When is shallow DOF too shallow to be useful?

Shooting a fence or so at close range just provides a 'slice'.

But shooting wide open at some distance works for me fine.

| GFX-100 II | Leica Summmilux-R 1.4/80mm | @1.4 |
| GFX-100 II | Leica Summmilux-R 1.4/80mm | @1.4 |

..............................................................................................................................
Bart
I was planning to shoot something like this:



View attachment e87447f64b1445609827a79b441ec480.jpg

But some kids from a school nearby wanted to have a picture of them taken and that turned out this way:



View attachment 5f522698674f471c926024876d384794.jpg
this was shot on Sony A7r4 with a Voigtlander 65/2 at f/7.1. Focus was on the fingers of the second lady from right. Although using a medium aperture, most of the kids are clearly out of proper focus. I think the image illustrates how perilously short focus can be with a sharp lens.

BTW, I mailed the image to the kids and they were quite happy with it. But I would have preferred to have an image with all kids looking great.

Leaving the camera on 2s self timer as I mostly use shooting landscape/architecture certainly did not help!

--
Erik Kaffehr
Website: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net
Magic tends to disappear in controlled experiments…
Gallery: http://echophoto.smugmug.com
Articles: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles
 
Shooting a fence or so at close range just provides a 'slice'.

But shooting wide open at some distance works for me fine.

| GFX-100 II | Leica Summmilux-R 1.4/80mm | @1.4 |
| GFX-100 II | Leica Summmilux-R 1.4/80mm | @1.4 |

..............................................................................................................................
Bart
This is what I like large apertures for, something you actually can't do any other way in one shot, and is actually a unique look. If you can get close enough with a lens, even F2.8 will be quite enough for smoothing everything out in the background.
 
The tech bros spent millions developing technology to fake this look on smartphones. They had to create an AI brain, neural networks, on-chip AI processing, and train that tech on millions of images. All of that requires massive data centers that are environmental destroyers, especially here in Arizona. They add to our heat island effect and consume water that we cannot spare.

I think shallow DoF is a great look for the right situation. And here, it's real versus the fake smartphone effects.
 
TLDR as focal length increases, the typical reduction in maximum aperture doesn't cancel out the blurring effect of longer focal length.
TLDR? Worth reading in its entirety. Thank you very much for such a clear and useful explanation of the relationship between focal length, aperture, and DOF. I will save your description for future use :)
 
I think those photos look great, so when you ask what use that depth of field is I wonder if you're asking that facetiously. Have you tried a 105mm f1.4, like the Sigma 105mm f1.4 Art on your camera with the auto-focus adapter from Fringer yet David? I bet that would be a great combo.

I found that combo in a YouTube video here:

 
Last edited:
Sometimes you want everything in focus. Sometimes you want nothing in focus. Sometimes you want only one skinny plane in focus. Nice to have tools that can do all of that in your toolkit.
 
…it has great potential when DOF is needed otherwise to focus on a subject.

GF 110mm at f2

GF 110mm at f2

For portraits I mostly use f3.2.
Wouldn't it totally depend on the framing of the head shot, the size of the subject's head, and how much of the head you want in focus? I mean I've seen head shots where the subject's eyes are the focus of attention, because s/he had piercing blue or hazel eyes, and those were in perfect focus, while the ears and tip of the nose were out of focus. That's the sort of shot you can make with the 110mm f2 wide open. Stopping down to f3.2 would make a difference, but not a huge difference, especiall if the head shot is not the head and shoulders, but just the face. Here's an example of a head shot that I think would have benefitted from an f2 aperture at a longer focal length, like 110mm:

View attachment fb95f0912498402ba41685d4ffee729b.jpg
OOC jpeg

If I had been shooting at a wider aperture I could have used a faster shutter speed, had a shallower depth of field, and though I probably didn't need to separate the model from the background any more than I did, if I had been shooting with a 110mm focal length I could have shot a bit tighter, and I think that would have been nice. Shots like this make me wish I was shooting with a 45-100, which is the lens I will get first in the future. A 110 would have been even better, and for portraits shot from a greater distance, a 110 at f2 would offer good subject separation for waist-up or thigh-up shots, which is something used often in fashion, wedding portraits, etc.

