| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/18/2005 08:24:10 PM · #1 |
If you want, you can kill this thread since there are so many, but I need to get something straight about "Shallow" DOF and not sure I am getting it from the other threads.
I did further research on "shallow" DOF, and it actually IS an object that has a "gradual loss of focus, then to focus, then out of focus again". A "confusion line" in front and "a confusion line" in back of the item to be in focus, correct?
Example without photo would be a squirrel sitting on a picnic table. Behind the squirrel would be out of focus, and the bottom beginning of the photo, let's say the bottom of the picnic table and almost up to the squirrel would be out of focus. Is this correct? That only the "middle" so to speak, or the object/s in the middle, should be in the "clearest" focus?
I was under the impression before that Shallow DOF meant that it could be either an object in the back that is in focus, OR the middle, OR in the front. Either one acceptable. BUT BUT BUT, if Shallow DOF means it has to be not in the back or in the front, but must be somewhere in between that the focus lies, then I need to know so I can change my entry.
Thanks!
Rose
Message edited by author 2005-12-18 20:24:56.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2005 08:27:25 PM · #2 |
I think you're worrying too much about your entry - folks will argue about that until the cows come home (i.e Tuesday midnight), and will never agree. It isn't a written rule anywhere. Shoot what you think is shallow DOF, and hope that the majority agree with you.
e |
|
|
|
12/18/2005 08:32:34 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by e301:
I think you're worrying too much about your entry - folks will argue about that until the cows come home (i.e Tuesday midnight), and will never agree. It isn't a written rule anywhere. Shoot what you think is shallow DOF, and hope that the majority agree with you.
e |
Yes, but there is a specific definition for it, and already one person has stated that they would consider an object with just a blurred background not a Shallow DOF. I would imagine that would sway the voters, therefore, it may be best that the true definition be known?
Luckily, for me, either way it doesn't matter. I took enough shots of my subject today that I have it in focus in front, in back, and in the middle. I just prefer to enter the correct one.
I mean, if you had the same choice of entering the one that was in focus in front, in the middle, or in the back, which would be your best choice for Shallow DOF?
Rose
Message edited by author 2005-12-18 20:34:22.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2005 09:31:12 PM · #4 |
Don't worry about it! No matter which one you choose, someone will happily disagree. Pick the one you like best and go with your gut!
Of course, that may explain some of my more disappionting entries... |
|
|
|
12/18/2005 11:10:08 PM · #5 |
It's my guess, and only a guess, that between two equally-appealing images the one with OOF foreground and background both will outscore the one with a sharp subkect displayed against an OOF background (the typical telephoto shot).
R. |
|
|
|
12/18/2005 11:22:03 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
It's my guess, and only a guess, that between two equally-appealing images the one with OOF foreground and background both will outscore the one with a sharp subkect displayed against an OOF background (the typical telephoto shot).
R. |
Thats what I thought too, bear-music. But, if you look at the previous history here on DOF, you will see that the dog/meat photo was a hit. There was no OOF foreground there, and just background. Therefore, I really think it will all depend on the subject itself, and not the technicals so much on foreground and background OOF.
If it is a bird in a tree, for example, and the foreground is in focus and the bird, but the background is out of focus and maybe just the tail of the bird, then to me that would be a typical shot. Not that interesting. Probably a bad example to use, but I think it is hard to measure DOF in "some" subjects. Mine is one. I can't say more than that, but I will just say my subject is not just "a" subject like one green pill, or a face, or a leaf, etc. It is more complicated then that, and I have to choose what I think will be more appealing to the voter and/or viewer in my case. All three shots are good (back/in between/and front), but I think the one I chose will be more appealing to the voter then the other two.
I guess it is all in personal preference and also appealing to the voters, and that is always a fine line and a challenge in itself.
Rose
|
|
|
|
12/19/2005 09:25:29 AM · #7 |
I agree that the "shallow dof" means focus foreground, losing focus as you get further away. At least that is my take on it, for what my green opinions are worth.
I also agree that if it "looks" like its shallow DoF it will boil down to the interest of the picture rather than its technical qualities (qualities equal that is). That bird photo wouldnt rate as high as a small child photo because of the subject matter. Both being technically sound, the child will always win out
|
|
|
|
12/19/2005 09:31:32 AM · #8 |
Shallow DOF means just that - a shallow plane of focus. If you shoot on F2.8, that's shallow DOF. If you shoot on F8, that's not. Foreground helps to accentuate the subject's shallow DOF but I do NOT think it's a requirement.
|
|
|
|
12/19/2005 09:37:48 AM · #9 |
example : 
i think it's a good one for shallow DOF
|
|
|
|
12/19/2005 09:41:18 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by gooc:
example :
i think it's a good one for shallow DOF |
Can you explain why you think this is a good shallow dof photo? I'm curious.
Rose
|
|
|
|
12/19/2005 09:54:24 AM · #11 |
I think you are worrying too much about the technical aspect of the photo. You could take a technically perfect DOF shot of something boring like a piece of fluff on a dirty carpet and then you would be up the creek without a paddle anyway, cos the subject was rubbish!
As the others have said, just go with the one you feel is the best - someone will disagree no matter what you post!
|
|
|
|
12/19/2005 10:14:28 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by pix-al:
I think you are worrying too much about the technical aspect of the photo. You could take a technically perfect DOF shot of something boring like a piece of fluff on a dirty carpet and then you would be up the creek without a paddle anyway, cos the subject was rubbish!
As the others have said, just go with the one you feel is the best - someone will disagree no matter what you post! |
Understood, but it's not all about the challenge and the votes. I also want to know what the true perception is to the knowledgable folks here of a Shallow DOF. So seeing so many different ways to portray it, I am curious as to how one defines it with each photo shown.
Rose
|
|
|
|
12/19/2005 10:44:15 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by Rose8699:
Can you explain why you think this is a good shallow dof photo? I'm curious.
Rose |
i might be unclear, all i wanted to say is that there IS shallow dof on photo, nothing else or that this is a good photo. acutally it sux as seen from comments :-)
peace,
goc
|
|
|
|
12/22/2005 09:31:46 PM · #14 |
| FWIW, the Details of the Challenge state; "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." So the telephoto shot of the bird, or any shot, need not start out OOF, according to the challenge detail. As many have already stated, post what YOU like best, and hope the voters read the details of the challenge! Good Luck. |
|
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: 08/29/2025 06:05:44 PM EDT.
