# Super shallow Dof and bokeh just a fad?



## runnah (Dec 31, 2014)

I realize that shallow DOF has been and always will be a crucial part of Photography but it seems as if late that it's become so prevalent that it's almost becoming underwhelming. Portraits are the worst offenders as if they don't have a super bokeh background people aren't happy. It's as if people don't shoot above f/2.8 anymore.

While I enjoy a nice creamy background as much as the next person I also think that it should be used sparingly otherwise the effect is lost.


----------



## dennybeall (Dec 31, 2014)

The effect is new to each new customer. It may be old news to us but it may be new and exciting to that customer.


----------



## photoguy99 (Dec 31, 2014)

Yes it's a fad. Or a 'contemporary style' if you prefer. Things change and will continue to do so.


----------



## KmH (Dec 31, 2014)

runnah said:


> It's as if people don't shoot above f/2.8 anymore.


Fortunately, if you know what you're doing you can use an smaller lens aperture than f/2.8 and still get a nice shallow DoF.
Bokeh is not adjustable and bokeh isn't DoF.


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 31, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> Yes it's a fad. Or a 'contemporary style' if you prefer. Things change and will continue to do so.



Yep.  Just wait a while, and shallow DOF will be a thing of the past.


And Selective Color will be all the rage again.


----------



## runnah (Dec 31, 2014)

KmH said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > It's as if people don't shoot above f/2.8 anymore.
> ...




Oh I know, but it's an example.

The bokeh is great but people are so obsessed with it.


----------



## photoguy99 (Dec 31, 2014)

I shoot all my portraits against a backdrop of actual butter.


----------



## TreeofLifeStairs (Dec 31, 2014)

I think it has something to do with the fact that most people don't have the ability to create that kind of effect. The average person taking pictures with their phone or their point and shoot cameras never see it in their own pictures. It's almost like they associate bokeh with "professional" pictures. Then if they get a camera that can actually create some bokeh then that's all they want to use because of the association. 

To me it seems more a part of the photography maturing process that everyone goes through at some point.


----------



## SquarePeg (Dec 31, 2014)

I think it's a case of dslrs being sso prevalent now where previously everyone had a p&s  and you couldn't get that type of result.


----------



## rexbobcat (Jan 1, 2015)

You ain't a modern pro until you give a client a one-eye-out-of-focus portrait


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 1, 2015)

I dislike most portrait shot "wide open", especially baby pictures.
Nothing worse (to me) than a portrait where the face Is in focus and the ears and/or shoulders are not.....or a baby picture where half the baby is blurry....ugh...

People need to learn that just because you bought a lens that can shoot f1.4 doesn't mean you HAVE to shoot at f1.4!

I find I shoot most portraits at the f4 to f5.6 range.


----------



## pgriz (Jan 1, 2015)

I think Tree0fLife nailed it.  You need a large(r) sensor to get thin DOF with lenses wide open, and this is NEW for people who are accustomed to what they see in P&S and cellphone cameras.  So they want this effect.  Of course, photographers who use it without understanding what they are doing...  are fauxtographers.


----------



## snowbear (Jan 1, 2015)

480sparky said:


> And Selective Color will be all the rage again.


Yes - niece had baby shots done by friend or in-law . . . grey baby with a red Santa hat plastered all over FB.


----------



## paigew (Jan 1, 2015)

Idk. I personally love using a shallow DOF. I wouldn't consider it a fad. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JustJazzie (Jan 1, 2015)

I think, to go along with tree of life- that it's probably the "easiest" method to convey their newly found "artistic vision" 

They may think something like:
 "I want to separate my subject from background, because the background is distracting" so they pop into 1.8, thinking "less (focus) is more" and then start to concentrate on their other settings.

 "I want to really bring those colors out!" But instead of taking the thought further, and controlling the background to MAKE and control the pop of color, one might just use selective color because it's quick, easy, and there are "so many" other things a newbie is considering while shooting.


On the ranting side of this subject, I quit posting in a certain Facebook group, because "absolutely awesome amazing artwork" there is considered sticking your subject with the sun to their back, during the golden hour, so you get beautifully flat lighting on the face, shooting the family of 5 at 1.nothing and processing it until your fingers bleed. Anything else there is just considered "meh"


----------



## Designer (Jan 1, 2015)

snowbear said:


> . . . grey baby with a red Santa hat plastered all over FB.


----------



## JustJazzie (Jan 1, 2015)

Designer said:


> snowbear said:
> 
> 
> > . . . grey baby with a red Santa hat plastered all over FB.
> ...



I have those of baby number one. ;-) And also some pretty epic Fourth of July shots using selective color on the red and blue. Taken with my nikon cool pix of corse. Circa 2008ish.


----------



## SquarePeg (Jan 1, 2015)

As with anything that becomes popular with the masses it then becomes passé to the "elite".


----------



## snowbear (Jan 1, 2015)

JustJazzie said:


> I have those of baby number one. ;-) And also some pretty epic Fourth of July shots using selective color on the red and blue. Taken with my nikon cool pix of corse. Circa 2008ish.



But I suspect you have learned that these tend to draw attention away from the important subject - the child.  I'm hoping that she (niece) will also learn this.

In all honesty, I have done a selective color shot, though I did it a bit differently - oil paint on a silver halide print.


----------



## paigew (Jan 1, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> I dislike most portrait shot "wide open", especially baby pictures.
> Nothing worse (to me) than a portrait where the face Is in focus and the ears and/or shoulders are not.....or a baby picture where half the baby is blurry....ugh...
> 
> .


See I dislike the opposite. When I see a baby that is 100% focused I think "anyone could have done that with a ps or an iphone".  Shooting wide open takes skill and practice. I rarely shoot a (single subject) portrait over 2.8.


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 1, 2015)

paigew said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > I dislike most portrait shot "wide open", especially baby pictures.
> ...



well, this is why i quantified the statement with "to me", since its just my opinion.  I totally agree with the second part though..i think the same thing when i see "portraits" taken by a tree in a park, or pictures of families just doing random stuff instead of formally posed. I think, "dang...why hire someone for that...mom could have just busted out her phone".


----------



## Overread (Jan 1, 2015)

paigew said:


> See I dislike the opposite. When I see a baby that is 100% focused I think "anyone could have done that with a ps or an iphone".



This is an important bit to consider. Most people have a point and shoot camera - and a phone - and a tablet. Getting a shot, especially a portrait, with a wide depth of field is easy - in fact its painfully easy. So they are used to it - its nothing new, nothing special, nothing worth spending money on. 

Then you've also got the copy-cat effect. They see professionals (esp in magazines); they see high class photography of a certain style - they want it. 

In fact if you read up one of the BIG reasons many people get a DSLR is for that "blurry background effect". 



Now those who spend all day looking and taking photos - yeah we do get bored of it. We get bored because we are exposed to and aware of the method so much more. As a result we get dulled to it - we don't want to see it any more. Normal people still want it, but we don't. It's why we also experiment - we shoot different things we take different angles in part because we've been there - done that - got the shot - and now we are moving on. 

It's nothing "wrong" with the market or with the majority of people; there is nothing right not wrong to define the two states perfectly like that. It's just different tastes - and the "elite" or the "more experienced" have a different taste to the common person (most elite groups like to make out that their taste is vastly superior - when in general its just different).


----------



## runnah (Jan 1, 2015)

I don't think snobbery is a factor. It's more the issue of folks only shooting wide open, only buying lenses with the best bokeh.


----------



## astroNikon (Jan 1, 2015)

I think when someone get a lens capable of a shallow DOF they first think that it solves some problems, such as shooting in low light, or getting OOF background.  

They don't correlate it to why the subject is OOF.  At least not until they start asking why the subject is so much OOF and how to fix it.  Then after one learns more and more about the correlation between the aperture, camera, etc especially using a DOF calculator then it all starts making sense.   At least that's how it was for me.

It's all a learning curve.
Then you start learning how to use DOF to your advantage and how you want to use it.


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 1, 2015)

runnah said:


> I don't think snobbery is a factor. It's more the issue of folks only shooting wide open, only buying lenses with the best bokeh.




Photography is like Porn...there's a market for every niche and fetish. 
I have a _*very*_ _*specific *_genre of photography in which I like to shoot. 
Im pretty good at it, and I have zero interest in branching out into anything else. 
Hell, even my product photography is basically formal portraits. 
The wife is  more varied, but since i only shoot when i want to (or she needs me to) I get to
pick and choose. 

She lets me do some of the formal portraits, and I let her do everything else. except when I  help with weddings.


----------



## JTPhotography (Jan 2, 2015)

Not at all a fad. Its not going anywhere because it works. The effect has many advantages, I personally like the look. For portraits, the extreme subject isolation gives a dreamy, flaw-hiding effect that you really can't blame clients for loving. The fact that the lenses specifically designed for this effect are quite expensive, make it a bit more unattainable for many, thus adding to the appeal, both for photographers and clients. There is a reason why most portrait photographers almost always have the Canon 50 or 85 1.2 or the Nikon 85 1.4s, even the 85 1.8. I personally own a Sigma 85 1.4. I don't shoot many portraits, it is a super sharp lens, the shallow DOF is fun to experiment with and works in many situations for landscape too.

And adding to what KMH said, the title of this thread is somewhat incorrect. Super OOF shots can be a fad, but not bokeh. If bokeh is a fad, then high quality lenses are a fad.


----------



## jaomul (Jan 2, 2015)

Not to disrespect OP but I know you own a 5d3, which is ff, or more to point the type of camera that can do oof type shots easier than a p+s or m4/3 or crop camera. So these shots being easy for you may be the type of shots that others find harder to do. As a result many want to emulate the look, and when perfect it try other things. You on the other hand probably just ticked it off your list as done


----------



## runnah (Jan 2, 2015)

JTPhotography said:


> And adding to what KMH said, the title of this thread is somewhat incorrect. Super OOF shots can be a fad, but not bokeh. If bokeh is a fad, then high quality lenses are a fad.



Incorrect? I prefer to think of it as misdirection.

Not sure I agree. For some folks bokeh is the #1 thing on the list when buying a lens. I for example don't really care so it's down the list after things like sharpness and contrast.


----------



## runnah (Jan 2, 2015)

jaomul said:


> Not to disrespect OP but I know you own a 5d3, which is ff, or more to point the type of camera that can do oof type shots easier than a p+s or m4/3 or crop camera. So these shots being easy for you may be the type of shots that others find harder to do. As a result many want to emulate the look, and when perfect it try other things. You on the other hand probably just ticked it off your list as done



I didn't always own a FF camera.  Besides it's only marginally harder on smaller sensors.


----------



## JTPhotography (Jan 2, 2015)

runnah said:


> JTPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > And adding to what KMH said, the title of this thread is somewhat incorrect. Super OOF shots can be a fad, but not bokeh. If bokeh is a fad, then high quality lenses are a fad.
> ...



Good point, many do over analyze it. I think most of the large aperture lenses are very sharp and contrasty and all have good bokeh. Some do get nit picky with it.


----------



## runnah (Jan 2, 2015)

JTPhotography said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > JTPhotography said:
> ...



Well for example I know that the Canon 85 1.2L is much sought after by bokeh fiends but most others avoid it.


----------



## MichaelHenson (Jan 2, 2015)

Seems like this would be the right place to ask a question...



> "I have a 50mm/1.8 and when I take pictures I can make the background super blurry (and I like it a lot) but my pictures just aren't sharp. How can I make my pictures more sharper? If I can't without unblurrying the background then I don't care because it's all about that bokeh, 'bout that bokeh, no DOF..."


----------



## jaomul (Jan 2, 2015)

runnah said:


> jaomul said:
> 
> 
> > Not to disrespect OP but I know you own a 5d3, which is ff, or more to point the type of camera that can do oof type shots easier than a p+s or m4/3 or crop camera. So these shots being easy for you may be the type of shots that others find harder to do. As a result many want to emulate the look, and when perfect it try other things. You on the other hand probably just ticked it off your list as done
> ...



Yes, but you are only asking this question now


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jan 2, 2015)

Shooting at 2.8 has been my way of life for decades. It all depends on the light.   It's hardly a fad.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 2, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> People need to learn that just because you bought a lens that can shoot f1.4 doesn't mean you HAVE to shoot at f1.4!



Huh.  Well, maybe they could start marking that on the lens itself.  Warning to Consumer, F1.4 is not a required setting for use of this lens


----------



## runnah (Jan 2, 2015)

imagemaker46 said:


> Shooting at 2.8 has been my way of life for decades. It all depends on the light.   It's hardly a fad.



Psh, you might as well use a pin hole. sub 1.8 or nothing!


----------



## jowensphoto (Jan 2, 2015)

There's an ass for every seat. Some photographers like it, some consumers like it. I don't think it's fair to say that liking super shallow DoF is a mark of less experience or class or whatever. Just like selective color, when used properly, shallow DoF and "bokeh" can be fantastic.


My personal preference, for portrait work, is between 5.6 and 7.1. I also shoot with longer focal lengths, so I suppose this makes me more of a traditionalist.


----------



## JacaRanda (Jan 2, 2015)

At the beginning of my dslr life, it seemed everything I read or watched on a youtube video was about bokeh; what it was and how to say it.
Battle of the bokeh!!!!  Canon, Nikon, Sigma 1.4.  I ate, slept, and dreamt of bokeh for at least a few months. 

Things may have been different if I had found TPF first.


----------



## astroNikon (Jan 2, 2015)

JacaRanda said:


> At the beginning of my dslr life, it seemed everything I read or watched on a youtube video was about bokeh; what is was and how to say it.
> Battle of the bokeh!!!!  Canon, Nikon, Sigma 1.4.  I ate, slept, and dreamt of bokeh for at least a few months.
> 
> Things may have been different if I had found TPF first.


At the beginning .. middle and sometime in the future .. it's all about BOKEH !! ==>


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 2, 2015)

To say it's a fad it's not to say it's going away. Of course the look will always be with us. It simply won't be the dominant one any more.


----------



## astroNikon (Jan 2, 2015)

here's the one I wanted to find .. funny but tells about how and not to use it .. kinda    ==>


----------



## Didereaux (Jan 2, 2015)

runnah said:


> I realize that shallow DOF has been and always will be a crucial part of Photography but it seems as if late that it's become so prevalent that it's almost becoming underwhelming. Portraits are the worst offenders as if they don't have a super bokeh background people aren't happy. It's as if people don't shoot above f/2.8 anymore.
> 
> While I enjoy a nice creamy background as much as the next person I also think that it should be used sparingly otherwise the effect is lost.




Nothing really anymore than a reflection on the huge number of new snapshooters.  They all stampede this way and that following some 'leader'.  Hopefully a few will actually learn something along the way, and the rest will put their 'toys' in the closet and chase some other Pet rock!


----------



## astroNikon (Jan 2, 2015)

Didereaux said:


> .... and chase some other Pet rock!


How does one chase a Pet Rock ??  

If you keep a leash on it then it's not going to go far !!


----------



## Didereaux (Jan 2, 2015)

astroNikon said:


> Didereaux said:
> 
> 
> > .... and chase some other Pet rock!
> ...




lol!  your going to have to ask someone who has one, I guess.


----------



## Didereaux (Jan 2, 2015)

runnah said:


> JTPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...




