DOF

[joe mama]

The threads themselves were balanced, but the viewpoints I quoted
come up quite often. I wanted to get a broader base of viewpoints
from other systems.

No, you want to push your own agenda and force feed it to others.

Define my agenda, then linkand quote where I "force feed it to others".

For sure, for sure. But, I have a huge number of clients, and they
all love the pics I have in my office:

Yeah, like your "clients" are going to denegrate the pictures you
have on your walls, no matter what they look like.

Their responses are unsolicited, since photography is not my job, and they didn't know I was the photographer.

And while they're not purchasing the pics, many have commented on how
they love the shallow DOF on the shallow DOF pics, and have even
engaged me in discussions about it. Thus, my experience is that the
"average non-photographer" does like shallow DOF. Not to mention,
often the birthday presents I give are shallow DOF candids, and they
have always loved them, and it doesn't appear as though they're
just feigning graciousness.

People always feign graciousness when getting a gift, even if they
hate it.

Do they ask me to make 20x30 inch colorplaques for them?

That, and your clients' opinions are hardly a final
judgement on whether shallow DOF is more appealing or popular than
deeper DOF.

Classic! And your opinion is? I mean, it was your thread bad-mouthing shallow DOF, after all, that prompted this thread in part:

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

I would present Ansel Adams photos as counterexample. It was every
bit how much he rendered the subject, as it was the subject itself,
that gave the photos the impact they have.

Yeah, but it wasn't the DOF that gave them impact. It was the
lighting/contrast, which was mostly done in a darkroom.

But it was how he rendered the subject, which, last I looked, is what I was talking about when I referenced him.

Sorry if I ever even implied the contrary! I'm just saying that
shallow DOF is but a tool at one's disposal, and don't understand all
the attacks it has taken.

Well, if it is attacked, it's likely because it looks ridiculous and
amateurish in most examples and because it has been way overdone. And
of course it all depends on how shallow the shallow DOF is.

Yes, you made that point clear when you said of these pics:

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

that you'd have tossed them in the recycle bin:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=28022006

Although you seem proud enough of your own shallow DOF macro pics:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=28021833

--
--joe

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

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

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.

How is shallow DOF "just another artifact of imperfect optical
systems"? What would a "perfect optical system" deliver?

I mean that optical image-capture systems have numerous limitations.
There are images no lens can capture. Have you ever seen a
photograph in isometric projection (where objects don't grow smaller
with distance)?

Yes, I've taken them three different ways.

1) Photographs in a parallel orthographic projection (which you incorrectly identified as "isometric", a non-parallel orthographic projection that cannot exist physically) are taken naturally by "object side telecentric" lenses, quite commonly used in industrial photography and process control.

2) Parallel orthographic projection is a natural side effect of macro photography done with the "focus stacking" technique, when multiple focal planes are selected by moving the entire lens/camera system as a single unit by using a focus rail. This technique predates computer assisted photography, and was originally done by using moving light plane microscopes.

It is interesting to note that this technique can also be used to achieve anomalous perspective, where objects appear larger as they move farther from the camera.

3) Parallel orthographic projection in an architectural setting can be done by moving the camera to multiple locations and then stitching the resulting image into a whole into a parallel projection.

There are several other ways that I have not personally tried.

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

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

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[RedFox88]

yes, the "FF has unuseable soft corners that must be cropped out" guys haven't replied to this post yet (riley and plutosis). It seems that olympus users are about the most rude forum on DPR and so many of them will not open their mind to the fact that 4:3 gives twice the DOF as FF/film when using the same FOV with both systems. they think their gear is the best because it's designed new, and their 300mm lenses "magically" turn into 600mm lenses at a fraction of the cost and weight, lol. 4:3 isn't far from a P&S system for DOF.

olympus users also say that their system doesn't need good high iso because they can get the same DOF using 2 stops lower iso than what a FF/film shooter has to use since their system naturally gives 2 stops more DOF. But this is a trade off since olympus does not make any lenses (and very few primes overall) faster than f2 which means the shallowest DOF 4:3 records is really f4 but with FF you can get f1.4 and f1.8 for about $350 averaging the 50 f1.4 and 85 f1.8 price yet alone the $70 50 f1.8.

 

[joe mama]

yes, the "FF has unuseable soft corners that must be cropped out"
guys haven't replied to this post yet (riley and plutosis).

