| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/18/2005 09:10:05 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by Artyste:
One thing I would not consider a *shallow* DOF is say, a subject that is fully in focus, with only a background far behind them out of focus.
|
Why not? |
I think from everything I have read here that my contention that the DOF in relationship to the entire picture should be shallow. Like the examples above posted by you; Ursula are perfect examples of my thoughts.
In relation to the entire picture little more then a quarter of the picture is in focus thus if I was to say take a picture of a Christmas Tree and that took up about 25% of my image and was the only thing in focus that would be as shallow as yours.
My reason for asking everyone’s opinion was to find out if my theory was correct. From what I have read it is not written in stone and is open for interpretation. That is what I wanted to know.
The reason that a picture with only objects really far away would not be considered shallow DOF is, without something close up to the subject blurry you would not be able to tell if it was shallow or just DOF. On or about the 27th when this challenge is over I will show you what I mean. In my picture I have someone in focus and everything just in front and just behind is softly blurred by my shallow DOF.
Here is an example of Shallow DOF as I see it. I took this picture in 1977 with a Yashica Electro 35 Range Finder camera. Who needs Digital SLR's? LOL. BTW I scanned this from a print and only removed the imperfections from time and handling and did some levels.
Thank you everyone for your comments. Not killing this just thanking anyone who commented. You really helped me and I am sure others.
Mike
Message edited by author 2005-12-18 21:44:10.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2005 09:33:30 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by Rose8699:
By the way, a subject does not have to be in the middle of a photo to be Shallow DOF, ie the pill example or others below. |
Neither the pill example nor others are "in the middle of a photo". |
I think you took that a bit too technically. What I meant is that the few pills in focus is not in front, or in back, but in between. There is blur before the focus and after the focus, and now this is my concern.
It seems that further research HAS given way to the fact that a "shallow" DOF IS a focus on an object/subject where everything front AND back of the photo's subject IS blurred. It is NOT just a front subject, OR a back subject that is acceptable. I have read about 4 sites now on DOF, and the "shallow" DOF displayed with pictures as well as explination infers that the before and after the subject is to be blurred. It's called "confusion lines", and it gives graphics to show the confusion lines before and after the subject.
I guess if it was just a front focused subject, then it would be a macro rather than a Shallow DOF.
I'm trying to get this straight myself now so I enter the correct photo for my entry as well. Luckily I took enough shots of it today where I have the focus front, back, or in between. I switched it to the in between. I think that would fair better for those that are really going to be picky and save a lot of comments about it NOT being Shallow DOF for a front focus shot.
Rose
|
|
|
|
12/18/2005 09:39:37 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Rose8699:
I guess if it was just a front focused subject, then it would be a macro rather than a Shallow DOF.
Rose |
a macro is an image of a "small thing" it may or may not have a shallow DOF .. - though it is some times easier to deal with DOF with macro ..
also see  and 
the second has a shallow DOF but you cant tell .. the first is shallow
...both are macros ... |
|
|
|
12/18/2005 09:42:54 PM · #29 |
my examples of shallow DOF.
   |
|
|
|
12/18/2005 09:43:21 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by ralphnev:
Originally posted by Rose8699:
I guess if it was just a front focused subject, then it would be a macro rather than a Shallow DOF.
Rose |
a macro is an image of a "small thing" it may or may not have a shallow DOF .. - though it is some times easier to deal with DOF with macro ..
also see and
the second has a shallow DOF but you cant tell .. the first is shallow
...both are macros ... |
OOoooo, wow. If the second one is also shallow DOF, then I am going to have a hard time voting on those. I may just have to pass them. The first one, macro or not, seems to be the correct Shallow DOF I am reading about.
People are saying on the other thread to just go with your gut, and enter what you like, and there will always be differences of opinion. However, after more reading on this now, I don't think there is differences of opinion by the actual meaning of Shallow DOF as I have been reading. So I do want to enter the correct photo for the correct term of Shallow DOF, and I believe I have done that now. All I can say is I hope the voters know the difference and have done their own reading and researching and didn't just go out and get a picture of some dead berries with blurred trees or brush behind it. LOL...
Rose
|
|
|
|
12/18/2005 09:47:15 PM · #31 |
Ok, now the bug one, I can definately see shallow dof in that one.
The second one has that "front focus" I am a bit worried about, but I think the title and the 18 in the back give it more the feel of a shallow DOF then an actual shallow DOF by definition.
The third one - well, I have read also that a shallow dof "can be" a portrait shot where the background is blurred; however, to me that is a far stretch and I really hope not to see a lot of portrait shots in this challenge. I think it gives away anonymity in some cases when people use the same models over and over, or their children or themselves/spouses who may be known by others at this site. In any case, the first photo of the bug REALLY ROCKS! I don't have that capability in my camera for such a macro, but will someday soon!