One aspect that influences the quality of the bokeh is the number of leafs in the iris of the lens.  ...more leaves translate to softer rounder, blurred.   The primary 'cause' is DOF, which is a function of aperture.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 2, 2015)

astroNikon said:


> Didereaux said:
> 
> 
> > .... and chase some other Pet rock!
> ...



Very slowly.  It's good for us older folks I guess.. lol.


----------



## pgriz (Jan 2, 2015)

Well, that's the horse you want to be riding at night.  Not too sure what you'd do if you saw one coming at you down the trail.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 2, 2015)

Sony A7 with Voigtlander close focus adapter and Voigtlander 50F1.5 gives you a tiny DOF


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 2, 2015)

Can we just rename TPF to TGF?


----------



## qleak (Jan 2, 2015)

Didereaux said:


> One aspect that influences the quality of the bokeh is the number of leafs in the iris of the lens.  ...more leaves translate to softer rounder, blurred.   The primary 'cause' is DOF, which is a function of aperture.



Why not abandon the iris aperture altogether and get a perfectly circular lens with waterhouse stops?

There are people selling a redesigned Petzval lens at $600-$700 !!  This seems outrageously expensive to me for a lens that was originally designed in 1840!


----------



## runnah (Jan 2, 2015)

qleak said:


> Didereaux said:
> 
> 
> > One aspect that influences the quality of the bokeh is the number of leafs in the iris of the lens.  ...more leaves translate to softer rounder, blurred.   The primary 'cause' is DOF, which is a function of aperture.
> ...



Heck, how about not only fixed focal lengths but fixed apertures as well?


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 2, 2015)

runnah said:


> qleak said:
> 
> 
> > Didereaux said:
> ...



the lenses for my pentax 110 super were like that. 
18mm, 28mm, 50mm, and 70mm at a fixed f/2.8
I also had the one zoom lens for it, 20-40mm also fixed at f/2.8


----------



## Ilovemycam (Jan 2, 2015)

runnah said:


> I realize that shallow DOF has been and always will be a crucial part of Photography but it seems as if late that it's become so prevalent that it's almost becoming underwhelming. Portraits are the worst offenders as if they don't have a super bokeh background people aren't happy. It's as if people don't shoot above f/2.8 anymore.
> 
> While I enjoy a nice creamy background as much as the next person I also think that it should be used sparingly otherwise the effect is lost.



In the old days lots of bokeh was out normal way since we had such slow films. If your trying to get the film look bokeh is an important component. Digital is too sharp and plastic looking.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...o._134_Copyright_2014_Daniel_D._Teoli_Jr..jpg

I see lots of bokeh crap with the Leica Noctulux boys.  They say look at my boekh! (Nothing else there. )


----------



## JTPhotography (Jan 2, 2015)

Here ya go, nice bokeh and color isolation all in one photo. Hope this doesn't give anyone cardiac problems. )))


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 2, 2015)

ya know, i actually kinda like it JT.


----------



## JTPhotography (Jan 2, 2015)

Thanks, me too, I stepped out of my comfort zone and was pleasantly surprised.


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 2, 2015)

JTPhotography said:


> Thanks, me too, I stepped out of my comfort zone and was pleasantly surprised.



done that a few times in my younger years.


----------



## sashbar (Jan 2, 2015)

It is called SCAS - selective colour and sharpness


----------



## Vtec44 (Jan 3, 2015)

I shoot between f1.6-2.0 with my 35 and 85mm, 2.8 with my 24-70 and 70-200.  It's just the way I shoot.  It has been around since the film days.


----------



## D-B-J (Jan 3, 2015)

I think as I grow as a photographer I become more interested in the way a lens "draws" rather than particular bokeh, sharpness, etc.  Like, I'm in awe of the Zeiss Otus 85 1.4 when used with a D800 (I think the photo I loved was at f4).  Just incredible sharpness, contrast, etc. And I LOVE the way the Canon 135mm f2L looks on a FF sensor.  It just looks so beautiful.  

