Overuse of shallow DOF?

[n1as]

I've begun to wonder about something. Do we as photographers overuse shallow DOF? I used to think it was wicked cool, but now, I'm beginning to think it is sometimes a crutch of sorts; a way to add an effect to an otherwise boring composition.

When shooting a portrait, do we really want just one eye in focus?

I find these days, I'm stopping down more often and trying to get better basic compositions.

[lonelyjew]

I'm with you on this. It is really fun to play with depth of field but too little depth of field is often worse than the background being not out of focus enough.

[Jman13]

If I have the light, I'll stop down for portraits. For headshots, I like to be between f/2.8 and f/5.6...for waist up, usually f/2 to f/2.8 (enough to get the face fully in focus but still separate from the background). Full body, any aperture works fine.

I do shoot my primes wide open a fair amount, and thus do get the one eye in focus thing, but that's usually when I'm shooting in dark conditions by natural light, so I need ISO 1600 and f/1.4 or f/1.2 to get acceptable shutter speeds.

[bohdank]

The 1 eye in focus gets old right after you see the second one.

[ed rader]

I've begun to wonder about something. Do we as photographers overuse shallow DOF? I used to think it was wicked cool, but now, I'm beginning to think it is sometimes a crutch of sorts; a way to add an effect to an otherwise boring composition.

When shooting a portrait, do we really want just one eye in focus?

I find these days, I'm stopping down more often and trying to get better basic compositions.


there's an obssession with fast primes and shallow DOF on these forums.

i think too much of anything is a bad thing and that certainly applies to "creamy bokeh" and razor thin DOF.

now, some guys can pull off shooting wide open on a regular basis but the vast majority really need to stop down to f8 and be there :D.

ed rader

[JeffreyG]

The usefulness of faster than f/2 is very infrequent and usually involves subjects that are not especially close to the camera. Faster than f/2.8 is more like 'sometimes' useful even for portrait type shots.

There are far too many shots where nose and ears are both soft. Realistically the photographer would be better off learning to use flash effectively. I think some people use fast prime lenses as a crutch to not learn how to use a flash.

I tend to get better people pictures at f/5.6 with a flash than at f/1.4 without.

[nphsbuckeye]

there's an obssession with fast primes and shallow DOF on these forums.

i think too much of anything is a bad thing and that certainly applies to "creamy bokeh" and razor thin DOF.

now, some guys can pull off shooting wide open on a regular basis but the vast majority really need to stop down to f8 and be there :D.

ed rader
No kidding. Most of the time I see the crazily shallow DOF of inanimate snapshots around the house, not for practical purposes.

I recently bought the Sigma 24-60 F/2.8 to shoot low light; the DOF is just a bonus to shooting indoors for PJ. Of course the fast lens will be nice for artistic purposes, but that wasn't the main reason in buying the lens.

[Keith R]

Depends entirely on the subject matter - the de facto "standard" for bird and wildlife photography is a well-blurred background to maximise separation between it and the subject - and quite right too.

Hint: not everyone shoots what/the way you do...

Oh - and "Location: VT": for the rest of the world that isn't the US, what in God's name is a VT?

;)

[nphsbuckeye]

Depends entirely on the subject matter - the de facto "standard" for bird and wildlife photography is a well-blurred background to maximise separation between it and the subject - and quite right too.

Hint: not everyone shoots what/the way you do...

Oh - and "Location: VT": for the rest of the world that isn't the US, what in God's name is a VT?

;)
Of course you want DOF for those, but I see many people shooting snapshots of sorts just for the sake of shooting DOF. And photography is subjective, and I'm rambling.

VT=Vermont, east coast.

[EcoRick]

I'm not sure if overuse is a good description. It's great to have the ability to use shallow DOF and I've started purchasing fast glass, partially for that reason. The best captures I've seen on this forum were the correct DOF for the situation. I can understand what you mean when you state one eye is in focus in a portrait shot simply to shoot wide open. That I'll agree is overdone. However the ability to create an interesting shot from an otherwise boring subject by using creative DOF is fun to see.

[Quad]

Well to me there is an explosion of people in the world and thus an explosion of people doing photography (which is helped by the fact that photography just keeps getting more accessible) so there is an explosion of of all techniques (look at selective colouring which used to take lots of time with marshall photo pencils). So you are going to get lots of stuff that is not using technique to strengthen an image but just because someone can. Hopefully there will also be lots of people that gain mastery and we will see more images that have a deeper meaning than just a cool effect. I remain optimistic. There are lots of talented people and they have lots to say. Their audience is ever expanding with access to mass media that is uncontrolled. So instead of worrying about the dross take joy in the great stuff you see.

