New Hampshire Girl

Nathan wrote in post #17520192
I don't think anyone is saying they blur out the background without consideration for composition.

Uh, yeah, that's exactly what ganginwood is saying:

ganginwood wrote in post #17519412
To be fair, if you're a mom to 11...just shoot at 2.8 and below. You don't have time for composition.

Nathan wrote in post #17519964
Thanks. It's in my POTN profile gallery, if you want to see. I also fixed the link on the photo.

I definitely run into the same issue with close ups wide open... who doesn't? Generally, for any portraits that capture the full body, I go wide open.

I certainly see the place for small apertures in studio settings. Otherwise, outdoor portraits that include the background in the DOF seem dated to me.

Yes, there are times when it makes no sense at all to open up (like shooting close to a brick wall.)

idkdc wrote in post #17520180
I think shooting wide open doesn't necessarily mean you ignore the background. Lisa Holloway seems to be composing intentionally. When I shoot weddings or location portraits, I deliberately maneuver for the best angles and backgrounds. Just because something is blurry doesn't mean it's invisible. Bokeh( 暈け) is quality of blur, so the object(s) blurred in the background will affect the quality and aesthetic of the blur.

I'm not sure what you are looking at, idkdc, but I do not ignore the background at all. I pose for both light and framing, which is pretty evident in the photos I posted. If I were shooting against a brick wall, I wouldn't open up as much. With fall colors, I love the blur -- and I like the subject separation, which is really not hard to understand.

Ganginwood said can't compose, so don't blur. He definitely didn't say ignore composition, just blur.

YankeeMom wrote in post #17520262
Yes, there are times when it makes no sense at all to open up (like shooting close to a brick wall.) ... If I were shooting against a brick wall, I wouldn't open up as much.

To your point earlier, it still depends on aesthetic preference. That is, is the wall and pattern part of the composition? Perhaps you want to emphasize the lines, so you shoot at a larger aperture and position the subject closer to the wall. Or perhaps it's not important and you still want more separation so you go with a larger aperture.

The are guidelines to composition, but no hard and fast rules.

No, let's translate what he said: "if you don't have time to compose because you're a mother, so don't listen to me when I said it's good to shoot deep focus, just blur it out like you're doing." He uses the confusing terminology, "f/2.8 and below" when he means "f/2.8 and wider," referring to the x in f/x. 2.8 is smaller in value than 16. So he's mispeaking. Read the context of what I'm replying to. I am speaking against what he said, not saying that OP can't compose.

Nathan wrote in post #17519978
What are you saying? Lisa Holloway (also a member of POTN) is a mother of 10. She shoots at large apertures all the time.

See? Over here, you're completely misinterpreting what Ganginwood just said.

I may be confused, but in the context of his other responses I thought he was saying shooting wide open creates mediocre results. I thought he was saying he disliked attempts to blur out the background and a photographer should know how to pose/direct a subject for a good photograph without relying on large apertures to hide background elements. To me, his implication was that shooting wide open was somehow resigning to lack of skill and a purposeful attempt to hide a background. You may be right, but I thought he was trying to say: if you are a mother of 10 then you don't have time to compose and direct your subject against a good in-focus background, so go ahead and blur out your background as much as possible.

Otherwise, I agree with everything you say idkdc.

Nathan wrote in post #17520321
I thought he was trying to say: if you are a mother of 10 then you don't have time to compose and direct your subject against a good in-focus background, so go ahead and blur out your background as much as possible.

Yes, what [I said he said] and what [you just said he said] seems to be the same thing. I just answered him that he was being a little black and white / oversimplistic about deep focus vs. shallow depth of field, not in response to anyone else on the thread, which seemed to be the source of confusion.

Nathan wrote in post #17520321
I may be confused, but in the context of his other responses I thought he was saying shooting wide open creates mediocre results. I thought he was saying he disliked attempts to blur out the background and a photographer should know how to pose/direct a subject for a good photograph without relying on large apertures to hide background elements. To me, his implication was that shooting wide open was somehow resigning to lack of skill and a purposeful attempt to hide a background. You may be right, but I thought he was trying to say: if you are a mother of 10 then you don't have time to compose and direct your subject against a good in-focus background, so go ahead and blur out your background as much as possible.

