Subtitle: Do you really need that super fast prime lens and a FF camera?
I found the following article extremely interesting, allowing me, a relative newcomer to photography, to understand a little of the history of "third dimension control" and how many masters worked, and still work, to get a "foreground, middle ground, background" in their best shots with subtle focus control. And why, indeed, it was often not possible anyway for them to shoot with ultra fast lenses and Full Frame {or larger) digital cameras to achieve that micro DoF look {"Blur baby, blur!) that appears to be so very fashionable currently.
There are many examples quoted that are alone worth perusing the article . Some of the (numerous} readers' comments are of interest as well.
That is a great bit of writing, and makes a good point. I do love my 50 and 85 fasties though. It does give me something else to consider next time I am using them.
Excellent article, Frank. It's food for thought. He makes a good point about the danger of allowing any aspect of technique to call attention to itself. Overwrought post-processing would be my bugbear. But hey, to each his hobbyhorse!
@frankhymus Quite. And it's definitely worth following the link to the image of Cowboys branding cattle. Now if I could post something like that I'd give myself the following 364 days off. ;-)
@frankhymus - Excellent article. Thank you for posting, Frank. I'm such a beginner that focus is often a mystery to me. But I'm slowly learning thanks to those that pass along the knowledge.
@jasperc@frankhymus Haha my thoughts exactly, I was just about to write ... that cowboy image is truly brilliant!! Every time I see it in my mind's eye I just can't fathom how all that stuff fits into one image that size and doesn't look even slightly cluttered. Definitely something to aspire to.
@jayberg I think he's not saying shallow focus is to be avoided, I believe he suggests, rather, that what needs to be in focus should be. Don't cut your focus so shallow as to blur an important part of the subject or the total frame. And as he does say towards the end, that that actually is quite difficult and requires patience and technique. :)
@sarasotab HI Robert. Glad you found the article interesting. The most important thing, i believe, for a beginner or new shooter with a capable camera is to concentrate on getting the focus right and understanding how to do that. That doesn't mean Manual Focus at all. Indeed I think the Auto Focus of most cameras works very well, it just needs a little encouragement and suggestion to be told exactly WHAT is to be in focus and WHEN the focus should be locked down.
I'd leave the exposure settings to the camera in P, A or S modes, in fact I shoot A (Av in Canon speak) almost exclusively, in conjunction with advanced Auto ISO also I almost never override the camera's choice there either. I have more than enough to concern myself with framing the shot correctly and then locking down the focus in conjunction with the camera. I would suggest that most pros do the same for "everyday" shooting.
Interesting article. Having grown up with 35mm film cameras, I find that with the exception of landscape photography, selective dof adds an artistic touch to images that elevates them from the billions of ordinary and uninteresting captures made with phone cameras.
@soboy5 It certainly does. And I think the author is saying the same thing, just watch not to cut the focus field unnecessarily narrow. As with all rules or guidelines, there are times to deviate of course, just work out why you are doing it.
This is fabulous. Thank you for sharing. My camera lives in 1.4 and rarely takes a vacation, and I'll be the first to admit that it's because this makes it easier to create something pretty. Shooting with a larger dof is definitely another skill worth working on.
If moderate priced lenses of moderate speed could blur background into unrecognizable cream indistinguishable from the cream created with fast, expensive lenses, would that style have ever been anything other than just another tool to be used when appropriate, and not a one size fits (almost) all used by both preference and default? Or am I a cynic?
@frankhymus I'm returning to this thread Frank to let you know it has been rattling around in my mind all week :) As you know I love a good robust discussion about technique and aesthetic and all the rest! My sister (also a keen photographer) made the comment last we caught up, that photography lies somewhere between showing the things in the frame (that we want shown), and hiding the things (that we want hidden), and I think that idea becomes very relevant when discussing DOF. Of course there are other ways of doing this, including framing - moving a little to the left or right, and choosing the right focal length (as I found extremely important in the large family portraits I did a while ago - choosing my longer zoom lens and stepping way back, being flanked by construction on one side and a ditch on the other) - but shallow DOF is obviously an extremely useful tool here too. Because let's face it, this is 365 and we are not all taking masterpieces of cowboys branding cattle every day, and that image (other than the action itself) features very little distracting clutter, a luxury we don't all have. I for one am usually contending with junk in every corner of my house or yard!! Haha. But I absolutely appreciate the excellent food for thought and it has certainly given my thinking an extra dimension. Now off to find a masterpiece haha!
>that image (other than the action itself) features very little distracting clutter, a luxury we don't all have.
The more one knows about the elements of composition, the more such 'distracting clutter' is seen as setting, context, or guiding the eye through the image.
@fotoblah For sure. The knack is to shoot around clutter such that it becomes background, just as you say. With a little care and then perhaps moving a few feet left or right, backwards or forwards, one can almost always achieve a decent result. It's just a matter of being aware.
@frankhymus I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I think you didn't understand what I said. Or what I tried to say. I'll try again.
I like the analogy of the subject being the star of the photo and everything else in the frame is supporting actors, scenery or is best not being in frame. For things I can't eliminate with a POV or in editing, my first thought is how can I make them supporting actors. That is, including them as composition elements to guide the eye around the image and back to the star, or to balance the star, or to be the subject of the star's attention, or etc. etc. etc. If I can't do that, then I'll try to reduce them to scenery, AKA background or setting.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
Thank you, Frank, something which interests me very much and I have bookmarked the page to read at my leisure.
I'd leave the exposure settings to the camera in P, A or S modes, in fact I shoot A (Av in Canon speak) almost exclusively, in conjunction with advanced Auto ISO also I almost never override the camera's choice there either. I have more than enough to concern myself with framing the shot correctly and then locking down the focus in conjunction with the camera. I would suggest that most pros do the same for "everyday" shooting.
All the best and good shooting!
The more one knows about the elements of composition, the more such 'distracting clutter' is seen as setting, context, or guiding the eye through the image.
I like the analogy of the subject being the star of the photo and everything else in the frame is supporting actors, scenery or is best not being in frame. For things I can't eliminate with a POV or in editing, my first thought is how can I make them supporting actors. That is, including them as composition elements to guide the eye around the image and back to the star, or to balance the star, or to be the subject of the star's attention, or etc. etc. etc. If I can't do that, then I'll try to reduce them to scenery, AKA background or setting.