Sometimes you just need a lot of DOF ;-)

Started Nov 28, 2012 | Discussions thread
mrxak Regular Member • Posts: 218
Re: Sometimes you just need a lot of DOF ;-)

W A Stewart wrote:

Yes... for macro, most landscapes and microscapes, pj/documentary, environmental portraits, sports, and wildlife. These forums are WAY too full of shallow DOF, so-called dof control, emphasizing a "subject" and blurred background. There's a time and place for that, but really the great photographic challenge is taking the chaos of the visual fields and turning out a two dimensional, stopped, bounded image that works AS AN IMAGE and not as a snap of a subject.

Absolutely. Depth of field is just one element of composition, and a deep depth of field is just as much a choice as a shallow depth of field, both choices just as valid, on a picture-by-picture basis. Some of the best pictures I've seen were quite deep. What made them interesting was the 3-dimensional composition, getting all the elements in different planes arranged nicely. Shallow depth of field just means a flat image focused on a single subject. Bokeh can be interesting, but every picture does not need bokeh to be interesting, nor feature a single isolated subject.

Obviously the flexibility to decide your depth of field is better than no flexibility. But if a camera/lens gives you less flexibility with depth of field, it may give you more flexibility in some other way. It's all about trade-offs and choices.

 mrxak's gear list:mrxak's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Panasonic GH5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +8 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow