DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> DOF
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 18 of 18, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 09/22/2003 09:54:49 AM · #1
Okay, I just need to vent for a moment...

Shallow DOF is NOT a mistake!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is an artistic choice used to make the focal point of a photograph more pronounced.

I know I will never change the minds of the "I hate shallow DOF" voting faction, but I had to get that off my chest.

Shari
 09/22/2003 10:20:13 AM · #2
I love shallow DOF when it is done well ... with the purpose and result of highlighting a certain aspect of a photo, and to blur out distracting backgroumnd images.

I don't like Shallow DOF when it is not clear what the focal point is, and half the focal point is out of focus, i.e. half of a petal.

It can certainly add punch to a photo.

Message edited by author 2003-09-22 10:24:35.
 09/22/2003 10:29:50 AM · #3
I agree.
Shallow DOF is not a error and can really make a photo very interesting. I think if folks will look at professional shots by some of the masters they will see that this technique is used often.
 09/22/2003 10:43:34 AM · #4
Well.. being a rant I suppose that I can submit the link to one of my photos. ;)

Would you consider this: White Majesty a case of Shallow DOF?

And how would you consider it? a good one or a bad one?

I hope it helps your point Shari. =)
 09/22/2003 11:10:31 AM · #5
Shallow DOF may be on purpose, but that doesn't make it good. Sometimes it is good. It can be used very effectively. But sometimes it isn't good, too. If people are saying you're depth of field is too shallow, maybe it is detracting from, not adding to, your image.
 09/22/2003 11:29:21 AM · #6
My entry has very shallow DOF, and I am sure I will pay dearly for it this week!! LOL, or maybe GOL (grumble out loud).
JD
 09/22/2003 11:38:24 AM · #7
i thought doof's were supposed to be shallow.

oh wait, you meant dof. sorry

:P
 09/22/2003 02:51:20 PM · #8
hahaha

Yes, Shari! DoF is intentional in a good many of our pictures. It's "too bad" people don't realize that.

(I'm paying for it in Macro)

M
 09/22/2003 03:49:13 PM · #9
Look at a lot of advertisments in magazines and TV and shallow DOF is used frequently these days. I saw an ad the other day where the only thing in focus was a branch across the trail where a mountain biker was riding. The dude was quite blurry. It would get panned here. If it's unappealing for most, I wonder why it's used so extensively in advertising.

I shake my head over the voting around here. There was a 'rule of thirds' bonanza a little while ago. Anything not conforming to the 'rule' (which is really a guideline) was somehow inferior. Lately it seems to be about sharpness - most of the winners are oversharpened a good deal, in my eyes. Most of the scoring, I think, is based on the culture built here, and not always on the intrinsic merits of the photograph.
 09/22/2003 04:02:51 PM · #10
I'm getting mixed reactions, as well, from my photo with a shallow depth of field. There are many people that simply want an entire photo in focus and many that just don't like it used in that way. I think one reason we see shallow DOF used a lot here is because many people are hand holding shots that they should be using a tripod for. They end up taking a photo where the aperture is real wide so that they can use a higher shutter speed to capture the shot while hand holding the camera. Then there are the people that just want to be real artsy without any real reason why they are choosing a shallow DOF. But I think this is as good a place as any to experiment with your shots so I think it is all good as long as you are learning from these challenges.

T
 09/23/2003 12:22:53 AM · #11
I also think that a lot of people that are not completely familiar or proficient with their camera that want a shallow DOF just open their aperture all the way and assume that its the best way to get shallow DOF.

Sometimes closing up 1 or 2 stops makes all the difference and still gives a nice shallow DOF.
 09/23/2003 12:50:19 AM · #12
Originally posted by timj351:
I'm getting mixed reactions, as well, from my photo with a shallow depth of field. There are many people that simply want an entire photo in focus and many that just don't like it used in that way. I think one reason we see shallow DOF used a lot here is because many people are hand holding shots that they should be using a tripod for. They end up taking a photo where the aperture is real wide so that they can use a higher shutter speed to capture the shot while hand holding the camera. Then there are the people that just want to be real artsy without any real reason why they are choosing a shallow DOF. But I think this is as good a place as any to experiment with your shots so I think it is all good as long as you are learning from these challenges.

T

And then some of us can't exactly control the aperture/shutter relationship and have to take what the camera gives. Although, until my last couple of entries, I had trouble getting any kind of shallow DOF, and almost everything was in (equal) focus. I'm learning some tricks to fool my camera into doing things it wouldn't do normally, but it's not the same as having manual controls.