I am just rambling as well. Maybe I should drive a Rambler.


On a side note it is a bit of a rainy day here in Auckland but last week I had a meeting with an artist in the country side that was incorporating traditional Maori art with Celtic and African art. It is great to see creative people's work and see them at work.

[Jman13]

The usefulness of faster than f/2 is very infrequent and usually involves subjects that are not especially close to the camera. Faster than f/2.8 is more like 'sometimes' useful even for portrait type shots.

There are far too many shots where nose and ears are both soft. Realistically the photographer would be better off learning to use flash effectively. I think some people use fast prime lenses as a crutch to not learn how to use a flash.

I tend to get better people pictures at f/5.6 with a flash than at f/1.4 without.

This is entirely true for posed portraits or even informal portraits. When I did a senior picture shoot, I did exactly one shot wider than f/2...and I shot entirely with my 30 f/1.4, 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.2. In studio, I was at f/5.6 pretty much the whole time. Outdoors, I was between f/2 and f/4 depending on how tight the shot was.

However, I really enjoy candid photography, and I think flash really takes away from the feeling of being there...an important part of the feeling. Having some stuff OOF is better to me in that situation than having artificial lighting (even with properly diffused bounced flash). I think the natural lighting really adds to the image in this situation, and that's really when I use my fast primes wide open.

[HappySnapper90]

I've begun to wonder about something. Do we as photographers overuse shallow DOF? I used to think it was wicked cool, but now, I'm beginning to think it is sometimes a crutch of sorts; a way to add an effect to an otherwise boring composition.


Just 1 eye in focus is not good. You can shoot at very wide apertures but as long as you understand DOF and how it relates to focus distance. f1.4 with a 50mm lens at 18 inches for a person's face will not be a flattering photo.

But you can use a 100 f2 wide open and your subject is 15 feet away and have very good DOF for your subject (person). I found reading Bryan Peterson's books: Understanding Exposure and Learning to See Creatively a very good insight to his way of photography. For landscapes he's usually shooting f16 or f22, and sometimes f32. With people he's usually between f5.6 and f8. Rarely were his examples ever f4 or wider open. He did have an f4 photo but the light was low and his subjects were all 100 feet away or more giving him large DOF.

[Hermeto]

I've begun to wonder about something. Do we as photographers overuse shallow DOF? I used to think it was wicked cool, but now, I'm beginning to think it is sometimes a crutch of sorts; a way to add an effect to an otherwise boring composition.

When shooting a portrait, do we really want just one eye in focus?

I find these days, I'm stopping down more often and trying to get better basic compositions.

I can’t stand it, especially for portraits!

While a single flower or a bird on the branch may look nice with extra shallow DoF, people’s heads rarely float in the thin, colorful air.
We never look at people from distances so short that one eye is in focus and the other one isn’t.
People live in the real world and the real world usually has some kind of a recognizable background.

IMHO, for most portraits people should be placed in the context of the environment: emphasized, rather than isolated.

[TheHoff]

Cross-post, but from a similar thread... what would history look like if we all just shoot wide open?


http://i34.tinypic.com/o0qlqw.jpg


Strong images that tell stories need context.

[tonylong]

Hey, I'll chime in:)!

Ultra-wide DOF is a fun, creative playground, and naturally people who get their first wide-aperture lens will be enthusiastic and post their shallow DOF results -- it's fun, the equivalent of posting duck shots! No harm, no foul, no shame.

In "normal" shooting, of course, f/1.2 or f/1.4 or whatever is of limited use, so, like has been posted, a portrait at f/1.2 will often simply be too shallow, but that does depend on other variables. I've seen f/1.2 portraits that were like "Wow!".

Like everything else, experience offers us the opportunity to grow our skills and our judgement. There are times when I know that shooting wide open will give me the desired effect. Most often, I won't shoot wide open, and as often as not I'll "bracket" shots at a few apertures -- it depends on things like how far away I am from the subject and how much of the subject I want in good focus.

But, I don't begrudge the enthusiastic newcomer posting the latest "Bokeh" shot that has narrow DOF (even if the "bokeh" effect is not the artistic "good bokeh"). We're all a work-in-progress, I figure:)!

[kevindar]

well, although I agree with original poster, I think a thin dof has an important place in portrait photography. Yes, both eyes need to be in sharp focus, so I try to shoot at f 1.2 and 1.4 only when the eyes are in the same focal plane. I have found f 3.5 works well for for upper body shots. Sometimes the context and surrounding is important and adds to an image. Sometimes it does not.