Otherwise, I agree with everything you say idkdc.

Yes, I mostly thought the same thing, except I thought he was saying that, since I can't compose properly for wide open (due to the fact that I have a lot of kids,) I should just close down (assuming 4.0+) Not sure if it was a total insult or joke.

I think that's what I said, but I'm perpetually confused

1) You guys are saying opposite things.

YankeeMom wrote in post #17520393
except I thought he was saying that, since I can't compose properly for wide open (due to the fact that I have a lot of kids,) I should just close down (assuming 4.0+) Not sure if it was a total insult or joke.

Nathan wrote in post #17520321
You may be right, but I thought he was trying to say: if you are a mother of 10 then you don't have time to compose and direct your subject against a good in-focus background, so go ahead and blur out your background as much as possible.

2) Nathan is correct in this instance. This is what I was saying. He might have gotten confused and posted something else earlier. Kristin, you're incorrect. Ganginwood said you shoot wide open too much. He then said you can't compose properly because you have 11 children, so keep shooting wide open.

3) Ganginwood's terminology is confusing. He's saying shoot at 2.8 and below, where 2.8 = x, and aperture is f/x, meaning numbers x = 2.4, 2.0, 1.2. He doesn't eliminate the ambiguity: that f/2.8 = f times 1/2.8, therefore 1/1.2 is a larger fraction than 1/2.8. Instead, he's saying X is getting smaller. 2.8 and below to him means 2.8, 2.4, 2.0, 1.8. 1.6, 1.4, 1.2. This is the most frustrating inarticulateness I've seen in real life with amateur photographers and old and young bumpkins who won't use the right terminology. To be COMPLETELY CLEAR, you SHOULD say OPEN (WIDER APERTURE OPENING SIZE) or CLOSE (NARROWER OPENING SIZE). Kristin, you used the right terminology. Ganginwood didn't.

ganginwood wrote in post #17519412
Shooting everything wide open will get you mediocre results. They are all nice shots, don't get me wrong. But all of them at at 2.8 and wider. It's not like you were shooting into a construction site. ...
To be fair, if you're a mom to 11...just shoot at 2.8 and below. You don't have time for composition.

His last quote translates into:
You didn't have an ugly background. I want to see more background, because deep focus is so professional.
But hey, you're a busy mom with 11 kids. You don't have time to compose to make the most out of that background. So scratch that, you have a good excuse not to listen to my pro advice.

TLDR: I'd like to thank Ganginwood for the insult/generalization in the first place, the inaccurate language, and the subsequent misunderstanding and confusion. Like I said, it's a invalid argument, or at the very least, an inarticulate one.

Thanks for the clarification, idkdc. I was correct in my original reading and then confused myself. It's been a long week. Bottom line: Kristin (I take that's you're name), you took some nice photos of your daughter. At least one person disagrees. To each his own, I guess. I think you should keep doing what you're doing.

Nathan wrote in post #17520686
Thanks for the clarification, idkdc. I was correct in my original reading and then confused myself. It's been a long week. Bottom line: Kristin (I take that's you're name), you took some nice photos of your daughter. At least one person disagrees. To each his own, I guess. I think you should keep doing what you're doing.

Np. For the record, exactly one person disagreed, and that's Ganginwood.

Wow, practically a dissertation written on aperture terminology because of a comment.

All I meant was that everyone gets the same results shooting wide or close to it. Lisa, since her name was brought up, devotes a lot of time in post AND more importantly makes sure that the subject connects to the viewer. Which is the point I was trying to drive home when I said "grab a class on posing from Sue Bryce".

It's not like I don't shoot wide...I do. But, when I made the other comment about "shooting into a construction site" it's because I had experience with it.

I think this was the 200 @ 2.0. I don't remember. But...there was a construction site behind her. Hence...I needed to lose the bg.

ganginwood wrote in post #17520868
You just chose to run with an inane position to pad your post count.

Bad accusation here.

Anyway, ganginwood, nice photos. Can you share with us examples where smaller apertures improve the photo? Not saying they don't... Just want to see some.

Sure. 35mm @ f/13