Probably got tired of the constant counter-examples to those "claims". : )

It seems that olympus users are about the most rude forum on DPR...

I don't think it's fair to generalize to an entire group from a few outspoken zealots.

...so many of them will not open their mind to the fact that 4:3 gives twice
the DOF as FF/film when using the same FOV with both systems. they think
their gear is the best because it's designed new, and their 300mm
lenses "magically" turn into 600mm lenses at a fraction of the cost
and weight, lol. 4:3 isn't far from a P&S system for DOF.

Well, 4/3 is smack in the middle of large sensor compacts (e.g. Canon Pro1) and 35mm FF, and for many, it's the "Goldilocks" position as it offers the best balance.

olympus users also say that their system doesn't need good high iso
because they can get the same DOF using 2 stops lower iso than what a
FF/film shooter has to use since their system naturally gives 2 stops
more DOF.

It's a valid point, though, if you don't have any interest in shallow DOF.

But this is a trade off since olympus does not make any
lenses (and very few primes overall) faster than f2 which means the
shallowest DOF 4:3 records is really f4 but with FF you can get f1.4
and f1.8 for about $350 averaging the 50 f1.4 and 85 f1.8 price yet
alone the $70 50 f1.8.

Again, only an issue for those that enjoy shallow DOF. Basically, 35mm FF is at its best in two circumstances:

1) Shallow DOF
2) Base ISO

We all understand the shallow DOF condition, but the base ISO condition is not often understood. That's when there is sufficient light for 35mm FF to sacrifice shutter speed, rather than increase ISO, to maintain the desired DOF/corner sharpness. For example, Canon's UWA corners usually hit their stride at f/11, which corresponds to f/5.6 on 4/3. If you don't need to up the ISO to match the shutter speed, the FF gets a cleaner and more detailed image, which is a decent bonus for FF. Upping the ISO two stops on FF to match the shutter speed takes away the advantages of FF for deeper DOF shooting.

But for many 4/3 shooters, ISO 100 on 4/3 is "clean enough" and 10 MP gives "enough" detail, so those advantages of FF are unimportant, just as is the ability for a more shallow DOF. For some, even compact digicams, such as the G9, is "clean enough" at base ISO with deep DOF so that it's a better choice than 4/3, in the same way that 4/3 is a better choice than FF.

But 35mm FF does not have a noise advantage unless there is enough light to maintain a fast enough shutter at base ISO (or using a tripod), or you are willing to use a more shallow DOF. For example, 50mm f/2.8 ISO 400 on FF will have two stops less total image noise than 25mm f/2.8 ISO 400 on 4/3, but it will have a much more shallow DOF. Bump the FF DSLR to 50mm f/5.6 ISO 1600 to maintain the DOF and shutter speed, and that noise advantage is lost. So, unless you like shallow DOF, or consider using it a "necessary evil" to get less noise, then FF doesn't have a noise advantage except when it can maintain "proper" DOF and shutter speed below ISO 400.

The point of this thread was to hear from a more diverse group to get an idea of how many enjoy shallow DOF. Because if shallow DOF is not your gig, and you don't find it "acceptable" to use a more shallow DOF so you can maintain a faster shutter with less noise, and the ISO 100 performance of your system meets your QT (quality threshold), then, yeah, FF is not the best choice.

--
--joe

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

 

[joe mama]

I know all about shallow DOF at 100mm:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=23245812

But shallow DOF with a wider perspective also interests me:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=26773972

You sure proved you know what you're talking about!

Thanks for the links: really great shots, they have given me some
ideas and I feel inspired to try a few more things for myself. Thanks!

Well, shallow DOF is why I moved from compacts to DSLRs in the first place, and to get more of it was why I moved from a 20D to a 5D. My target audience is myself, so it's really of no consequence if most don't like shallow DOF, but I am surprised at the vitriol that it receives:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=28178895

"Again though, that rather sucks us away from the original point - photographers look at paper thin DoF and go "Ooh, that's great, what lens was that with?" Joe Public wonders why the shooter chose to create a horrid smear."

Like I said in the initial post, I normally see these attidudes from 4/3 shooters:

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

"Shallow DoF is a limitation, not a tool"

but was wondering if they were shared by others as well.