[n1as]

Oh - and "Location: VT": for the rest of the world that isn't the US, what in God's name is a VT?

;)

LOL - that is SO funny!. VT - Vermont (but you probably new that). What you may not know is just how unlike the rest of the USA Vermont actually is. We were the last state in the union to have a Walmart store and it took Walmart several tries to finally find someplace they could get permission to put one. We still vote on paper ballets - with pencils to put X's in the squares. Many of the local shops here have old wooden floors with the finish worn off, very narrow isles and the owner lives upstairs.

Vermont is a really wonderful place. It reminds me a lot of the United States.

LOL!!

[soccersnaps]

The title of the thread was just too loose and all the portrait photographers here can justify their answer as being correct (and i would have to agree), but i shoot sports and wildlife and in these circumstances f8 just gives too cluttered an image.

[alt4852]

i suppose it could be argued that it's overused sometimes, but it's hard to say since i use it for portraits rather often. even at f/4 or f/5.6, i can get a pretty good blur if the background is distant enough. i think it's rather useful for facial portraits because it removes distracting elements in the background and really draws the attention to your subject. when i do a facial portrait, the purpose of the photo is the expression, detail, and overall character of the person being shot. any other element is largely unimportant to the photo unless i purposely take the picture in a location that has special context to the individual.. in which case i would usually opt for a head and shoulders portrait anyways.

[Gentleman Villain]

Shallow DOF can be a sign of poverty

Would ya'll use F1.4 to take a portrait of the Queen of England in her palace? Hell no...ya'll would want to show as much of the palace or the manicured grounds as possible.

But we poor and working class people live in ugly cluttered places, so it's necessary to blur our surroundings with shallow DOF to cover up the fact that we're lower caste and live like pigs. The yuppies and nuevo-riche are also well served with shallow DOF because even though they've got a little $$$ it usually isn't enough to buy them good taste when beautifying their surroundings.

Shallow DOF is very practical for covering up signs of poverty or bad taste. It's also very practical for photographing products or for blurring out bad skin on actors' headshots. Shooting wide open might be necessary for working in low light conditions. But most of the time shallow DOF is a necessary evil to cover up something ugly or commonplace ;)

Reliance on background blur can become a gimmick when a photographer has access to beautiful locations and subjects yet still relies on shooting wide open (like a sports illustrated swimsuit photographer.) Other than, it's very practical to shoot wide open for a number of reasons...

Just having some fun so don't take me too seriously...

[TheHoff]

Well put, GV.

[soccersnaps]

ha......ive never managed to shoot a swimmer in beautiful surroundings, just the worst lit pool on the planet........the scourge of the sports tog

[polarbare]

I'm with the OP pretty much. If you're taking your pictures with the gorgeous bokeh as your first thought, what are you really missing out on?

[Perry Ge]

I agree, in particular with portraiture. I try to shoot all my portraits in studio at f/11 for DOF and lighting reasons.

However, there are times when shallow DOF looks nice, and there are some things (e.g. concerts, indoor shots in low light) where you can never have fast enough glass, and that's where f/1.2-f/2 become really nice.

Having said that, shallow DOF to isolate your subject is never a bad thing (and your subject could be someone's eye!). But if your DOF is so narrow that not even all of your subject is in focus, then it's a problem. The amount of DOF you need has to vary from shot to shot.

[Quad]

Vermont is a really wonderful place. It reminds me a lot of the United States.

Sounds like Pleasantville but that begs the question is it in color or B&W.;)


Shallow DOF can be a sign of poverty



Shallow DOF is very practical for covering up signs of poverty or bad taste.



Now there is a good reason for very shallow DOF.:lol:

[hollis_f]

As well as isolating your subject -

http://photos.imageevent.com/frankhollis/trips/bwc/huge/BWC%2020080929%20736.jpg

- a shallow depth of field can be used to ensure that the viewer looks at the right bit of the image. This polecat was shot at f2.8 with the focus just in front of its eyes. So only a narrow band, between the ears and nose, is in focus. This is where I want to viewer to lock onto when they first see the image and the fact that it's the only area in focus means that the eye leaps there straight away. With a wide DoF your eye would be drageed all over the place.

http://photos.imageevent.com/frankhollis/trips/bwc/huge/BWC%2020080929%20855.jpg

[soccersnaps]

nice shallow dof polecat pic...........heres mine