Do you see a trend today in pursuing very thin depth of field

[blansky]

This thread raises the interesting philosophical question of what 'aperture' we naturally see at, and does it matter for our photographic methodology. We don't naturally see in deep focus, so wide angle street photography is essentially an exercise in surrealism rather than realism, which is one of the factors that differentiates it from photojournalism. Everything happens at once and is captured three dimensionally.

Shallow DoF, when taken to extremes, is also anti-naturalistic, locking the viewer into an uncompromising linear space. I would argue that the most naturalistic depiction of a subject (if we can talk about a mental phenomenon in optical terms), is clear focus on the subject with slightly larger defocused circles on the background, or the 'f4 effect'. None of this matters in a medium where time is an abstraction - with the unreality implicit in that deficit - but it's interesting to muse on the messages optics confer to an image.

While this is true, our eye focuses from subject to background and back in a millisecond so we don't actually see that a background is in or out of focus really. I doubt it's consciously relevant whether the background is sharp or not.

I'd argue that extreme 'eyes in, ears out, is surrealistic though.

Of course since we don't consciously really notice these things in real life, perhaps subconsciously, we do and that's why some photographs that distort our natural perception are ones that attract us or we are drawn to, for just that reason.

 

[blockend]

While this is true, our eye focuses from subject to background and back in a millisecond so we don't actually see that a background is in or out of focus really. I doubt it's consciously relevant whether the background is sharp or not.

I'd argue that extreme 'eyes in, ears out, is surrealistic though.

Of course since we don't consciously really notice these things in real life, perhaps subconsciously, we do and that's why some photographs that distort our natural perception are ones that attract us or we are drawn to, for just that reason.

The longer I photograph (and it's been almost 40 years) the weirder I think photographs are. They imitate reality in a beguiling and seamless way, while having only a tentative and symbolic relationship with it. I've been forced to conclude that all photographs are lies, and photography is the act of lying to oneself.

 

[pdeeh]

The longer I photograph ... the weirder I think photographs are. .

and they're getting weirder in themselves too, I think.
digital photography can now render details of a scene at a finer level than I can possibly make out with the naked eye if I am physically present at the same scene. New ways of seeing are emerging, and it's fascinating.
As for reality ... well that really is a subject (or maybe an object) for a philosophical discussion

 

[Truzi]

and they're getting weirder in themselves too, I think.
digital photography can now render details of a scene at a finer level than I can possibly make out with the naked eye if I am physically present at the same scene. New ways of seeing are emerging, and it's fascinating.
As for reality ... well that really is a subject (or maybe an object) for a philosophical discussion

I agree. When someone tells me their new high-def TV makes it look like they are actually "there," I point out that they would never "see" things in that manner if they were actually there.

 

[Chris Lange]

Consumer Culture:

A) 50/1.8 lenses are inexpensive

B) Crop sensor cameras encourage a fast 50 as an accessible, and desirable alternative to a slower zoom as a portrait lens. They have all but superseded 85mm lenses as the most prevalent portrait lenses on DSLRs. As these are the most widely used dedicated cameras next to a smartphone, they maintain a dominance over the types of images we see.

C) Consumer culture of photography celebrates "pretty" and safe pictures, shallow DoF and somewhat softer images are culturally regarded as "pretty" and therefore they are overwhelmingly popular, along with sunsets and washed out pictures of broken bicycles/various other detritus.

D) Composition is made easier because the picture is inherently less complex than the actual scene portrays. Additionally, prevalent with SLRs because you view the scene through a wide open lens, and therefore are accustomed to the look. Composition with an SLR is always done with shallow DoF, short of using the preview lever/button if there is one (most consumer SLRs these days lack them, so a non-issue).

D) Reverse Instagram Scheimpflug (look ma, everyone on my iPhone is a toy figurine).

E) Current trends in film-making and hollywood cinema.

F) My pictures SO look like they were like shot on Kodak Delta Neochromeia. I'm thinking of getting into film you guys. It just has like so much more...realness...you know?

G) "Noise is bad" = lower ISO = wider apertures.

Within Photographic Enthusiast Circles:

A) Format creep...that 50/1.4 doesn't do as nicely as a Tessar Swirlotron, which doesn't do as nicely as a 105/2.4 on 6x7, which is bested by a 210 or 300 on 4x5" (or an Aero Ektar...), which is all but obliterated by a long lens on 8x10"

B) Tintypes / WPC in general

C) People who want their pictures to look like tintypes / WPC.

D) Reverse overcompensating fine-art Scheimpflug (look ma, everyone on my overpriced Ilfochrome / Carbroultrawhatever is a toy figurine).

E) Gear that can give the effect is cheap now.

F) Art.

G) "Grain is bad" = only using slow films = wider apertures

 

[pdeeh]

Tessar Swirlotron

I want one, and I want one now ...

 

[Chris Lange]

I want one, and I want one now ...

I think there's one near you in the classifieds right now...granted it is the nearly identical Schneider Xenar Swirlotar...

 

[blansky]

The longer I photograph (and it's been almost 40 years) the weirder I think photographs are. They imitate reality in a beguiling and seamless way, while having only a tentative and symbolic relationship with it. I've been forced to conclude that all photographs are lies, and photography is the act of lying to oneself.

We discussed this in the "are photographs an illusion" thread and we sort of agreed that they are. And they can be manipulated to the originators point of view.

Perhaps your epiphany is just the obvious conclusion of living a long time and experiencing life, because nobody ever really said that photographs are reality, whatever that is.

You and I could live exactly the same life in the same place during the same times and our "reality" may look identical to an outside observer, while to us they may have no real similarities at all. One of us may be happy, sexually fulfilled, emotionally fulfilled, optimistic and generous, while the other's life experience may be the opposite.

So for any photograph to be "honest" is a bit much to ask. Besides its goal should maybe be something else. Like, to make us think. Or feel. Nothing more.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I agree. When someone tells me their new high-def TV makes it look like they are actually "there," I point out that they would never "see" things in that manner if they were actually there.

The trouble with hi-def 54" screens is the detail - the horribleness of so much programming is so much more detailed...

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

The trouble with hi-def 54" screens is the detail - the horribleness of so much programming is so much more detailed...

I agree. I only watch accidentally. TV gives me absolutely zero value.

Whether what I see on the screen looks real or not is not even important.

 

[ic-racer]

, it seems that today there is a trend in very thin depth of field.

For me that narrow depth of field fad reached its low point when I got the 1996 Calumet catalog and saw all the products were photographed with a shallow depth of field and an odd focal plane.

 

[jernejk]

Personally, I see narrow DOF as a tool to bring a photograph much closer to the way we see.

The thing is, our eye is far from ideal. Our vision is really concentrated in the center, where our eyes have the fovea. The further from the center you go, the less detail you see, even if technically the image is in focus.

But that's actually just the sensoric part of it. We look with the eyes but see with the brain. And some recent research showed that we actually hallucinate quite a lot of what we "see". This explains why we don't perceive the blind spot - the brain hallucinates the missing parts. That actually explains a lot.

Anyway, a photograph with wide DOF is very foreign to us, as it's far from our perception. What should we be looking at? What's the important part? It's simply not clear. Shallow DOF hence is easier to comprehend, brain friendly so to speak.

 

[ic-racer]

Shallow DOF is NOT the way we see. The human eye lens aperture does not get wide enough. A 16mm still camera with a 18mm lens going from f2.8 to f16 would produce the range of DOF the human eye sees.

 

[Randy Moe]

I didn't read the whole thread, but all my video guys are big on short DOF and pulling focus to show different emphasis in a movie.

As far as I tell my eyes are always in focus as I look from from near to far. Our eyes are way better than any lens or technique.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Shallow DOF is NOT the way we see. The human eye lens aperture does not get wide enough. A 16mm still camera with a 18mm lens going from f2.8 to f16 would produce the range of DOF the human eye sees.