Rose
Message edited by author 2005-12-18 21:48:10.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2005 09:48:57 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by Rose8699:
All I can say is I hope the voters know the difference and have done their own reading and researching and didn't just go out and get a picture of some dead berries with blurred trees or brush behind it. LOL...
Rose |
We can only hope Rose. LOL
I am glad I started this because if nothing else people (me included) are learning beforehand what people are expecting and how to better our entries.
Mike
|
|
|
|
12/18/2005 09:51:29 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Rose8699:
Originally posted by ralphnev:
Originally posted by Rose8699:
I guess if it was just a front focused subject, then it would be a macro rather than a Shallow DOF.
Rose |
a macro is an image of a "small thing" it may or may not have a shallow DOF .. - though it is some times easier to deal with DOF with macro ..
also see and
the second has a shallow DOF but you cant tell .. the first is shallow
...both are macros ... |
OOoooo, wow. If the second one is also shallow DOF, then I am going to have a hard time voting on those. I may just have to pass them. The first one, macro or not, seems to be the correct Shallow DOF I am reading about.
People are saying on the other thread to just go with your gut, and enter what you like, and there will always be differences of opinion. However, after more reading on this now, I don't think there is differences of opinion by the actual meaning of Shallow DOF as I have been reading. So I do want to enter the correct photo for the correct term of Shallow DOF, and I believe I have done that now. All I can say is I hope the voters know the difference and have done their own reading and researching and didn't just go out and get a picture of some dead berries with blurred trees or brush behind it. LOL...
Rose |
i would suggest/guess the second image would be poor ( <5.0) for this challenge. (A. not identifiable B. would get comments like "DOF??" )
something unique - with good color, some thing that people don't expect, that is one of the keys to a good DOF pic (IMHO)
|
|
|
|
12/18/2005 09:52:20 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Rose8699:
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by Rose8699:
By the way, a subject does not have to be in the middle of a photo to be Shallow DOF, ie the pill example or others below. |
Neither the pill example nor others are "in the middle of a photo". |
I think you took that a bit too technically. What I meant is that the few pills in focus is not in front, or in back, but in between. There is blur before the focus and after the focus, and now this is my concern.
It seems that further research HAS given way to the fact that a "shallow" DOF IS a focus on an object/subject where everything front AND back of the photo's subject IS blurred. It is NOT just a front subject, OR a back subject that is acceptable. I have read about 4 sites now on DOF, and the "shallow" DOF displayed with pictures as well as explination infers that the before and after the subject is to be blurred. It's called "confusion lines", and it gives graphics to show the confusion lines before and after the subject.
I guess if it was just a front focused subject, then it would be a macro rather than a Shallow DOF.
I'm trying to get this straight myself now so I enter the correct photo for my entry as well. Luckily I took enough shots of it today where I have the focus front, back, or in between. I switched it to the in between. I think that would fair better for those that are really going to be picky and save a lot of comments about it NOT being Shallow DOF for a front focus shot.
Rose |
Thanks for all the info..saves me entering and reading over and over..DNMC...
appreciate you sharing!...
any info on phobias???? |
|
|
|
12/18/2005 09:59:31 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Rose8699:
Ok, now the bug one, I can definately see shallow dof in that one.
The second one has that "front focus" I am a bit worried about, but I think the title and the 18 in the back give it more the feel of a shallow DOF then an actual shallow DOF by definition.
The third one - well, I have read also that a shallow dof "can be" a portrait shot where the background is blurred; however, to me that is a far stretch and I really hope not to see a lot of portrait shots in this challenge. I think it gives away anonymity in some cases when people use the same models over and over, or their children or themselves/spouses who may be known by others at this site. In any case, the first photo of the bug REALLY ROCKS! I don't have that capability in my camera for such a macro, but will someday soon!
Rose |
The first is shallow because even though it is a macro, the bug's neck is blurry.
The flower is shallow because the focus is only on the bud. Look at how quickly the focus dissolves at the stem.
The child picture is also shallow. If you look at the left side of the picture the child's neck and ear are in sharp focus and the right side of the picture is soft and the focus has begun to fade.
On the bug the DOF looks to be about a 16th of an inch, the flower about an inch and the child about 2 inches.
Depth of Field is the Depth from front to back that is in focus so the smaller in relationship to the whole is there by shallower. Is that a word? You don’t have to have something blurry in the foreground as proven by the flower and the child pictures. For me I like it helps in proving the depth of the DOF. Just my preference.
Hope this adds to the discussion.
Mike
|
|
|
|
12/18/2005 10:00:48 PM · #36 |
bucket, the only info I have on phobias is medical. LOL....I am NOT going to play around with fears. Lord knows there are enough in this country, not to mention individually. Not my bag.