--
--joe

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

 

[Timmi]

Nah.. you don't have to rewrite the whole guide, just a bit more play with numbers here and there with hint what would be used realistically and thats it.

You are writing the picture, but you are not drawing the picture completly.

B

--
iThink, therefore iMac

 

[gianstam]

Again, only an issue for those that enjoy shallow DOF. Basically,
35mm FF is at its best in two circumstances:

1) Shallow DOF
2) Base ISO

We all understand the shallow DOF condition, but the base ISO
condition is not often understood. That's when there is sufficient
light for 35mm FF to sacrifice shutter speed, rather than increase
ISO, to maintain the desired DOF/corner sharpness. For example,
Canon's UWA corners usually hit their stride at f/11, which
corresponds to f/5.6 on 4/3. If you don't need to up the ISO to
match the shutter speed, the FF gets a cleaner and more detailed
image, which is a decent bonus for FF. Upping the ISO two stops on
FF to match the shutter speed takes away the advantages of FF for
deeper DOF shooting.

But for many 4/3 shooters, ISO 100 on 4/3 is "clean enough" and 10 MP
gives "enough" detail, so those advantages of FF are unimportant,
just as is the ability for a more shallow DOF. For some, even
compact digicams, such as the G9, is "clean enough" at base ISO with
deep DOF so that it's a better choice than 4/3, in the same way that
4/3 is a better choice than FF.

But 35mm FF does not have a noise advantage unless there is enough
light to maintain a fast enough shutter at base ISO (or using a
tripod), or you are willing to use a more shallow DOF. For example,
50mm f/2.8 ISO 400 on FF will have two stops less total image noise
than 25mm f/2.8 ISO 400 on 4/3, but it will have a much more shallow
DOF. Bump the FF DSLR to 50mm f/5.6 ISO 1600 to maintain the DOF and
shutter speed, and that noise advantage is lost. So, unless you like
shallow DOF, or consider using it a "necessary evil" to get less
noise, then FF doesn't have a noise advantage except when it can
maintain "proper" DOF and shutter speed below ISO 400.

The point of this thread was to hear from a more diverse group to get
an idea of how many enjoy shallow DOF. Because if shallow DOF is not
your gig, and you don't find it "acceptable" to use a more shallow
DOF so you can maintain a faster shutter with less noise, and the ISO
100 performance of your system meets your QT (quality threshold),
then, yeah, FF is not the best choice.

Joe, I like the way you put the things in their place.

I'm with JLo

I had in my mind two different lenses (e.g. 100 and 50mm) where the 50 has 1/2 diameter and 1/4 area of 100,so, I write a not exactly correct aonclusion.
Giannis

 

[antoineb]

My guess is that a lot of shallow DOF is not by choice: the average shooter using the average DSLR (say capped at 800 ISO for reasonable IQ), will often find him/herself in situations where the cap at ISO 800 forces to use a fairly wide aperture, this strongly limiting DOF. And there can be other factors, such as stopping down too much simply leads to a less sharp shot due to diffraction.

As a result, we get shallow DOF that is forced by technical limitations, but not chosen. I think this forced shallow DOF is no good. You get telephoto shots of a swan, w a great and expensive lens, and only the eye is in sharp focus but not the beak or the rest of the head. You get macro shots of insects where just half the head is in focus. You get portraits where the plane of the eyes is in focus and not the rest.

And then, you get chosen shallow DOF, to isolate a feature. Clearly this kind of DOF is great.

Now to be able to chose, on a DSLR one typically needs to be able to go easily to ISO 1'600 and know the IQ will be good enough, which means a D300 or better (but not larger chip or else the DOF becomes shallower again ;-)

The counterpoint of this, is on compact cameras, the small chip means lots of DOF all the time. So the challenge becomes to obtain shallow DOF when desired. I personally find that on my FZ-18 I can get shallow enough DOF when I want it (and the super-shallow DOF I don't like, it looks too artificial to me), while the rest of the time I can thankfully get shots, especially macro shots, where an insect on a leaf well the whole insect and the whole leaf are in focus, which looks much more natural, to me.

examples:

(improvised in a forest, I'm not saying this is a perfect shot, the point is just to show the DOF)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/41427221@N00/2508386367/sizes/l/

shallow enough for what I wanted to do here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/41427221@N00/2123938697/sizes/l/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/41427221@N00/2183905528/sizes/l/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/41427221@N00/2126282477/sizes/l/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/41427221@N00/2084508256/sizes/l/

BOTTOM-LINE: shallow DOF is neither "good" nor "bad" - it's a potential creative effect, and it is great if it is CHOSEN, not FORCED on you by the equipment.

