| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/20/2002 04:53:29 PM · #1 |
I would like to restart this issue without specifics....
I would like to discuss how depth of field enhances or diminishes the quality of certain photographs. In my earlier notes, I stated that I had a pet peeve with photographs that had some object in the foreground of the image that was out of focus. In my humble opinion, foreground object that are out of focus should be used for framing purposes and composed in such a way that they don't distract the viewer from the subject of the photograph.
When I apply specific depth of field manipulations to my photos, I use it for the purpose of focusing the viewer on the subject of the photo, as in my "Queen's Gambit" photo from last week. I made several shots on this setup to make sure that the chess pieces in the background were just enough out of focus to force the eyes to the coin. I wanted enough focus on them so that they could be identified as chess pieces, however.
When I see something in the foreground center of a frame that is out of focus and larger than the subject of the photo, I become terribly distracted by it. I do, however understand that foreground focus can be tactfully used to push the viewers eye to another location in the frame.
I want someone to disagree with me on this and lead me to some examples of out-of-focus foreground objects that are used to enhance the quality of the photo....
|
|
|
|
05/20/2002 05:08:42 PM · #2 |
I don't think you're the only one who doesn't like unfocused foreground elements. Both my advertisement (Lego) and ground-up (Kite) shots used intentional out of focus foreground elements as part of the final photo. In both cases, many people commented that they didn't like what I'd done. In both cases I liked it and thougt it contributed to my goal with (to enhance) the shot or I wouldn't have done it. (I do know how to control my depth of field -- it wasn't accidental -- I was trying to create a certain kind of first person scene.) The question of whether or not I like it, however, is moot in terms of this site.
As for finding a photo that everybody could agree on as "perfect" use of OOF foreground elements, LOL, it's not gonna happen because we can't all agree so....
|
|
|
|
05/20/2002 06:12:06 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I would like to restart this issue without specifics....
I would like to discuss how depth of field enhances or diminishes the quality of certain photographs. In my earlier notes, I stated that I had a pet peeve with photographs that had some object in the foreground of the image that was out of focus. In my humble opinion, foreground object that are out of focus should be used for framing purposes and composed in such a way that they don't distract the viewer from the subject of the photograph.
When I apply specific depth of field manipulations to my photos, I use it for the purpose of focusing the viewer on the subject of the photo, as in my "Queen's Gambit" photo from last week. I made several shots on this setup to make sure that the chess pieces in the background were just enough out of focus to force the eyes to the coin. I wanted enough focus on them so that they could be identified as chess pieces, however.
When I see something in the foreground center of a frame that is out of focus and larger than the subject of the photo, I become terribly distracted by it. I do, however understand that foreground focus can be tactfully used to push the viewers eye to another location in the frame.
I want someone to disagree with me on this and lead me to some examples of out-of-focus foreground objects that are used to enhance the quality of the photo....
Jim.
Sometimes it's done intentionally.
|
|
|
|
05/20/2002 06:26:28 PM · #4 |
| i did it intentionally for 'two weeks later'. dead people usually are emphasized. have you ever even heard of layne stayley? nevermind the fact that he died. it works for me. i dont care about the rules of photography. i know what looks like shit and what doesnt. its like pornography; "i know it when i see it but i cant really define what it is". pictures tend to be a common medium for pornography.. coincedence ? |
|
|
|
05/20/2002 07:57:20 PM · #5 |
| Kind of like a jar of flies. |
|
|
|
05/20/2002 08:16:54 PM · #6 |
|
|
|
05/21/2002 01:09:50 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by Patella:
I don't think you're the only one who doesn't like unfocused foreground elements. Both my advertisement (Lego) and ground-up (Kite) shots used intentional out of focus foreground elements as part of the final photo. In both cases, many people commented that they didn't like what I'd done. In both cases I liked it and thougt it contributed to my goal with (to enhance) the shot or I wouldn't have done it. (I do know how to control my depth of field -- it wasn't accidental -- I was trying to create a certain kind of first person scene.) The question of whether or not I like it, however, is moot in terms of this site.
As for finding a photo that everybody could agree on as "perfect" use of OOF foreground elements, LOL, it's not gonna happen because we can't all agree so....
That's because people who didn't like it are stupid! HA Just kidding we are all entitle to our opinions.
I think both of the shots you mentioned "Up where the air is clear" (the kite shot) and "You know the story. Now, make your own... Lego®" (star wars legos) were both good uses of foreground being out of focus for a reason.