I think how "good" it looks really depends on if there seems to be a purpose behind the effect or if it obscures a desirable element.
 09/23/2003 01:12:31 AM · #13
I haven't figure it out how to make shallow DOF with 105 mm zoom with my Oly 5050 on whole human body in focus!
It is easy if you focus only the head.
Anyone knows the trick?

Here is example DiversQ!

Message edited by author 2003-09-23 01:17:44.
 09/23/2003 01:25:01 AM · #14
I'm having just the opposite problem with the 10D. Even with my 50mm (80mm equivalent on the 10D) I have a hard time getting a large DOF while hand-holding. Often I have to bump the ISO considerably just to handhold a shot at an aperture where the hyperfocal distance isn't a long way away. With my DSC-S50 I hand-held this shot here with absolutely no problem:



That's F4! With the 10D I'd probably need at least F16 to get that sort of focus...horses for courses i suppose. That, or carry a tripod...another reason why I kept my F717. While inbetween the DSC-S50 and the 10D, it's not bad for handholding landscapes.

Originally posted by GeneralE:

And then some of us can't exactly control the aperture/shutter relationship and have to take what the camera gives. Although, until my last couple of entries, I had trouble getting any kind of shallow DOF, and almost everything was in (equal) focus. I'm learning some tricks to fool my camera into doing things it wouldn't do normally, but it's not the same as having manual controls.

I think how "good" it looks really depends on if there seems to be a purpose behind the effect or if it obscures a desirable element.


Message edited by author 2003-09-23 01:26:20.
 09/23/2003 01:30:53 AM · #15
Yeah...the trick is to drop $3K on a 10D and some lenses...

Originally posted by pitsaman:
I haven't figure it out how to make shallow DOF with 105 mm zoom with my Oly 5050 on whole human body in focus!
It is easy if you focus only the head.
Anyone knows the trick?

Here is example DiversQ!
 09/23/2003 02:05:38 AM · #16
Originally posted by pitsaman:
I haven't figure it out how to make shallow DOF with 105 mm zoom with my Oly 5050 on whole human body in focus!
It is easy if you focus only the head.
Anyone knows the trick?

Here is example DiversQ!

Photoshop can do it for ya. Think there is a tutorial on it too
 09/23/2003 07:56:09 AM · #17
there's 3 things that will make your DOF shallower:

1) wider aperture (smaller f number) = shallower DOF.

2) focal length of lens or amount of zoom: more zoom = shallower DOF

3) distance to subject: closer to subject = shallower DOF

Note that for 2), most non SLR digicams have very very short focal length lenses, since, because the image capture area is small, they do not need as much glass to get the same results as their 35mm equivalent. Because of this, it will always be harder to get shallow DOF with them than an SLR, because of rule 2.

For example: consider that a 4x zoom lens (on non SLR) may actually be only 36mm focal length at the long end, vs. 140mm on an SLR. That's a huge difference. To compensate for this, you're going to have to open your aperture as wide as possible and move really close. But it will be always be impossible to get it quite as shallow as with the SLR. It's just the limitation of the optical engineering.

09/23/2003 11:31:14 AM · #18
For me this is one of the biggest differences between large sensor digicams (mostly the SLRs) and small sensor digicams (the point and shoot, prosumer and rangefinder style digicams)

With a camera like a Canon G2 you have to fight for shallow depth of field, really work at it, use all the techniques you can to get shallow DoF - it is usually a struggle and hard to get anything very shallow.

With a camera like the Canon D60 the complete opposite is true. You have to fight for maximum DoF, hyperfocal scales become interesting, techniques and tricks get used to increase DoF.

and I think perhaps this also shows in the voting somewhat. In the P&S world, anything out of focus is seen as a mistake to be fixed, because it hardly ever happens. An article I posted from the AGFA photo courses describes that control of DoF is a key differentiator between pro work and most beginners - perhaps the voting highlights a lack of sophistication and understanding, both on the part of the viewers, but also on the part of the photographers using shallow DoF less than effectively.

While shallow DoF can be really effective - it has to be for a reason, not just because you like stuff blurry with an edge in focus. I know when I got my first SLR I was using it all the time, just because I could. (or more honestly, becuase I couldn't stop it happening)

ObRuler shot:


Message edited by author 2003-09-23 11:32:13.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 06/07/2025 07:34:06 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 06/07/2025 07:34:06 AM EDT.