 

[sherwoodpete]

BOTTOM-LINE: shallow DOF is neither "good" nor "bad" - it's a
potential creative effect, and it is great if it is CHOSEN, not
FORCED on you by the equipment.

I agree with that point, equally with regard to Deep DOF which is all to often not chosen, but a limitation of the equipment. My Olympus C5050 has an f/1.8 maximum aperture, but even that is not enough to give the qualities I would want. And many compact cameras have lens apertures nowhere near as wide.
Regards,
Peter

 

[joe mama]

My guess is that a lot of shallow DOF is not by choice: the average
shooter using the average DSLR (say capped at 800 ISO for reasonable
IQ), will often find him/herself in situations where the cap at ISO
800 forces to use a fairly wide aperture, this strongly limiting DOF.

Exactly correct!

And there can be other factors, such as stopping down too much simply
leads to a less sharp shot due to diffraction.

Keeping in mind, of course, that all systems suffer diffraction softening equally at the same DOF, not the same f-ratio:

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#diffraction

As a result, we get shallow DOF that is forced by technical
limitations, but not chosen. I think this forced shallow DOF is no
good.

I aboslutely concur.

You get telephoto shots of a swan, w a great and expensive
lens, and only the eye is in sharp focus but not the beak or the rest
of the head. You get macro shots of insects where just half the head
is in focus. You get portraits where the plane of the eyes is in
focus and not the rest.

Well, I happen to like that look:

Canon 20D + 135mm / 2L @ f / 2, 1/1250, ISO 100

http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/49427511



Canon 5D + Sigma 150mm / 2.8 Macro @ f / 2.8, 1/200, ISO 800

http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/74149437



Canon 5D + 70-200mm / 2.8L non-IS @ 200mm, f / 2.8, 1/400, ISO 800

http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/70237750

And then, you get chosen shallow DOF, to isolate a feature. Clearly
this kind of DOF is great.

I'm very much a fan of the look of shallow DOF when done with conscious effort:

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

But the embedded pics above, were also by conscious design.

Now to be able to chose, on a DSLR one typically needs to be able to
go easily to ISO 1'600 and know the IQ will be good enough, which
means a D300 or better (but not larger chip or else the DOF becomes
shallower again ;-)

The DOF does not become "shallower again". Whatever DOF smaller sensors can achieve, so can larger sensors, but the reverse is not true.

The counterpoint of this, is on compact cameras, the small chip means
lots of DOF all the time. So the challenge becomes to obtain shallow
DOF when desired.

Exactly!

I personally find that on my FZ-18 I can get
shallow enough DOF when I want it (and the super-shallow DOF I don't
like, it looks too artificial to me), while the rest of the time I
can thankfully get shots, especially macro shots, where an insect on
a leaf well the whole insect and the whole leaf are in focus, which
looks much more natural, to me.

I'm more of a shallow DOF fan, even for macro:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=23292671
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=23223687

BOTTOM-LINE: shallow DOF is neither "good" nor "bad" - it's a
potential creative effect, and it is great if it is CHOSEN, not
FORCED on you by the equipment.

Shallow DOF is never forced on you by the equipment, except when you need to exceed the highest ISO of the equipment to maintain enough shutter speed for the DOF you desire.

--
--joe

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

 

[antoineb]

On the first one the shallow DOF highlighting the eye is nicely artistic, but a bit too obvious for my taste, but I think I can see where you're coming from ;-)

 

[antoineb]

(nt)
Antoine

 

[mujana]

Well I have found this post and I read it with interest)

 

[sherwoodpete]

You know that you are in trouble when you find yourself pixel peeping
the real world

Jeff

Yes, it does sound silly.

But it may be necessary. In another context, that of high-fidelity sound, there are cases of expensive loudspeakers and amplifiers being set up and listened to very critically (the audio equivalent of pixel-peeping). And it is necessary to go to a live concert once in a while, and listen just as attentively to the sound of a real musical instrument. Otherwise it might be that so called "faults" and "imperfections" in the reproduced sound are merely an accurate representation of reality.

