Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Critique Corner 
Thread started 15 Mar 2011 (Tuesday) 14:10
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

The Possible VS Required

 
icopus
"the creep following them around taking pictures"
Avatar
2,905 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 926
Joined Dec 2010
Location: In the shadows of Houston
     
Mar 15, 2011 14:10 |  #1

When did / does the possible become the required?

Seems most C&C are critical of DOF. However, in many shots, the background wasn't distracting enough to warrant the criticism IMHO. In several shots, the background even enhanced the shot. Yet, the DOF was criticized.

This leads me to believe that the incredible DOF (BOKEH?) that can be achieved has now become a requirement.

This discussion is not limited to DOF, but any aspect of photography that has become pervasive enough to seem mandatory.

What say you?

Disclaimer: I'm not discussing my photos.:lol: Yes, I'm jealous of what's possible but mindful that some shots benefit from a wider DOF.... IMO.

If this topic has been discussed before ad nauseum and your reply as such is required, please simply reply with the link to the older thread(s). Thank you.


It's my life and I'll get pissed if I want to.
"Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar." - E.R. Murrow

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
karobinson
Goldmember
Avatar
1,230 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Alaska
     
Mar 15, 2011 14:13 |  #2

IMHO there are those who have to "find something wrong" with any given photo, and dof seems to be the easiest to point out. Of course, the majority never seem to take into consideration what the poster is sayinng about the photo to begin with. Ask for c&c on the eyes and you will here plenty about the dof...... Just my opinion...


Ann Robinson:)
My Gear: bunch of stuff;....some I love ... some I hate ... some I can't live without..loving my 5d3...

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,298 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 1801
Joined Dec 2006
     
Mar 15, 2011 14:16 |  #3

Without examples its hard to answer. But just because you say the background are not distracting doesnt necessarily make it so in mind of the viewer. I agree that the superthin DOF craze is out of hand, but just stating that doesnt rebut the opinion of the critics.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Flo
Gimmie Some Lovin
Avatar
44,987 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Nanaimo,B.C.
     
Mar 15, 2011 14:18 as a reply to  @ karobinson's post |  #4

I suppose it depends on what the photographer intended to be the focus/or not for DOF.Why not start a DOF thread:lol: and see what happens?


you're a great friend, but if Zombies chase us, I am tripping you.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
joedlh
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,327 posts
Gallery: 41 photos
Likes: 464
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Long Island, NY, N. America, Sol III, Orion Spur, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Cluster, Laniakea.
     
Mar 15, 2011 16:48 |  #5

I've never been a fan of those who extol the virtues of creamy bokeh. If I look at a picture and stuff is out of focus that I would like to see in more detail, then I'll mention that a wider depth of field might have been good. If the subject is sufficiently identifiable in a less than perfect background, then I'm okay with that too.

I think that part of the fascination with shallow depth of field often is a rationalization for getting an expensive wide aperture lens.


Joe
Gear: Kodak Instamatic, Polaroid Swinger. Oh you meant gear now. :rolleyes:
http://photo.joedlh.ne​t (external link)
Editing ok

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Flo
Gimmie Some Lovin
Avatar
44,987 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Nanaimo,B.C.
     
Mar 15, 2011 17:00 as a reply to  @ joedlh's post |  #6

We had a discussion in the Competition about Bokeh and DOF, for me, they are two different things.but thats just me.


you're a great friend, but if Zombies chase us, I am tripping you.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
icopus
THREAD ­ STARTER
"the creep following them around taking pictures"
Avatar
2,905 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 926
Joined Dec 2010
Location: In the shadows of Houston
     
Mar 15, 2011 18:47 |  #7

joedlh wrote in post #12026487 (external link)
... I think that part of the fascination with shallow depth of field often is a rationalization for getting an expensive wide aperture lens.

Uh, I wouldn't have said that. I just wouldn't. Not me. No, no, I couldn't say that.... out loud. (insert smiley rolling eyes and shuffling feet)
But I sooooo drool for an expensive wide aperture lens!


It's my life and I'll get pissed if I want to.
"Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar." - E.R. Murrow

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
flyfishnj
Senior Member
363 posts
Joined Sep 2003
Location: NJ
     
Mar 16, 2011 12:20 |  #8

I was thinking the same thing when going through some pictures today. I was wondering what was the story/feeling/etc. photog trying to depict?


~John~

60D w/ grip | 10D w/ grip | Tamron 19-35 f/3.5-4.5 | Canon 50 f/1.8 | Canon 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS | Tamron 28-75 XR Di | Canon 70-200 F4 L | Canon 100-400 L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JayZ235
Senior Member
492 posts
Joined Feb 2011
Location: Minneapolis, MinneSnowta
     
Mar 16, 2011 12:51 |  #9

First i'll say that i do not believe Bokeh and DoF to be the same thing. They do however have an affect on each other.

For me, it depends 100% on the subject of focus and how dominant they are against their surrounding. That's it.

Example: photo of a couple standing on the edge of the Grand Canyon shot with narrow aperture so everything as far as the eye can see is in focus. What's going to dominate the focus here? The couple or the immensely dominant Grand Canyon? You can get your bottom dollar i'd give the couple a nice and powerful "THIS IS SPARTAAAA" kick off the edge and get the proper shot in! In order to keep focus on the couple, a wide open aperture must be used to get the narrow DoF and put the dominating background OOF.

That being said, you can achieve superb shallow DoF's with you current set up! Twist the lens to 300mm, keep her all the way open (f/5.6 i think?) and engage the 'ol sneaker zoom and start walking backwards. Sure, it might be weird and difficult to communicate at a greater distance from your subject but this is where people opt to pay the big bucks for more versatile equipment




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1,513 views & 0 likes for this thread
The Possible VS Required
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Critique Corner 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is ChuckGuthrie
993 guests, 339 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.