I also think that Shallow DOF is more of a learning experience in photography, and that is where I care to spend my time this time around with exclusive open's. I had my fun time with Cheese and Visual Puns. :) For me, time for more technical ability to be used.
BUT, you know what? The archive history for Shallow DOF here at DPC DOES have a winner in it that did not have a blur in the back AND the front. This one I refer to is of the dog in the back with the meat in the front on the fork. Hmmmmm - I AM going to go with my first instinct I think, and put the photo back up that I originally planned to. I like it better, and to heck with the naysayers! :)
Rose
|
|
|
|
12/18/2005 10:03:00 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by bucket:
any info on phobias???? |
NO
I am too afraid.
I have "DPCercommentaphobia" I couldn't find it on the list of phobia's otherwise I would have taken a picture of my screen and the comments on my Nude III challenge entry. :)
Mike
|
|
|
|
12/18/2005 10:04:31 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by MPRPRO:
Originally posted by Rose8699:
Ok, now the bug one, I can definately see shallow dof in that one.
The second one has that "front focus" I am a bit worried about, but I think the title and the 18 in the back give it more the feel of a shallow DOF then an actual shallow DOF by definition.
The third one - well, I have read also that a shallow dof "can be" a portrait shot where the background is blurred; however, to me that is a far stretch and I really hope not to see a lot of portrait shots in this challenge. I think it gives away anonymity in some cases when people use the same models over and over, or their children or themselves/spouses who may be known by others at this site. In any case, the first photo of the bug REALLY ROCKS! I don't have that capability in my camera for such a macro, but will someday soon!
Rose |
The first is shallow because even though it is a macro, the bug's neck is blurry.
The flower is shallow because the focus is only on the bud. Look at how quickly the focus dissolves at the stem.
The child picture is also shallow. If you look at the left side of the picture the child's neck and ear are in sharp focus and the right side of the picture is soft and the focus has begun to fade.
On the bug the DOF looks to be about a 16th of an inch, the flower about an inch and the child about 2 inches.
Depth of Field is the Depth from front to back that is in focus so the smaller in relationship to the whole is there by shallower. Is that a word? You don’t have to have something blurry in the foreground as proven by the flower and the child pictures. For me I like it helps in proving the depth of the DOF. Just my preference.
Hope this adds to the discussion.
Mike |
Ok, yes, that is a great explination, and I am glad you pointed out those subtle differences I didn't see. It does not have to have the foreground blurred either, which is interesting on the flower as the focus fades to the stem. Hmmmm, this is going to be interesting now. I have three shots to choose from. I am bouncing around here, but really want to go with the first I chose. I don't know how to measure these inches you talk about, but hopefully it will still work with my own. LOL...
Rose
|
|
|
|
12/18/2005 10:29:42 PM · #39 |
Ah, just check the dof...if it is no more than knee high, that's pretty shallow I'd say.
|
|
|
|
12/25/2005 07:49:27 AM · #40 |
First of all Merry Christmas to all.
Well it is obvious to me now that shallow DOF means Macro to 90% of the people who entered this challenge and another 90% of the people voting. Well a lot of good it did asking first. LOL
So I learned from reading here that there are many different opinions about this subject and also that there are many talented photographers who have different ideas as to what makes the subject matter of challenges and what doesn’t.
The picture I entered though it contains a “Shallow” DOF relatively speaking to the entire picture is in stark contrast to most of the entries. Seems everyone thought the subject was Macro. It is what I feared and was the motive to start this thread. Oh well you live and learn.
BTW I like my shot and wouldn’t change it, I am not complaining, right now I am scoring a 5.3, just stating how I found it interesting how people deciphered the challenge which to me seemed a more technical challenge.
Merry Christmas all and Have a Happy New Year.
Mike
|
|
|
|
12/25/2005 07:57:51 AM · #41 |
here's an example of shallow DOF
|
|
|
|
12/25/2005 08:06:59 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by DanSig:
here's an example of shallow DOF
|
Thanks Dan that is a great example of Shallow DOF. My entry was also shallow but large, it was a picture of a guy and only about 6 feet from front to back was in focus out of a possible 100 yards depth of the entire shot. So relatively speaking it was also shallow, but most people are not considering that in their voting. That is why I brought it up before the challenge.
Still didn't help. LOL
Mike
|
|
|
|
12/25/2005 09:15:22 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by MPRPRO:
Originally posted by DanSig:
here's an example of shallow DOF
|
Thanks Dan that is a great example of Shallow DOF. My entry was also shallow but large, it was a picture of a guy and only about 6 feet from front to back was in focus out of a possible 100 yards depth of the entire shot. So relatively speaking it was also shallow, but most people are not considering that in their voting. That is why I brought it up before the challenge.