And conversely, a hi-fi sound system may be elaborately set up and yet the sound output bear little resemblance to the original sound.
There is some merit in observing reality once in a while.

Regards,
Peter

 

[fldspringer]

yes, the "FF has unuseable soft corners that must be cropped out"
guys haven't replied to this post yet (riley and plutosis). It seems
that olympus users are about the most rude forum on DPR and so many
of them will not open their mind to the fact that 4:3 gives twice the
DOF as FF/film when using the same FOV with both systems. they think
their gear is the best because it's designed new, and their 300mm
lenses "magically" turn into 600mm lenses at a fraction of the cost
and weight, lol. 4:3 isn't far from a P&S system for DOF.

--
I find your post a bit childish.

The 4/3 is as far away from the largest P&S sensor (except the new Sigma) as 4/3 is from the beloved 35mm.

From the E500/40-150 kit lens.





The E-3/50-200





-
Greg

http://www.spanielsport.com/

 

[Thomas_A]

I should depend on the amount of DOF required for the user, e.g. "natural" DOF (minimicing our vision) or "artistic" DOF.

 

[natureman]

Yep, me again. Weren't you just waiting for me to respond to this thread?

The threads themselves were balanced, but the viewpoints I quoted
come up quite often. I wanted to get a broader base of viewpoints
from other systems.

No, you want to push your own agenda and force feed it to others.

Define my agenda, then linkand quote where I "force feed it to others".

Your agenda is obvious. You're determined to be right, at any cost. I'm the one who said you want to force feed it to others. I never said you said it. There are no links or quotes to link to or quote, which anyone with a clue can see.

Unlike you, I don't have a fanatical hangup with linking and quoting anyway, and I have better things to do than spend hours going through other threads and posts looking for ammunition to use against someone, and especially out of context ammunition that has little or nothing to do with the current thread, like you do so much.

For sure, for sure. But, I have a huge number of clients, and they
all love the pics I have in my office:

Yeah, like your "clients" are going to denegrate the pictures you
have on your walls, no matter what they look like.

Their responses are unsolicited, since photography is not my job, and
they didn't know I was the photographer.

So you say.

And while they're not purchasing the pics, many have commented on how
they love the shallow DOF on the shallow DOF pics, and have even
engaged me in discussions about it. Thus, my experience is that the
"average non-photographer" does like shallow DOF. Not to mention,
often the birthday presents I give are shallow DOF candids, and they
have always loved them, and it doesn't appear as though they're
just feigning graciousness.

People always feign graciousness when getting a gift, even if they
hate it.

Do they ask me to make 20x30 inch colorplaques for them?

I don't know, do they?

That, and your clients' opinions are hardly a final
judgement on whether shallow DOF is more appealing or popular than
deeper DOF.

Classic! And your opinion is? I mean, it was your thread
bad-mouthing shallow DOF, after all, that prompted this thread in
part:

My opinion is just my opinion, although a lot of other people apparently share it, based on what you say about so many people attacking shallow DOF. I'm glad to know you're thinking of me joe and that you started this thread "in part" because of me. I already knew that by the way.

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

I would present Ansel Adams photos as counterexample. It was every
bit how much he rendered the subject, as it was the subject itself,
that gave the photos the impact they have.

Yeah, but it wasn't the DOF that gave them impact. It was the
lighting/contrast, which was mostly done in a darkroom.

But it was how he rendered the subject, which, last I looked, is what
I was talking about when I referenced him.

Well, since this thread is about DOF, the context of your comment could rightfully be taken as being about that topic. Maybe you should have been more specific in the first place.

Sorry if I ever even implied the contrary! I'm just saying that
shallow DOF is but a tool at one's disposal, and don't understand all
the attacks it has taken.

Well, if it is attacked, it's likely because it looks ridiculous and
amateurish in most examples and because it has been way overdone. And
of course it all depends on how shallow the shallow DOF is.

Yes, you made that point clear when you said of these pics:

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

that you'd have tossed them in the recycle bin:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=28022006

Although you seem proud enough of your own shallow DOF macro pics:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=28021833

I didn't say I was proud of them but I suppose it's safe to say that I think they're pretty good, especially since I shot them with small sensor cameras. And if you read what I said about them in the other thread, you'll notice I said I was going for maximum DOF. You should also notice that the subjects are mostly to completely in focus with only the backgrounds being out of focus, except for the last picture (the boy) where the subject is mostly in focus but a little OOF toward the back of his head. As I also said in that thread, those photos were to show that shallow DOF can be achieved with small sensor cameras. Just imagine if I had used a wide open aperture.

