Reading mode: Light Dark

So, your equipment is not good enough?

Go to last post
msusic said:
Kodachrome, long time ago.
No ultra-shallow DoF gimmicks, but fantastic photos nevertheless.

http://pavel-kosenko.livejournal.com/303194.html?thread=22669914
Click to expand...
...from 3 MP compacts, but that doesn't mean the equipment doesn't often play an important role. And the use of ultra-shallow DOF isn't always a gimmick:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=40584290

but a tool for the competent photographer to use as they see fit. There's plenty of room for ultra shallow DOF, deep DOF, and every DOF inbetween:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=39537128

So yes, a good photographer, especially one that creates their own lighting for the shot, can do excellent things with deeper DOF photography. Is there anyone who has ever claimed otherwise?

Then again, maybe Sergey's on to something with those cellphone pics of his. ;)
 
i shot my last roll of Kodachrome in 2010 just before the deadline, it's a real shame to see this film disappear but hey more mp's and convenience rules
shot with an outdated Oly XA.....and whoops asian girls



--
working as intended
 
... was done by John Shaw (I think) on Kodachrome 25/64 in a book on nature photography.

He gives advice like "Don't waste your money on very fast normal lenses. You probably don't need a 50mm f/1.4; how often are you even going to use that last stop anyway? You're mostly going to shoot at apertures like f/8 to get enough depth of field. Get a 50mm f/3.5 macro or something instead."

It's refreshing advice.
 
Wow the first picture of the woman with a drill - that's a rockwell I have one that my dad bought back in the 50's (he told me surplus bomber assembly tools).

And with 4X5 to get this kind of DOF they must have been shooting at F32!

Oh but I forget, 4/3 is no good because the DOF is too large.

--
Regards,

Jerry
 
Entropius said:
... was done by John Shaw (I think) on Kodachrome 25/64 in a book on nature photography.

He gives advice like "Don't waste your money on very fast normal lenses. You probably don't need a 50mm f/1.4; how often are you even going to use that last stop anyway?"
Click to expand...
Quite a bit, actually:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=39057734
Entropius said:
You're mostly going to shoot at apertures like f/8 to get enough depth of field.
Click to expand...
Depends on who the "you" is, although, when I want the DOF, I'll most certainly stop it down, as demonstrated in the link above.
Entropius said:
"Get a 50mm f/3.5 macro or something instead."
Click to expand...
To each their own. Myself, I have quite an affinity for the Sigma 70 / 2.8 macro, even for non-macro photography.
Entropius said:
It's refreshing advice.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I don't see what's so refreshing about advice to intentionally disregard DOF options that are available. It's curious how some feel that their style of photography is everyone's style of photography.
 
olympian_dp said:
Wow the first picture of the woman with a drill - that's a rockwell I have one that my dad bought back in the 50's (he told me surplus bomber assembly tools).

And with 4X5 to get this kind of DOF they must have been shooting at F32!
Click to expand...
Myabe he should have used a smaller format with "more DOF".
olympian_dp said:
Oh but I forget, 4/3 is no good because the DOF is too large.
Click to expand...
DOF is what it is. It's simply a matter of whether the lens you have can open wide enough or stop down enough for the particular perspective-framing you want for the shot. If you find your system limits your options, then you choose from those options, or switch systems.
 
Entropius said:
... was done by John Shaw (I think) on Kodachrome 25/64 in a book on nature photography.

He gives advice like "Don't waste your money on very fast normal lenses. You probably don't need a 50mm f/1.4; how often are you even going to use that last stop anyway? You're mostly going to shoot at apertures like f/8 to get enough depth of field. Get a 50mm f/3.5 macro or something instead."

It's refreshing advice.
Click to expand...
With MF 35 mm cameras fast lenses allow much easier and precise focus compared to slower lenses. Also, AF systems perform usually better with faster lenses. That means even if you shoot with the lens stopped down, the faster lens has benefits.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/photography-by-thomas/
 
msusic said:
Kodachrome, long time ago.
No ultra-shallow DoF gimmicks, but fantastic photos nevertheless.
Click to expand...
what a terrific series

stuff just of interest b/se of its rarity like the B25 in a wind tunnel, the girls working on a Pratt Whitney radial, but also fabulously well lit portraits: the man and woman riveting the cockpit of a DC3, the crane driver and tank driver, the guy shovelling sand for the kiln, and especially the guys in the railroad office at the end.