Here's another shot from that session that I think could have benefitted from using the 110mm f2 wide open:



View attachment a4decdb528ba41d68cfb8b50eb606bad.jpg
OOC jpeg

If I had been using the Fuji 110mm f2, or a Sigma 105mm f1.4 for this shot, I would have backed up a bit, and shot at f2 or maybe f2.8 to get a little more separation from the background, and I could have used a faster shutter speed, which would have been nice.

--
Scott Barton Kennelly
https://www.bigprintphotos.com
https://www.sigmaphotopro.com
https://www.sigmacamerapro.com
 
Last edited:
The tech bros spent millions developing technology to fake this look on smartphones. They had to create an AI brain, neural networks, on-chip AI processing, and train that tech on millions of images. All of that requires massive data centers that are environmental destroyers, especially here in Arizona. They add to our heat island effect and consume water that we cannot spare.
Dude, they don't "consume" water. They are provided water from SRP, which is then either pumped back into the ground or sent out into the city for used by the citizens, since after-all, the water is just used for cooling, and not polluted.

Just so you're aware, Intel gets 9 million gallons of water per day from the city of Chandler. Do you really think that could continue for more than a few weeks/months, unless that water is being returned, to be pumped right back into the aquifer? I don't think so. It would be totally unsustainable. Besides, where do you think the water goes? Do you see massive clouds of water vapor rising from data centers and chip fabs? No. What do you think happens to it? Do the employees drink it?

This misconception that data centers "consume" water is a bunch of malarkey.

Just so you don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that every drop of water sent to Intel is pumped right back into the aquifer. They do use some of the water for cleaning, flushing toilets, washing hands, humidifying the air in some environmentally controlled rooms, etc. Some of the water does not get pumped right back into the aquifer, but I'm sure most of it does. They certainly don't need nine million gallons per day for watering the garden, flushing toilets, and washing their hands, and humidifying the air only uses a tiny bit of water, no matter how big that facility is. No doubt there are other uses that I have not mentioned, but my guess is at least 8 million gallons is used for general system cooling purposes, and then pumped right back into the aquifer, which makes for a very efficient geothermal cooling process, and MUCH more environmentally friendly than those roof-mounted heat exchanger systems you see on a lot of data centers and office buildings in other places. Frankly I don't know why more commercial buildings are not cooled and heated using geothermal cooling/heating, rather than standard air conditioning/heat pump systems, which are much less efficient.
I think shallow DoF is a great look for the right situation. And here, it's real versus the fake smartphone effects.
Sorry to get off topic here, but I just can't stand to see misconceptions spread this way.

--
Scott Barton Kennelly
https://www.bigprintphotos.com
https://www.sigmaphotopro.com
https://www.sigmacamerapro.com
 
Last edited:
I think those photos look great, so when you ask what use that depth of field is I wonder if you're asking that facetiously. Have you tried a 105mm f1.4, like the Sigma 105mm f1.4 Art on your camera with the auto-focus adapter from Fringer yet David? I bet that would be a great combo.

I found that combo in a YouTube video here:

No, I have a Canon 100mm F/2 to experiment with.
 
Shot at Emmett's Garden National Trust

574ea9f8a49c47b1a1811aebad30c3a8.jpg

40a71b5b2bc84473a381e8b514de0aae.jpg

At f/1.4 it's difficult to be sure anything is in focus even with 3x mag and peaking.

I'm hoping to find some suitable middle distance subjects to try out rather than just these close ups.



--
2024: Awarded Royal Photographic Society LRPS Distinction
Photo of the day: https://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/photo-of-the-day-2025/
Website: https://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/
DPReview gallery: https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/0286305481
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/ (very old!)
 
Last edited:
Sometimes you want everything in focus. Sometimes you want nothing in focus. Sometimes you want only one skinny plane in focus. Nice to have tools that can do all of that in your toolkit.
Heavy toolkit... :-)
When I capture images, I just take along the gear that I need to get what I want for that session.
 
I think those photos look great, so when you ask what use that depth of field is I wonder if you're asking that facetiously. Have you tried a 105mm f1.4, like the Sigma 105mm f1.4 Art on your camera with the auto-focus adapter from Fringer yet David? I bet that would be a great combo.

I found that combo in a YouTube video here:

No, I have a Canon 100mm F/2 to experiment with.
Nice! I really like the Canon 135mm f2 L, and I can see myself getting one of those at some point in the future for using on a GFX body. How do you like the 100mm f2 on your GFX?
 