I think that it's not possible to compare the human eye to a lens, because humans fill in the gaps with imagination, emotion, and other brain activity. It also remembers, so if you study a face, and look at somebody's eyes, you will remember what they look like as you move on to the nose, lips, ears, cheeks, chin, forehead, etc. Even though we're focusing just on a single part of the face, our mind remembers the rest of it. It gets really funny when it's realized that we will remember differently based on how we relate to and feel about the object. Different people will also remember different things about it, and remember the same thing differently based on their experience as humans.

Regardless of how the human eye sees, or whether that's compared to a lens and how it renders or not, one can search photographs online and by other photographers and see that a lot of photography is done today with wide open lenses. I'm not sure why that is, but I know more than a few photographers who insist on shooting that way. I try not to pay too much attention to it, and just look at their photographs and determine whether I think their pictures are any good or not.
What bothers me about always shooting at f/1.4 is that the actual depth of field, as measured in distance, will vary based on focusing distance. f/1.4 at infinity could mean a very long distance of a scene is in focus, while a close-up portrait at the same aperture could give us a few millimeters. This is why I think it's stupid to not use the full range of apertures on a lens, because sometimes it's necessary to stop down to f/5.6 or f/8 to get all of the detail in somebody's face during a close-up portrait, and the depth of field will still be shallow.

Sometimes I wonder if the whole concept was invented and secretly slipped into our diet by lens manufacturers that charge a premium for fast lenses today, like Leica. Just kidding, of course, but I'm a bit dumbfounded by the whole thing.

 

[jernejk]

Shallow DOF is NOT the way we see. The human eye lens aperture does not get wide enough. A 16mm still camera with a 18mm lens going from f2.8 to f16 would produce the range of DOF the human eye sees.

Please read what I've written throughly.

Yes, the the picture drawn on the eye's retina by the lens is mostly in focus.

At the same time, we have 50 cones per 100 micrometers in a very, very small region - only 1.5mm in diameter - called fovea.
Around the fovea we have perifovea, with only 12 cones per 100 micrometers - 4 times decrease! Perifovea is a belt only 0.5mm thick around the fovea.
4mm from the center of fovea we only have about 2 cones per 100 micrometers.

Since retina is about 22mm in diameter, it's easily compared to 35mm film.
Imagine a single frame with microfilm emulsion in the center, but only about 2mm in diameter. Around that you have a band of ISO50 fine grain emulsion, and then very quickly you have something with low resolution, maybe like delta 3200 in rodinal... and around that there's something you can hardly call emulsion anymore, forming just impressions of the picture drawn by the lens. That's your eye.

 

[benjiboy]

I agree. When someone tells me their new high-def TV makes it look like they are actually "there," I point out that they would never "see" things in that manner if they were actually there.

We got a 50" HD TV earlier this year, we were watching the Isle of Wight Rock Festival and my wife said "it's so real, I can smell the toilets"

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I agree. I only watch accidentally. TV gives me absolutely zero value.

Whether what I see on the screen looks real or not is not even important.

It's sad in a way because there is good programming available... after you have waded the morass of reality dreck, witless sitcoms, contentless news programs, and all the other garbage... and you pay serious money for your cable service around here (Time-Warner), roughly 50% more than auto insurance per year.
I've been collecting DVDs lately, my most recent find was "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" with Charles Laughton - in glorious black and white.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I think the trend started well over 10 years ago. There was an article in Photo District News on "The art of being blurry". The fashion photographer Mathew Ralston was one of the trend setters. Before then, a lot of photographer in the 80's wanted everything to be sharp. It's just a trend and I'm sure things will go sharp again sometime in the future.

 

[batwister]

Bok, eh?

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Is this Pictorialism revisited?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[Black Dog]

While I prefer the likes of EW, Harry Callahan , the Photo Seccessionists and their contemporaries did produce some fantastic work, even though Pictorialism probably did turn out to be a bit of an artistic blind alley.