Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3       end
  

Archive 2014 · Percentage of Keepers that use Shallow DoF

  
 
FlyPenFly
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Percentage of Keepers that use Shallow DoF


As I slowly cull through my library and pick out what I consider to be my best work aka keepers, its slowly dawning on me that the overwhelming majority of my keepers are not shallow DoF shots. Of photos I've thought were good enough to make prints, none of them use shallow depth of field.

In fact, most of the photographs I rated 4+ in Lightroom are at F5.6 or higher and I struggle to keep the entire scene in focus while I maintain a decent shutter speed.

Now this is just my style I guess where I don't consider my shallow DoF "keepers" but mostly throw aways. To note, I'm not a portrait photographer. Then again, when I consider my favorite portraits from my favorite photographers almost all of them are not shallow DoF, in fact, I can't think of any.

I'm curious if anyone else noticed this trend in their photography.



Apr 14, 2014 at 11:51 AM
Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Percentage of Keepers that use Shallow DoF


That's a big jump from 50% to 90%. I suspect most portrait photographers would fall into that gap.


Apr 14, 2014 at 12:01 PM
FlyPenFly
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Percentage of Keepers that use Shallow DoF


Dang, I don't think I can edit it.


Apr 14, 2014 at 12:02 PM
Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Percentage of Keepers that use Shallow DoF


FlyPenFly wrote:
Dang, I don't think I can edit it.


I actually misread it anyway thinking it meant % keepers of shallow DOF shots.



Apr 14, 2014 at 12:04 PM
zhangyue
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Percentage of Keepers that use Shallow DoF


Good pic isn't equal either shallow or Deep DOF. There is no relationship to me.


Apr 14, 2014 at 12:30 PM
FlyPenFly
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Percentage of Keepers that use Shallow DoF


zhangyue wrote:
Good pic isn't equal either shallow or Deep DOF. There is no relationship to me.


Content is of course king however, if you look over your files to see which ones are your best, I think a trend might emerge. It's interesting to note what is that trend?



Apr 14, 2014 at 12:39 PM
bobbytan
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Percentage of Keepers that use Shallow DoF


Depends on what you shoot really. If you shoot mostly portraits, flowers/insects, sports/wildlife, etc … you would want to try and isolate your subject from the distracting background, so your image pops. Under these circumstances, your keeper rate for shallow DOF is very high.

But if you shoot mostly landscapes you may want as much DOF as you can get, so your keeper rate for shallow DOF may be closer to zero.

I shoot anything and everything, and seeing how I love the Nocticron so much, so I would say my keeper rate for shallow DOF would be 75%.



Apr 14, 2014 at 12:47 PM
unclemikey
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Percentage of Keepers that use Shallow DoF


FlyPenFly wrote:
Content is of course king however, if you look over your files to see which ones are your best, I think a trend might emerge. It's interesting to note what is that trend?


I would have to agree with you regarding content. I also agree with zhangyue that depending upon subject DOF may be important or not so important. My two main fields of photography as a professional are medical, gross specimen and journalism. I voted 20% shallow DOF as I do a lot of macro photography of biopsy specimens. Doing this all day long to isolate a disease in the image is how I get paid. However, when shooting an outdoor event most of my picture editors what some kind of relationship with the back ground to inform the viewer what is going on. Many of my shots are at f5.6 or smaller depending upon the lens and relationship of the subject, foreground, and background.

Interesting poll but hard to answer.



Apr 14, 2014 at 12:49 PM
alwang
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Percentage of Keepers that use Shallow DoF


I think I often choose to print stopped-down deep-DoF shots, because those detailed shots are the ones that are impressive to see larger than my monitor. But setting that aside, there's no correlation between images I've shot that I like vs. the DoF.


Apr 14, 2014 at 12:55 PM
Dave McGaughey
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Percentage of Keepers that use Shallow DoF


I'm not sure what the point of this poll is. Landscape photographers will be at ~0%. People photographers who shoot in poor light will be on the other end.

Maybe some samples are most interesting to talk about? Here's a shot which I think is helped by shallow DOF:



Conversely, here's a shot which is also taken "wide-open", but wouldn't change much if it was stopped down. It did need to be shot this way because it was quite dark:

http://24.media.tumblr.com/df23789054210672e3de86088c25f88f/tumblr_n3wcxqyzJA1t1mwt0o1_1280.jpg



Apr 14, 2014 at 12:57 PM
Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Percentage of Keepers that use Shallow DoF


For me it really depends on the subject matter that I am shooting. I do like to do closeups a fair bit and these often have shallow depth of field even if the lens is stopped down a fair bit. I also like to take shots of my infant son and I often shoot wide open or almost wide open on these shots because the light is often terrible and the background is often terrible so I try to just capture him in focus. Other shots I often stop down and have a fair bit of depth of field. So for me it is a definite mix.


Apr 14, 2014 at 01:03 PM
Toothwalker
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Percentage of Keepers that use Shallow DoF


FlyPenFly wrote:
I'm curious if anyone else noticed this trend in their photography.


