye in focus. Very tricky to get it just right.

--

I'm not much of a fan of photos that show razor thin DOF in general, but there are exceptions.

That said, I like some subject separation. I shoot 4/3s and it is more dependent on subject distance than the other DSLR formats. The f1.2 primes are not available short of legacy lenses, and the smaller sensor restricts that ability farther. Smaller sensors are somewhat handicapped.

I give the "hats off" to 35mm full frame for its ability in this area.

Sometimes I think the 5D advocates get a bit carried away, but whatever floats your respective boat. If you want to shoot the 85 f1.2 wide open and have an eyeball in focus while the rest is unsharp, have a ball.

-
Greg

http://www.spanielsport.com/

joe mama said:

joe mama said:

Thus, my question: do you believe that shallow DOF sucks, or is it

Click to expand...

simply a different style of shooting that you may, or may not, have
an interest in?

Click to expand...

I'm in the process of reading a book on photography ("The Fun of Photography", by M&M Scacheri(?)) printed in the US in 1938. It is surprisingly "modern" in that many of the topics raised still resonate today -in much the same way.

One of the "issues" of the time referred to was the "excessive" DOF of 35mm cameras (as opposed to the medium formats in general use at the time)! Talk about shades of the P&S vs the DSLR DOF issues of today.

The animosity occurs when 4/3 folks claim that the larger DOF makes their format superior... while completely ignoring that you can freakin stop a lens down on a larger format camera (obvious, you cant go the other way).

If shallow DOF isnt important, then fine, but dont ignore common facts.

tko said:

Now, 5 years later I've got a
dSLR and some fast primes. I love shallow DOF, probably too much so:

24MM F1.4
50MM F1.4
85MM F1.8
135MM F2.0 (wonderful lens, amazing backgrounds, just purchased it)

The hardest thing to remember is that DOF has everything to do with
image size. Shoot a 30 foot stage at F1.4 and you might have a 20
feet DOF. Shoot an insect at F14 and you might only get part of an
eye in focus. Very tricky to get it just right.

Click to expand...

If you want really shallow DOF, try placing a "close-up filter" (e.g. a 1 or a 2 diopter) on one of your fast primes (say, the 85mm or the 135mm) and see what you get!

joe mama said:

Thus, my question: do you believe that shallow DOF sucks, or is it
simply a different style of shooting that you may, or may not, have
an interest in?

Click to expand...

I've said this a lot of times now.

I don't think shallow DOF is a bad thing. In fact, it is one of my primary reasons for getting a DSLR. And not just mere shallow DOF...I want my DSLR capable of that creamy bokeh without having to take my subject to an open field with very far backgrounds.

--
Medic
-----------------------------------------------------

• The camera is mightier than the pen.

Jogger said:

The animosity occurs when 4/3 folks claim that the larger DOF makes
their format superior... while completely ignoring that you can
freakin stop a lens down on a larger format camera (obvious, you cant
go the other way).

Click to expand...

Exactly. The whole concept of diffraction means that you can stop full frame down two full stops more than four thirds.

But one other way of looking at things is that if you really want the ultimate DOF, for product work, for landscapes where you have near foreground elements and far background elements, for architecture (interior or exterior) then the two current full frame systems (Canon and Nikon) both offer tilt/shift lenses, so you can use the Scheimpflug effect (just like a view camera) to really extend DOF.

Canon has the 24mm, 45mm, and 90mm TS-E

Nikon has the 24mm and 85mm PC-E, with a 45mm due out in August.

Jogger said:

If shallow DOF isnt important, then fine, but dont ignore common facts.

Click to expand...

Or uncommon ones

So, overall, the range of what you can do with a full frame system (from blurring everything but a portrait subject's eyes, to getting a landscape sharp from front to back) is definitely the best on full frame.

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

I love shallow DOF myself, but I have to learn how to use it better.

With shallow DOF, if your subject moves the slightest bit between focus lock and when you take the picture, then your subject will be outside the DOF... here, it's not so bad, and the background is totally blurred away.

40d + 85 1.8
1/250 @ 1.8, ISO 800



Another problem can be if you have a large aperture set and then take a "group" shot (picture of 2+ people).

40d + 17-55 2.8 IS
1/250 @ 2.8, ISO 200



Note however, that the above issues are due to user error. It's easier to get a picture "right" with greater DOF, but a shallow DOF pic shot correctly can look far better.
--
Jeremy

Jeremy said:

I love shallow DOF myself, but I have to learn how to use it better.

Another problem can be if you have a large aperture set and then take
a "group" shot (picture of 2+ people).
--
Jeremy

Click to expand...

This is an old problem and is mentioned in classic photo texts.

The answer is to "arrange" for your subjects and/or for all the important bits of your subject to lie in the same (focal) plane.

This is part of the photographer's craft and a sign of the master photographer.

When I got my first DLSR, an Olympus, I fully expected much deeper DOF than I was getting. I thought that shooting with a lot of light would fix it because I wanted the object I was shooting to be in perfect focus from front to back.

It took a long time to realize that it wasn't my particular camera that was the 'problem'; but, simply the nature of lenses. It was simply something that you have to deal with or use creatively.