What I dislike is when you have a repeating element such as 5 objects in a row and the 2nd or 3rd is in focus and the 1st is not.
|
|
|
|
06/08/2002 02:40:57 PM · #8 |
I think more generally, you could say that a photograph is (or is supposed to be) a complete entity. Focus is just one part of those elements which make or break the experience of enjoying it. In the B/W challange we are finishing voting on now, this is apparent. There are several 'snapshots' as you call them in which someone sees somthing interesting and snaps it without looking around the rest of the viewfinder and anticipating how these other elements will add or subtract from the totality of the photograph. Focus? Hell yeh, sometimes I wish I could go to f.1.4 to really throw the background out, and other times I wish I had a digital back for the 4 x 5 lens I used to use that went down to f.64. How many people focus on the front of their subject because that's where the auto focus locks on, then the depth of field in front of that is lost. At the same time, how many people loose tonality because they don't overrule the auto-exposure? IMHO, if you want to progress beyond taking snapshots you have to be subjective and objective at the same time. You have to SUBJECTIVLY feel what the subject is doing to you, and you have to OBJECTIVLY manipulate your camera and software to achieve what you feel. Focus, exposure, focal length chosen, camera angle, lighting, processing. Loose any one of these in the chain and you have a snapshot.
|
|
|
|
06/08/2002 04:56:36 PM · #9 |
| My photo from the "People" Challenge was poorly received for almost the exact OPPOSITE reason. While the subject (the hand) was in focus and in the foreground, most people wanted to see the face. Those that viewed the hand as the subject were distracted by the face, since it was so large. |
|
|
|
06/08/2002 05:29:29 PM · #10 |
This photo possibly has a conflicting subject... When I saw this photo, I wasn't sure if the subject was the hand or the face...
|
|
|
|
06/08/2002 05:43:57 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by welcher:
My photo from the "People" Challenge was poorly received for almost the exact OPPOSITE reason. While the subject (the hand) was in focus and in the foreground, most people wanted to see the face. Those that viewed the hand as the subject were distracted by the face, since it was so large.
I don't think the largeness of the face was the reason people were distracted by it. When people look at other people, the natural tendency is to look at the other person's face. When it's out of focus, the in-focus elements compete with the natural tendency to look at the face. While I usually find that competition quite annoying, I really loved it in your photo.
|
|
|
|
06/08/2002 08:34:51 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
This photo possibly has a conflicting subject... When I saw this photo, I wasn't sure if the subject was the hand or the face...
Right, but why is the subject possibly conflicting? It follows pretty standard rules: subject in the foreground and in focus, background out of focus.
Is it because, as Reuben mentioned, the human eye wants to see another human face? Or is it cause the head is so large it distracts from the hand? Or is it just overall poorly executed and composed? I shot it, and it makes perfect sense to me that the hand is the focus, but enough people had trouble with it that there's something I could learn here. |
|
|
|
06/08/2002 08:43:01 PM · #13 |
welcher. your picture was very good. it was definitely artistic. you made that baby look huge, like mount rushmore or the sphinx. i like the focus on the hand with the face as if it''s far away, like the distant peak. the fact that he''s sleeping combined with the distant focus give it a ''far-away in dreamland'' feel. however, it did have to grow on me a bit, maybe just because it wasn''t what I "expected".
* This message has been edited by the author on 6/8/2002 8:45:34 PM. |
|
|
|
06/08/2002 10:56:03 PM · #14 |
I think jmsetzler had it right in that the subject was confusing.
I don't think it was the size of the head so much as that the hand, being the subject, was not in full displayor greater display than the head.
Both were equally cut off and in competition for being the center attention.
Get a lower angle so there is less of a straight on side profile of the head visible, keep the out of focus on the visible parts of the head and lift the hand into full view on top of the sheets so we get all the detail of the hand and the fingers..maybe even have the hand overlap the head forcing the head into greater background relief. That leaves the subject of the photo less ambiguous. |
|
|
|
06/08/2002 11:13:43 PM · #15 |
To me the problem with the photo was that there was not enough contrast and sharpness to really define the hand as the focus. Some of this could have been fixed post process, but these puny digital lenses have too much DOF, and do not seperate the background and foreground like 35mm does.
That is one reason why I wish the damn site would accept scanned film images, I mean, isn't that digital?
Originally posted by hokie:
I think jmsetzler had it right in that the subject was confusing.
I don't think it was the size of the head so much as that the hand, being the subject, was not in full displayor greater display than the head.
Both were equally cut off and in competition for being the center attention.
Get a lower angle so there is less of a straight on side profile of the head visible, keep the out of focus on the visible parts of the head and lift the hand into full view on top of the sheets so we get all the detail of the hand and the fingers..maybe even have the hand overlap the head forcing the head into greater background relief. That leaves the subject of the photo less ambiguous.
|
|
|
|
06/08/2002 11:21:54 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Zeissman:
To me the problem with the photo was that there was not enough contrast and sharpness to really define the hand as the focus. Some of this could have been fixed post process, but these puny digital lenses have too much DOF, and do not seperate the background and foreground like 35mm does.
That is one reason why I wish the damn site would accept scanned film images, I mean, isn't that digital?
I would have liked the head to be more out of focus, but my S40 is EXTREMELY slow when zoomed all the way. Just couldn't cut the DOF down enough.
I think, though, that if I had done some of the stuff hokie mentioned, it would have been a fine shot.