Define 'shallow DOF'. Is that any depth of field that is smaller than 1 m? 10 cm? 1 cm? Nobody is going to know these numbers, anyway.



Apr 14, 2014 at 01:03 PM
FlyPenFly
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Percentage of Keepers that use Shallow DoF


I would say that the definition shouldn't be too difficult. It's usually pretty clear that the photo uses selective focus vs deep dof as a main compositional element.

I think it shouldn't be that hard to see what your trends are. Pretend you're building a portfolio to show your best work and limit it to 10-20 photographs, what percentage uses selective focus vs which ones have practically everything in focus.



Apr 14, 2014 at 01:12 PM
jcolwell
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Percentage of Keepers that use Shallow DoF


I figure about 20% of my keepers are shallow DOF. That would be mostly portraits and still life.


Apr 14, 2014 at 01:17 PM
mihind24
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Percentage of Keepers that use Shallow DoF


If we're talking landscape, 0%.

If we're talking portraits/people, I'd say maybe 5% or so. I just haven't jumped aboard this fad of super large apertures. Yes, it can be useful for throwing distracting backgrounds out of focus. But I see that as generally lazy. In the end, many very shallow DOF photographs might as well be shot in front of a gray backdrop since you can't make out what's behind the person anyway. It takes more thought and effort to be able to compose your shot in such a way that the background adds to the photograph. I feel as if people aren't learning how to use converging lines to their advantage. I've seen a lot of photographers throw their aperture wide open yet fail to see that the subject's clothing's colors are similar to the background, when instead they could have composed differently or shot it another direction where the subject stands out against an in-focus background because of contrasting colors.

That being said, I'm not an extremist. There are times when I am forced to use a shallow DOF, and I certainly do acknowledge that they occur. My previous paragraph was just highlighting how many photographers default to that route without giving their compositions more thought. For instance, I once had 5 minutes to shoot a regional warehouse manager for a large chain due to his busy schedule. The warehouse was not the tidiest of places, and with such limited time, I resorted to f/1.2. Unfortunately, I see too many examples where there is a beautiful background that could compliment the subject so well, yet it is out of focus.



Apr 14, 2014 at 01:29 PM
JonPB
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Percentage of Keepers that use Shallow DoF


I said 50%. It could be closer to 90% or 10%, depending on how things are balanced.

Most of my photos that are "keepers" are shallow DOF shots of flowers. These are keepers because the woman who keeps me around likes to have that kind of photo around, too. I suspect professional photographers have a similar relationship to clients' preferences.

Most of my photos that I like have as much resolution as I could get. That might mean blurry corners because it was shot wide open on a wide lens, but that was the only choice for the shot and I would have stopped down and stepped back if I could have. If the question is "How many keepers have intentional depth of field blurring," the answer for my favorite photos is "close to zero."

That said, I don't shoot many pictures of people and I think photos of humans improve tremendously when a single subject is "enhanced" by having slightly more pop than anything else in the frame. Also, I value faster lenses for the purposes of framing and focusing even if my keepers aren't shot with those larger apertures.

Interesting question. I look forward to reading others' thoughts.

Cheers,
Jon



Apr 14, 2014 at 01:50 PM
runamuck
Offline
• • • • • •
[X]
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Percentage of Keepers that use Shallow DoF


I'm a product of the 1950's and almost all my shots of people are "environmental" portraits. That was all you got from the ubiquitous Kodak Brownie. Sure, the artfully blurred background has a place, but for people shots, remembering the "where" is just as important as the "who."

The portrait with everything blurred out may end up on the wall, unnoticed, the snapshot of the kids at Museum is infinitely more interesting because of the memories it invokes.

This camera saved more memories than any other in the 50's and 60's. From Ken Rockwell





Family memory maker




Apr 14, 2014 at 01:52 PM
redisburning
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Percentage of Keepers that use Shallow DoF


ddd

Edited on May 01, 2014 at 07:12 PM · View previous versions



Apr 14, 2014 at 02:31 PM
ZoneV
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Percentage of Keepers that use Shallow DoF


I had a look on my website - and was a bit surprised that probably 80-90% of the newer images there seem to be small DOF images.
I love to create images with small DOF, for example with the Meyer Trioplan. I use the different kinds ob bokeh for many of my images at the moment.
For nude photography I often use lenses wideopen - but not because I need everytime a small DOF. Some images would probably work with more DOF too, but it is more easy for me to work with full manual lenses wideopen - and I see less sensor dirt in the images at f/1.2 or 1.4



Apr 14, 2014 at 02:35 PM
Access
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Percentage of Keepers that use Shallow DoF


I almost always do a combination of different depth of fields and sort it out later.
Percentage of 'keepers' is an artificial metric that just doesn't matter to me. Over the weekend I took almost 1000 photos and only processed seven of those, and I'm perfectly happy with that -- time well spent.

Narrow DOF may be the starting point for portraits, but it can be cliche or overused today the same way people overuse the liquify filter. In some cases, blurring out the background can also become something of a cop-out, in that one "didn't want to spend the time to find a proper background".



Apr 14, 2014 at 02:53 PM
1
       2       3       end




FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.