Most people coming to the XT, XTi and XSi are coming from a point and shoot camera. So, they expect something 'BIG' and 'DIFFERENT' from an SLR and part of that is a huge expectation for a wider depth of field.

It's all about the learning curve and experience.

--
http://3DPrinterUsers.Blogspot.com

Tom Meeks said:

When I got my first DLSR, an Olympus, I fully expected much deeper
DOF than I was getting. I thought that shooting with a lot of light
would fix it because I wanted the object I was shooting to be in
perfect focus from front to back.

It took a long time to realize that it wasn't my particular camera
that was the 'problem'; but, simply the nature of lenses. It was
simply something that you have to deal with or use creatively.

Most people coming to the XT, XTi and XSi are coming from a point and
shoot camera. So, they expect something 'BIG' and 'DIFFERENT' from
an SLR and part of that is a huge expectation for a wider depth of
field.

It's all about the learning curve and experience.

Click to expand...

That's right, Tom,

The irony is that the very short FL lenses and the small sensor dimenssions in P&S cameras "automatically" result in a huge depth of field that is hard to beat using DSLRs.

Also, P&Ss have a "built in" Macro capacity that you have to pay extra for in the case of a DSLR.

And, the "fixed" lenses supplied with many P&S cameras are far sharper than the "Kit Lenses" provided with the DSLRs.

All this can be a big let down to a newbie DSLR proprietor.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Both of which have an overall negative, and even disparaging view of
shallow DOF. Comments that shallow DOF on UWA is "dumb":

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

That's Riley. He's a lot like me, every now and then he has his
moments of extremism, but in general, he's good people.

Click to expand...

I've seen you say that before, but I've caught him in more than one intentional lie (not merely misinformed) and he bashes 35mm FF more than any other single poster I know. So, our opinions will just have to differ on this point.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

I missed that thread, or I would have posted some counter examples.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't have mattered. Everytime I post examples, he leaves without comment, only to raise the same BS again.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

that shallow DOF just makes things "blurry and confusing":

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

I think that, properly used, the shallow DOF can reduce the confusion
of a background with "unnecessary" and "compelling" detail.

Click to expand...

That's my feeling on it. It's no more "improper" than desaturating an image to remove the "clutter" of "distracting color".

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

You see, I'm an ultra shallow DOF shooter:
that only occasionally shoots deep DOF:

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

That's the "hammer" effect. When all you've got is a hammer,
everything looks like a nail. You've made a virtue of a capability,
instead of a necessity.

I don't find either approach (making virtues out of necessities or
capabilities) to be "correct", as in the "one true way".

Click to expand...

I see it as I have little interest in deep DOF. I mean, I've presented enough examples of where deep DOF is not an issue for me to pursue, but it's just not usually my pot o' tea. When it is "appropriate" however, I most certainly make use of it.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

So while I love shallow DOF, I don't disparage deep DOF shooting.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

I hope you don't mind if I point out that I detect a certain bias in
your choice of words that says otherwise.

Click to expand...

Well, I can't comment on that one way or another. I just know that I love landscapes, where I usually (but not always) choose deep DOF and I love candids, where I almost always prefer shallow DOF. Even in macro, I love shallow DOF, and find most of the deep DOF macros "clinical".

More to the point, as I'm primarily a people shooter, I simply don't see people pics that make what I consider "good use" of deep DOF. Even studio portraits bore me.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

It's merely a different style of shooting. Much in the same way that
while I love the 5D as it is the best system I can afford that
caters to my style of shooting, I don't disparage other systems that
cater to different styles of shooting. In fact, aside from studio
portraits, are there any of you who are people shooters that use deep
DOF?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

I've used it outdoors against backgrounds of flowers for incredible
effect.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying it's not possible:

Canon G2 @ 7mm, f / 5.6 (35mm, f / 27), 1/640, ISO 50

http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/31405291



I'm saying that it's extremely unusual to see it done well on anything but WA/UWA.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

I've certainly seen deep DOF people pics, but they're almost
always UWA and, with most systems, you have little choice but to get
deep DOF with UWA.

Thus, my question: do you believe that shallow DOF sucks, or is it
simply a different style of shooting that you may, or may not, have
an interest in?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

And that's the choice of language, again. You're leading us with
sarcasm.

Click to expand...

Nope, I'm echoing the comments that I presented in the two links in the initial post in this thread that others have cast upon shallow DOF.

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

Mikelis said:

I'm in the process of reading a book on photography ("The Fun of
Photography", by M&M Scacheri(?)) printed in the US in 1938. It is
surprisingly "modern" in that many of the topics raised still
resonate today -in much the same way.

One of the "issues" of the time referred to was the "excessive" DOF
of 35mm cameras (as opposed to the medium formats in general use at
the time)! Talk about shades of the P&S vs the DSLR DOF issues of
today.

Click to expand...

...to the comments here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=28153095

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

Mikelis said:

If you want really shallow DOF, try placing a "close-up filter" (e.g.
a 1 or a 2 diopter) on one of your fast primes (say, the 85mm or the
135mm) and see what you get!

Click to expand...

...for use with my 24 / 1.4L, as f/1.4 on 24mm really isn't that shallow compared to what my other lenses deliver. Perhaps it will be "too much" (I'm sure many already think what I do is "too much"), but I am curious.

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/