Sure, bokeh is cool. We all obsess over it at some point or another.  But aperture is a tool, and a pro uses it as such.  Some shots may be bokehlicious, and others not at all.  I guess that's the difference-- a pro uses it when needed or wanted, and a noob tries to attain it 24/7.  

Jake


----------



## Bebulamar (Jan 6, 2015)

.[/QUOTE]
See I dislike the opposite. When I see a baby that is 100% focused I think "anyone could have done that with a ps or an iphone".  Shooting wide open takes skill and practice. I rarely shoot a (single subject) portrait over 2.8.[/QUOTE]

That is why it is a fad. When I started photography in the late 70's the smallest format was 35mm full frame. Sure they did have 35mm half frame, 126 and 110 but few people used them seriously. Many people back then had medium format and even large format and the film speed is slow and so getting more depth of field is the difficult thing and not less depth of field. Nowaday, 35mm full frame is considered large as there are medium format cameras but people who use those are far fewer than people with medium format film camera of the past. Many serious photographers now use APS-C or M4/3 and almost everyone has a camera phone with the tiny sensor. So today's getting good depth of field is easy so people now want less depth of field.


----------



## Tee (Jan 6, 2015)

Can we all agree that shallow dof is still better than selective coloring?


----------



## Vtec44 (Jan 7, 2015)

Shallow DOF has its uses and certain artistic value.  I consider it more or less a style.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 7, 2015)

Tee said:


> Can we all agree that shallow dof is still better than selective coloring?



What about selective blurring?  This is a current trend I cannot stand.


----------



## Designer (Jan 7, 2015)

I think what most experienced photographers are objecting to is the random application of a shallow DOF.

When used constantly, we tend to see the photographer as one who is not knowledgeable.

When used appropriately, it works wonders.


----------



## JTPhotography (Jan 7, 2015)

Anything is better than HDR.


----------



## Designer (Jan 7, 2015)

There again, HDR has its uses as well.  It is the over-doing it that spoils it.


----------



## Vtec44 (Jan 7, 2015)

White vignette...


----------



## photog15 (Jan 7, 2015)

I wish HDR was a fad


----------



## Vtec44 (Jan 7, 2015)

I hope the current "film" replica is just a fad.  Some of them just look like a bad  Instagram filter and nothing like film.


----------



## JacaRanda (Jan 7, 2015)

I had no idea there was so much to hate in photography.


----------



## paigew (Jan 7, 2015)

Yeah pretty crazy that people think everything should look the same and anyone who tries something new is just following a fad and is ignorant about photography. I find it rude to judge others in that way. my camera rarely leaves wide open on my (2.8) lens and yeah I can manual focus wide open on a moving target with a lensbaby and nail focus. I like shallow DOF. I like it a lot. I doubt I will change the way I shoot based on what everyone else is doing. DOF is an artistic choice. I like my photos to have a dreamy ethereal feel. And I know how to achieve that look. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Braineack (Jan 8, 2015)

JacaRanda said:


> I had no idea there was so much to hate in photography.


without hate, there could not be love?


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 8, 2015)

perhaps "fad" is a poor choice of wording.  I think what we have is aspects of photography that were previously only known to actual "photographers", and now that cameras are cheap and plentiful, we have a lot more people shooting and "discovering" these things....And what do we do with newly discovered pleasures? We indulge in them. (a lot for some of us) so, it seems like things are being overused, but its just in reference to the amount of people shooting now compared to years ago. styles, per capita, probably haven't really changed all that much. 

I think once you have been shooting for a while you tend to gravitate towards what you like and are good at, and less towards the other things. I am certainly no exception to this.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Jan 8, 2015)

I hate admitting this... I love shallow DOF for car shots. The stronger the effect, the better, AS LONG AS THE WHOLE CAR IS IN FOCUS.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 9, 2015)

cars look best against a soft narrowed/compressed bg.

people dont look best when only a few strands of their eyebrow is in focus.