--
--joe

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

 

[natureman]

joe mama said:

Shallow DOF is never forced on you by the equipment, except when you need to exceed the highest ISO of the equipment to maintain enough shutter speed for the DOF you desire.

That exception is very important, although your statement would be more accurate if you had said: ..... except when you need to exceed the ISO you have chosen to use to maintain enough shutter speed for the DOF you desire.

 

[Brad Nichol]

Bringing things back to the OP regarding DOF perhaps I can make some observations from own experience over the years. I don't offer these as facts just my opinion.

1) Neither shallow or deep DOF is better than the other they are merely techniques at our disposal to use as we see fit.

2) Clearly different format offer different possibilities, so for most of us we need more than one camera and once again saying A is better than B is pretty pointless.

3) Many new photographers probably seek out the shallow DOF look to a degree as they relate it to achieving pro-type photographic results, to a degree this is a true reflection, however many pros shoot for deep DOF too, it depends on the job, clearly portraits are generally shallow DOF most of the time.

4) It is actually very much harder to create really good compositions with deep DOF as you have to pay far more attention to all the elements in the photo. The shallow DOF has the effect of simplifying the image which makes the message clearer and less distracted by other elements which is often a really good thing.

5) On professional shoots really shallow DOF is often a real problem as there is very little sneeze room for focus inaccuracies and subject movement, so often I would go for a little more DOF rather than risk a shot that can't be sold because nothing ends up sharp.

6) I personally would love to see more deep DOF portraits, many years ago I produced such things professionally where the subject was part of his environment and the two were actually important to the shot.

7) A lot of the really shallow DOF stuff we see is medium format, which is great when you need that look but it was also very hard to work with on the job compared to 35mm, no sneeze room and slow shutter speeds if you really needed deep DOF. But the DOF look you get with MF is to my eyes far better than that of FF digital or APS type sensors.

8) I feel to an extent shallow DOF approaches at present are a bit of an over- reaction to the deep DOF characteristic of the compact cameras and as a result some of it is probably a bit overdone, the nicest results I feel lie somewhere in the middle ground.

9) To a degree the look of the DOF is effected by the lens clarity, some lenses are so bittingly sharp where the image parts are in focus that the out of focus areas look more out of focus than they really are because the contrast between in focus and out of focus areas is very pronounced. (I just love these lenses)

10) The shallow DOF looks success' is very much dependent on the final print size, if you are printing large then it can easily end up looking way too soft, yet its fine in a Postcard or 5 by 7 print for the desktop.

11) Noise is far more obvious on smooth toned shallow DOF areas so it probably a good thing that compact don't do real shallow DOF so well, but it also means high ISOs and shallow DOF on DSLRs are not that clever either, though in practice it shouldn't be a problem as wide apertures usually means less need for high ISOs.

12) A strange little anomaly is the the as we go larger in print size the DSLR may actually be at a disadvantage to the compact for deep FOF shots given reasonable viewing distances, this is because the regardless of the aperture the actual DOF is still not as great as the compact so when you enlarge right up the out of DOF areas become more obviously not quite in focus and this is accentuated because the in focus areas are proportionally sharper. Of course the compact has more noise....but then from 3 feet or more its not actually visable and the image has roughly the same sharpness across the whole image depth. I know that will cause some eyebrow raising but I promise I have lots of exhibition prints from the two formats that demonstrate this.
--
Zero-one imaging

 

[Haider]

Nice shots, I don't class them as ultra-shallow DOF. For me your getting the right amount of DOF for the shot, isolation without the blurification. You've maintained a healthy distance from the subject so it does render the background incomprehensible but it is isolated from your subject. I do the same thing with OM and 50mm f1.4, so the background DOF is not too blurred. With my Oly four-thirds camera I may get closer and keep the Zoom wide open. Really it's down to knowing what kind of DOF suits the image and knowing how to make your tools deliver the goods. That's the art of photography knowing how to use your tools and having the vision. I love the Cartier-Bresson shots beautifully done wide open whilst still mantaining the right DOF for the image.