Still didn't help. LOL
Mike |
Don't fee bad MPRPRO. I am only at a 4.6 for a score, and I too have a shallow dof shot AND a much smaller subject. It was just a very subjective contest I guess. I am really not running to the update button for this one. I actually can't wait till it passes. It was just too open in perception and with 347 entries, it is really like playing the lottery. I am ready for NEXTTTTTT! LOL....
Rose
|
|
|
|
12/25/2005 10:02:30 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by Artyste:
One thing I would not consider a *shallow* DOF is say, a subject that is fully in focus, with only a background far behind them out of focus.
|
Why not? |
I will have to ask the same question why not ?
I think its a good example of shallow dof. take for example outdoor portraits, they are perfect examples of shallow dof.
Also if you read the challenge details:
Shallow depth of field is often used to isolate a subject from its surrounding environment or to make it stand out. Find a creative use of a shallow depth of field for this week's challenge.
it talks about the use of shallow dof for isolation of the subject from its surrounding and this can be achieved with a subject that is fully in focus, with only a background far behind them out of focus.
|
|
|
|
12/25/2005 10:06:11 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by MPRPRO:
First of all Merry Christmas to all.
Well it is obvious to me now that shallow DOF means Macro to 90% of the people who entered this challenge and another 90% of the people voting. Well a lot of good it did asking first. LOL
So I learned from reading here that there are many different opinions about this subject and also that there are many talented photographers who have different ideas as to what makes the subject matter of challenges and what doesn’t.
The picture I entered though it contains a “Shallow” DOF relatively speaking to the entire picture is in stark contrast to most of the entries. Seems everyone thought the subject was Macro. It is what I feared and was the motive to start this thread. Oh well you live and learn.
BTW I like my shot and wouldn’t change it, I am not complaining, right now I am scoring a 5.3, just stating how I found it interesting how people deciphered the challenge which to me seemed a more technical challenge.
Merry Christmas all and Have a Happy New Year.
Mike |
the subject does not have to be a macro. shallow dof is very obvious in macros though and that might make anyone think that they need to shoot only macros. That's a very narrowed down approach. |
|
|
|
12/25/2005 10:12:15 AM · #46 |
I also suffered by not being absolutely crystal clear on a very narrow and shallow DOF. BUT......remember the challenge description....
......."Shallow depth of field is often used to isolate a subject from its surrounding environment or to make it stand out. Find a creative use of a shallow depth of field for this week's challenge."...
I think the "creative" part got a lot of people, probably including me.
The shallow depth of field had to be more than clear technically....it had to really bring something to the subject and that was the real challenge. I'll admit to being really lazy on this challenge and even debated my own entry up to the the deadline. Based on my observation...lots of people should have also been as prepared as I was for the slap-down :-D
|
|
|
|
12/25/2005 10:16:30 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by hokie:
I think the "creative" part got a lot of people, probably including me.
|
I used F6.3 instead of F2.8 which my lens is capable of :D |
|
|
|
12/25/2005 01:15:02 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by MPRPRO:
The picture I entered though it contains a “Shallow” DOF relatively speaking to the entire picture is in stark contrast to most of the entries. Seems everyone thought the subject was Macro. It is what I feared and was the motive to start this thread. Oh well you live and learn.
BTW I like my shot and wouldn’t change it, I am not complaining, right now I am scoring a 5.3, just stating how I found it interesting how people deciphered the challenge which to me seemed a more technical challenge.Mike |
Mike, well, that sums up my entry and score so far exactly. The good thing is it made me go look at my photo over and over, trying to discern where I'd missed the mark technically. Only 4 comments so not much of a clue, a baghead said there wasn't shallow DOF but the others thought it was ok. I've decided that the shot did indeed meet the challenge, with the subject properly isolated, but it is not a macro or closeup--you have to look at it for more than 2 seconds. Onto usernames! |
|
|
|
12/25/2005 09:14:22 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by lynnesite:
Mike, well, that sums up my entry and score so far exactly. The good thing is it made me go look at my photo over and over, trying to discern where I'd missed the mark technically. Only 4 comments so not much of a clue, a baghead said there wasn't shallow DOF but the others thought it was ok. I've decided that the shot did indeed meet the challenge, with the subject properly isolated, but it is not a macro or closeup--you have to look at it for more than 2 seconds. Onto usernames! |
Thank you Lynne, BTW I am also in the USERNAME challenge. Got a hottie in that, hopefully it will be my first 6. Or not. I like it though. :)
Mike
|
|
|
|
12/25/2005 09:25:07 PM · #50 |
BTW to add to this, A blind man could get a shallow DOF photograph with a macro lens and autofocus.
Mike
|
|