----------



## TCampbell (Jan 11, 2015)

Vtec44 said:


> I hope the current "film" replica is just a fad.  Some of them just look like a bad  Instagram filter and nothing like film.



^^ This!  This is probably the #1 thing that I dislike in images I'm seeing today.  This fad of the "retro" look.

I look at them and say "No... no... that is NOT a 'retro' look."  Our images... even back in the day... NEVER actually looked liked that.

We had lots of photographs in the front window of the studio.  It faced east.  Even with UV protection (which merely reduces, but does not completely eliminate, UV) the images would eventually start to look faded.  When the images were no longer up to standard... we removed them from the frames and threw them in the garbage and replaced them with fresh new images.

If an image fresh back from the lab looked dull, faded, weathered, etc. we knew that the lab was using expired chemicals or paper or just over-used the chemicals and we'd be upset with the lab. 

I do know a young photographer who was building a portfolio and nearly every image was of this "faded, weathered, washed-out" look very commonly used on Instagram (which I think we've established is NOT my favorite.)  My advice was:  as a photographer considering your work, nothing in your portfolio suggests that you are able to shoot a "straight shot".  I'm not looking to see what you can do with Photoshop... I'm looking to see what you can do WITH A CAMERA.  Show me what you can get out of the camera.   

This is not to suggest that I'm against editing software... to the contrary, I believe in photo adjustment software just as much as I believe in working a print in the darkroom.  But when I see distorted, blurred, weather-faded, damaged, scratched images with sensor dust and lens flare (for good measure I suppose because why not... you did everything thing else to abuse the image, what's one more thing?)... to me it looks like the photographer was only able to get rubbish out of the camera and is trying to pass off the rubbish as "art".


----------



## TCampbell (Jan 11, 2015)

Braineack said:


> cars look best against a soft narrowed/compressed bg.
> 
> people dont look best when only a few strands of their eyebrow is in focus.



I do normally like "whole" subjects focused but backgrounds softly blurred and to get that, I'm usually picking a long-ish lens focal length and f/4 (all of my lenses do f/2.8 or better except one, but I seldom go all the way down to f/2.8.)

Also, I typically do not like the somewhat over-used tilt-shift effect of using the tilt-shift "backwards" (rather than using it to bring an angled subject plane completely into focus, it's used to throw as much of the scene out of focus as possible and just allow a narrow band of focus.)

But then I did run across this particular portrait and I have to confess that I do like this (this is not my image, so I'll just provide a link):  

http://lenspimp.com/c/category_image/lg/Canon_TSE_45mm_28_LG.jpg

I like that this shot is playing the focus along with the short-lighting... the left side of his face is lit, the right side is in shadow.  The left side of his face is also focused... the right side is out of focus.


----------



## f2bthere (Apr 8, 2015)

Shallow depth of field a fad?  Seriously?  

There are many great photographic images with shallow depth of field through the history of photography.  And there will continue to be. 

I enjoy well executed photographs--shallow depth of field or not, as appropriate to the image.


----------



## sscarmack (Apr 8, 2015)

My input, I didn't get  1.4 lens to not use 1.4

If you don't like something, don't look.

You can't please everyone.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Apr 8, 2015)

I use my Tamron wide open often enough on cars, but generally at a wide enough angle that the whole car's in focus and the background is just a little soft.

What drives ME nuts is the stupid LET'S MAKE FAKE LIGHT LEAKS!!!!! LET'S TAKE A TERRIBLY COMPOSED, OUT OF FOCUS PICTURE, ADD SOME LIGHT LEAKS, MAYBE PUT SOME TERRIBLE POEM ON IT, AND CALL IT "ART"!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Derrel (Apr 8, 2015)

f2bthere said:
			
		

> Shallow depth of field a fad?  Seriously?