Really nice use of light to make the image work, thanks !
msusic said:
http://pavel-kosenko.livejournal.com/303194.html?thread=22669914
--
Cheers,
Marin
Click to expand...
--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
support 1022 Sunday Scapes'
 
olympian_dp said:
And with 4X5 to get this kind of DOF they must have been shooting at F32!
Click to expand...
olympian_dp said:
--
Regards,

Jerry
Click to expand...
No. Depth of field is directly related to field of view and focal length at any given aperture. Due to some of the misinformation thrown about in "equivalency debates" people assume that the larger the format, the smaller the aperture it takes to achieve a given dof. That's only one variable.

--

Some people operate cameras. Others use them to create images. There is a difference.

http://ikkens.zenfolio.com/

http://sarob-w.deviantart.com/
 
CharlesB58 said:
olympian_dp said:
And with 4X5 to get this kind of DOF they must have been shooting at F32!
Click to expand...
No. Depth of field is directly related to field of view and focal length at any given aperture. Due to some of the misinformation thrown about in "equivalency debates" people assume that the larger the format, the smaller the aperture it takes to achieve a given dof. That's only one variable.
Click to expand...
4x5 has about 4x the diagonal of FF, so f/32 on 4x5, for a given perspective and framing, is equivalent to f/8 on FF which is equivalent to f/4 on 4/3.

So olympian_dp's estimate seems about right.
 
I thought the caption said that was a gal shoveling the sand...who knows maybe they had some gays in Clinton, Iowa back in those days!

lol

Dan

;)
 
Hmm not sure what "ultra shadow DOF" has to do with gimmicks or fantastic photos- or film photos. I know of great deep and shallow DOF film photos.
msusic said:
Kodachrome, long time ago.
No ultra-shallow DoF gimmicks, but fantastic photos nevertheless.

http://pavel-kosenko.livejournal.com/303194.html?thread=22669914
--
Cheers,
Marin
Click to expand...
--

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- "You are taking life too seriously if it bugs you in some way that a guy quotes himself in the .sig quote" - Ricardo
 
if you are shooting landscapes I can see that. If you are shooting portraits in lower light. . hmm I am not sure about that.

I think what you is interesting to consider, but it's not a blanket "one size fits all" rule particularly taken out of context.
Entropius said:
... was done by John Shaw (I think) on Kodachrome 25/64 in a book on nature photography.

He gives advice like "Don't waste your money on very fast normal lenses. You probably don't need a 50mm f/1.4; how often are you even going to use that last stop anyway? You're mostly going to shoot at apertures like f/8 to get enough depth of field. Get a 50mm f/3.5 macro or something instead."

It's refreshing advice.
Click to expand...
--

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- "You are taking life too seriously if it bugs you in some way that a guy quotes himself in the .sig quote" - Ricardo
 
CharlesB58 said:
olympian_dp said:
And with 4X5 to get this kind of DOF they must have been shooting at F32!
Click to expand...
CharlesB58 said:
--
Regards,

Jerry
Click to expand...
No. Depth of field is directly related to field of view and focal length at any given aperture. Due to some of the misinformation thrown about in "equivalency debates" people assume that the larger the format, the smaller the aperture it takes to achieve a given dof. That's only one variable.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is only one variable but it sure is part of it. So he's probably right.
CharlesB58 said:
--

Some people operate cameras. Others use them to create images. There is a difference.

http://ikkens.zenfolio.com/

http://sarob-w.deviantart.com/
Click to expand...
--

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- "You are taking life too seriously if it bugs you in some way that a guy quotes himself in the .sig quote" - Ricardo
 
My father would likely have been in frame 26, thanks for sharing this, I really enjoyed the photos.
--
Have A Great Day!

Darrell
 
Lovely, lovely work. The Library of Congress has quite a bit of old color work on line, and I can lose myself for hours.

Now imagine bulb flash, no integrated metering and ASA(ISO) 8 film (the original Kodachrome).

We have it pretty darn easy.

Cheers,

Rick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top