As for film photos on this site, I'd be against that for any number of reasons. First, this site was created for digital cameras. That's the point. Second, and more importantly, there is no way the week-long challenge format could remain, except for the select few that have their own darkrooms.
Keep it digicam only. |
|
|
|
06/09/2002 12:00:11 AM · #17 |
Ummmm..Zeismann..we are trying to break free from the confines and oprresion of film and forge new ground into the new frontiers and freedoms of the digital camera divide :-) Can I get an A-MEN! brothers and sisters !!!!!
Actually, You can get a more limited Depth of Field with the right lens set up.
Digital cameras have large depth of fields due also to the type of optics they use on non-slr models in addition to the sensitivity of the sensors.
You can modify this by using a digital SLR with a nice portrait lense (for MUCHO dollars ) or..like I did..I can use a macro lens adapter on my Canon G2 which has a very limited depth of field. |
|
|
|
06/09/2002 12:38:51 AM · #18 |
You know, some places can do film in one hour?
Trying to break free by placing more limits on yourself?
It has nothing to do with the sensativity of the capture device, and all to do with optics. Currently the Contax digital SLR is the only one that comes close to reproducing 35mm characteristics.
Hey, if I am the only one that would like scanned film images to be allowed, great, keep it all digital camera. It was only a suggestion.
Originally posted by welcher:
Originally posted by Zeissman:
[i]To me the problem with the photo was that there was not enough contrast and sharpness to really define the hand as the focus. Some of this could have been fixed post process, but these puny digital lenses have too much DOF, and do not seperate the background and foreground like 35mm does.
That is one reason why I wish the damn site would accept scanned film images, I mean, isn''t that digital?
I would have liked the head to be more out of focus, but my S40 is EXTREMELY slow when zoomed all the way. Just couldn''t cut the DOF down enough.
I think, though, that if I had done some of the stuff hokie mentioned, it would have been a fine shot.
As for film photos on this site, I''d be against that for any number of reasons. First, this site was created for digital cameras. That''s the point. Second, and more importantly, there is no way the week-long challenge format could remain, except for the select few that have their own darkrooms.
Keep it digicam only.[/i]
* This message has been edited by the author on 6/9/2002 12:41:45 AM.
|
|
|
|
06/09/2002 12:46:11 AM · #19 |
| I think the biggest problem with scanned images is that it's difficult to prove that they were taken during the challenge week. I suppose you could do what the folks whose cameras don't support EXIF data do and take an image of the same scene with some kind of date proof in it... |
|
|
|
06/09/2002 01:09:12 AM · #20 |
Zeismann..You cannot tell me that any 35 mm camera today is not more limiting than a quality (read dslr) digital.
Even the lower end digital allow a freedom of learning experience unheard of in film, even black and white.
Some of the lower end digicams are frustrating to more experienced users in need of more control but I can tell you with little exception that my Canon G2 offers me a greater level of freedom than my Nikon film gear. I never even touch the film gear. 120 shots in 2400 x 1700 rez, in the can to my computer, edited to my standards and ready for print in less than 2 hours.
And when I can afford the Digital SLR I would like even the limits of interchangeable lenses and slower response will be eliminated.
Film will be relegated to a smaller niche..like gum prints..before long.
* This message has been edited by the author on 6/9/2002 1:24:57 AM. |
|
|
|
06/10/2002 10:20:37 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by hokie:
Film will be relegated to a smaller niche..like gum prints..before long
Amen, Hokie! Down with film!
It's the age old battle of analog vs. digital. It's happening in so many mediums, and digital is pretty much winning them all. Sure, there will always be a place for analog and it will always have that rugged allure, but there's just so many benefits to digital.
- mike
|
|
|
|
06/10/2002 10:31:17 AM · #22 |
Also Amen Hokie. I hated waiting for my prints to come back only to find the photomachine had scratched the negs or the developer was exhausted and the roll was ruined. Now its --my processing --my printing and if I don''t like what I get I dump it and re shoot. All in a few hours, not days.
* This message has been edited by the author on 6/10/2002 10:31:25 AM. |
|
|
|
06/10/2002 10:39:28 AM · #23 |
My Nikon N60 allows me a much greater range of aperture and shutter than my Sony DSC-F707 does... The DSLR cameras are indeed nice but they are out of my financial grasp at the moment...
Originally posted by hokie:
Zeismann..You cannot tell me that any 35 mm camera today is not more limiting than a quality (read dslr) digital.
Even the lower end digital allow a freedom of learning experience unheard of in film, even black and white.
Some of the lower end digicams are frustrating to more experienced users in need of more control but I can tell you with little exception that my Canon G2 offers me a greater level of freedom than my Nikon film gear. I never even touch the film gear. 120 shots in 2400 x 1700 rez, in the can to my computer, edited to my standards and ready for print in less than 2 hours.
And when I can afford the Digital SLR I would like even the limits of interchangeable lenses and slower response will be eliminated.
Film will be relegated to a smaller niche..like gum prints..before long
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/25/2025 01:56:01 PM EDT.