Yes, it's a huge fad. Have you not see the threads in every on-line forum about, "_How do I shoot bokeh photos?_" And shallow DOF is a huge fad currently. It never used to be, but it is today, in this current era. One eye in focus, the other eye out of focus. Nose out of focus, but that lead eye in-focus. Going for that blurry background, even though it means the subject's close-up face is 50,60,70 percent out of focus. This is currently a very faddish approach that has gained tremendous popularity in recent years. It's a current fad, along with a few other visual tropes, like fake film grain, artificially elevated blacks for that faded-no-deep-blacks-processing look, fake vintage effects, heavy vignettes, and so on. A lot of people are enjoying it. 

Photography has always been a popular endeavor, and so fads and trends sweep the field, and then are discarded as something else comes along. The 1980's were HUGE for the Cokin filter system and very heavy effects.In the 1990's it was selective color. In the 2000's it was sloppy borders. Who remembers *laser backdrops* in portraiture, or the classic *bride and groom inside a brandy snifter* wedding shot?

Remember bell-bottom jeans? How about low-rise jeans? How about what are now being called "Mom jeans", which is the return of the normal-rise jeans that spanned the 1950 to 1999 period? Remember the craze of women's cork-soled "wedge high heels?" Junior high school, 1978...and now... BACK with a vengeance! Fads come and go, and when they are current, people love them...and then they turn their back on them and move on.

Here we go, 1.63 million results on the search string "How do I shoot bokeh photos?"  How do I shoot bokeh photos - Google Search

Or how about 3.98 million hots on the search string, "How do I shoot shallow depth of field photos?"
How do I shoot shallow depth of field photos - Google Search


----------



## Solarflare (Apr 14, 2015)

Whow. I'm stunned. An article of Derrel - with which I dont agree ! Has that ever happened before ?

As the opposing story - the german Carl Zeiss company got so fed up with the many requests for faster glas that they made a (disfunctional) joke lens: Carl Zeiss Super-Q-Gigantar 40mm f 0.33 The Fastest Lens Ever Made 


> The lens was born in the 1960s during a time in which camera companies were aiming for larger and larger apertures, just as companies these days are gunning for more and more megapixels. Canon had just released its 50mm f/0.95, and photographers became fixated on the speed of lenses on paper rather than their performance in real world situations.


 So yeah, fast glas - and the shallow depth of field that comes with it - has been popular for a LONG time.

By the way - that Canon 50mm f0.95 lens is still around and quite popular and expensive. Its nickname is "dream lens". Steve Huff got one, sold it because somebody offered a very good price - and then got another _because he missed it so much_.

The Canon 50mm f 0.95 Dream Lens Review by Steve Huff STEVE HUFF PHOTOS

Living in Dreamtime. Re-Visiting the Canon Dream Lens 50 f 0.95. STEVE HUFF PHOTOS


----------



## Mattis (Apr 14, 2015)

In my opinion it depends on the situation. Bokeh and super shallow dof can make one image and break the other.
For example, in a portrait I do like nice bokeh. It just works for me. The photo is supposed to be about the subject and that way you can nicely seperate the subject from everything else in the image while still getting a pleasing background.
But at the same time it shouldn't be so shallow that the whole face isn't sharp... To get everything important in sharp focus you need about 3-5cm before and behind the eyes, that is still very shallow!

All in all I do like fads though. Whether we like the results or not, at the end of the day it still makes people pick up a camera to do something creative :3


----------



## Torus34 (Apr 16, 2015)

On portraits:

Fads come and go.  We've seen high key, low key, minimal DOF, bleeding borders, soft focus, color saturation effects and don't remember what else over the years.  They've all gone through a period of overuse before settling down and becoming just another specific 'tool' in the photographer's kit bag.

A really good portrait remains just that: a print which tells us something about the subject beyond what he/she looks like.  The techniques that are brought to bear in the process stand in service to the eventual image.


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 16, 2015)

I feel like shallow DOF has always been big. It's just more apparent now because more people are shooting and it's easier to share images.

Now, if you want to talk about a fad...color grading. Everyone and their dogs are color grading _everything.
_
Just type "cinematic color grading photoshop" into Youtube and you get 18,000 results.


----------