I think those photos look great, so when you ask what use that depth of field is I wonder if you're asking that facetiously. Have you tried a 105mm f1.4, like the Sigma 105mm f1.4 Art on your camera with the auto-focus adapter from Fringer yet David? I bet that would be a great combo.

I found that combo in a YouTube video here:

No, I have a Canon 100mm F/2 to experiment with.
Nice! I really like the Canon 135mm f2 L, and I can see myself getting one of those at some point in the future for using on a GFX body. How do you like the 100mm f2 on your GFX?
Can't say I have used it much - only 103 images so far. Seems to perform pretty well.

Oddly, it hard vignettes stopped down, but is much better at wide apertures. It autofocuses which is an advantage.

I really should make a point of using it. I could take the 100mm and the 85mm out together. Likely not a lot of difference between them.



b01c1d97de2840e8bc519f61b79901f4.jpg



89a64c81237641b8aaeba16034748dee.jpg



97d105ef2c2a4c3e88f7b1f53f56b010.jpg



d0a228b8629546e0b72883d2c54177b2.jpg



29d4e9d17a2940919a0a30c08412323d.jpg



fda4d2c265c3421081c4327852f8da7e.jpg



0c2e36afca614c139c7a2deb02e98c2e.jpg



2eacef37d99a47b59817736d6f871c67.jpg









--
2024: Awarded Royal Photographic Society LRPS Distinction
Photo of the day: https://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/photo-of-the-day-2025/
Website: https://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/
DPReview gallery: https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/0286305481
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/ (very old!)
 
I guess the question is: Useful for what? Capturing fine detail? Creating fine art? Producing an emotional response?

Here are some examples using my fastest lenses.

Brightin Star 35mm f/0.95 - wide open

Brightin Star 35mm f/0.95 - wide open

TTArtisan 90mm f1.25 - wide open

TTArtisan 90mm f1.25 - wide open

TTArtisan 90mm f1.25 @ about f/2

TTArtisan 90mm f1.25 @ about f/2

FujiFilm FUJINON Lens GF80mm F1.7 R WR - @ f/1.7

FujiFilm FUJINON Lens GF80mm F1.7 R WR - @ f/1.7

When going on these little photo-walks, I usually only ever take one lens.

--
Regards,
Vitée
Capture all the light and colour!
 
Shooting a fence or so at close range just provides a 'slice'.

But shooting wide open at some distance works for me fine.

| GFX-100 II | Leica Summmilux-R 1.4/80mm | @1.4 |
| GFX-100 II | Leica Summmilux-R 1.4/80mm | @1.4 |

..............................................................................................................................
Bart
Bravo!

When I read the OP's question, I wondered why the question wasn't "How wide is too wide of an aperture?" Depth of Field (DOF) deep or shallow is generally predicated on intent. How shallow is too shallow? How many angels can dance on a pin head? It often boils down to, whether a DOF is too shallow or deep, simply depends on what one wants.

The above photograph is a great example of how a gaping aperture can be used in a very practical sense. Many photographers will wonder, "what good is having a f/1 (or faster) Noct lens?", as they seemingly can't get beyond the fact that there's far more to ultra fast lenses, than ultra-thin DOF. Ultra-fast lenses can really come into their own when shot wide open, with the subject matter far enough away where the resulting DOF is a few feet wide. The benefit isn't only (a) subject isolation, but a saving grace in regard to having (b) a realistic shutter speed, during certain atmospheric conditions (like in the photo above) or simply when shooting at a time-of-day or situation where there's relatively little ambient light. Being able to (c) the subject matter with a brighter view finder is also an advantage..

Such advantages can also prove very practical when using lenses like the 200 f/2 or 400 f/2.8 in photography other than photographing sports.

I'm glad you posted this.

--
Teila K. Day
 
Hi,

I have a Noct lens for my Nikon small format. The only thing I use it for is rendering points of lights at night. Comes in handy at Christmas time. So, wide open and usually at infinity. It really isn't used with paper thin DoF in mind.

Stan
 
Sometimes you want everything in focus. Sometimes you want nothing in focus. Sometimes you want only one skinny plane in focus. Nice to have tools that can do all of that in your toolkit.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top