I think it's cool to really force yourself into this way of thinking and composing. It takes the dof intensity factor out of the equation. It reminds me of the NYC street photographers with their Leica's in a fish bowl of opportunity. Image 3 is the strongest for me.
I have been thinking about this for a long time and was just discussing it with my business partner. I would even go so much as to suggest that the uber-shallow DOF thing may be a crutch for the inferior photographer. I understand the merit of background separation but it would seem to me that you have to be much more astute in composing effectively if you stop down that much. This translates into a better photographer IMHO, so the exercise has a lot of value.
Nate Kaiser (Image Is Found) did this a while back "one lens. one focal length. one camera. all horizontal. all manual focus. all F11. all day." http://theblogisfound.com/index.cfm?postID=695
He was acting as a bonus 2nd photographer and had no pressure to deliver amazingness, and if I was that client, I'd be thrilled to have what he captured. Someone will come whine about some technical BS, but just shut it.
brett maxwell wrote:
Nate Kaiser (Image Is Found) did this a while back "one lens. one focal length. one camera. all horizontal. all manual focus. all F11. all day." http://theblogisfound.com/index.cfm?postID=695
He was acting as a bonus 2nd photographer and had no pressure to deliver amazingness, and if I was that client, I'd be thrilled to have what he captured. Someone will come whine about some technical BS, but just shut it.
Holy shit that's some good photos.
Hmmmmmmmm. There is something to be said for the whole image being sharp. Damn that looks good. I don't remember the last time I shot anything at f/11 without strobes or a tripod.
Many normal/ordinary people (i.e. non-photographers) prefer seeing everything in the frame clearly. With the ultra narrow depth of field used so often those normal people say things like, "hey, why am I crystal clear but my wife is all blurry?"
I think this is a great way to expand your thinking and in the end it will give you something that varies through your images. I think there is a place for shallow depth of field, however I agree that it shouldn't be something you use for the entire day. I also agree with the fact that when it comes to family events the number one thing you should focus on is capturing the emotions and relationships between people. The one thing I find challenging many times is that coming into an event such as a wedding is that if you are hired help, sometimes it can also be tricky determining the relationships to the couple if you don't have the luxury of having time to get to know who is who. It's great having someone there that lets you know these things. I think some of my favorite weddings are the smaller intimate ones where you don't have as many people to decipher. I think I like this concept a lot because I also quite enjoy some good PJ stuff.
jekmandco wrote:
Hoffer knows how much of a noob I am... but I am going to ask this question anyway.
Why would it be more important to have a clean sensor at F8 than at say F2.8??
The more you stop down the more depth of field you get and the more you will see dust spots on your sensor. Stop down to f/16-f/22 sometime and just take a picture of a blue sky or white wall, you'll see what it's about.
I think Tony's suggestion is a cool one, keep in mind zone focusing can be somewhat difficult with modern lenses since the distance scales can suck on newer AF lenses. Although if you shoot wide enough it's hard to miss the focus.
I tend towards greater DOF for the rush of the day (f4 - F5.6), and wider (F1.8 - F2.8) when its slower and more steady. Horses for courses though I guess.
F8 on FX is like F5.6 on a crop sensor in general, so since my main body is a crop, I am probably around F5.6 - F8 for a lot of what I do.
I've really enjoyed zone-focusing lately. Daniel and I have both been working much smaller apertures wherever possible at our recent weddings, and I particularly love doing it with the Zeiss 21, because I have such generous DOF. The shot below is an example of this from yesterday's wedding... my second-to-last.
Tom K. wrote:
Many normal/ordinary people (i.e. non-photographers) prefer seeing everything in the frame clearly. With the ultra narrow depth of field used so often those normal people say things like, "hey, why am I crystal clear but my wife is all blurry?"
f/8 eliminates that problem.
Cool thread. Great idea.
It's interesting if you look at a lot of fashion magazines you'll often see a lot of DOF. Speaking to a fashion photog recently he said he shots almost everything at f/11 and f/16 even on location.
jekmandco wrote:
Hoffer knows how much of a noob I am... but I am going to ask this question anyway.
Why would it be more important to have a clean sensor at F8 than at say F2.8??
Because the dust particles are not going to be blown out or boked'd (is that a word) in that area of the sensor.
Google F-22 blue sky test, or something similar, and I'm sure you can read up on it. Long story short, wide aperatures (f1.4-f4 or so) are going to hide dust/blemishes on both the lens and sensor.
This f8 thing seems like a novelty. But I always cycle through my f-stops irregardless. Don't just stick to one f-stop. Understand the distance of subjects is important too. You can be at f2.8 and still net sharp images all around if you have the distance.
Use whatever works. It does bothers me these days most people seem to only stick with wide open aperture. Much like when in doubt, blur everything, apply vignette, desaturate 'till satisfied.
the primary reason large apertures are so common in wedding photography (other than low light) is that it's one of the few (only!?) types of photography where you are expected to deliver hundreds of photos from a single day while having very little control over your locations, subjects, backgrounds, etc. Studio photographers can shoot at f11 all day because they have complete control over their set. Street photographers can shoot at f11 all day because they can go weeks or months without getting a shot that's ever viewed by the public.
brett maxwell wrote:
the primary reason large apertures are so common in wedding photography (other than low light) is that it's one of the few (only!?) types of photography where you are expected to deliver hundreds of photos from a single day while having very little control over your locations, subjects, backgrounds, etc. Studio photographers can shoot at f11 all day because they have complete control over their set. Street photographers can shoot at f11 all day because they can go weeks or months without getting a shot that's ever viewed by the public.
This is true but shallow dof is easy to overuse and it is easy to get lazy with backgrounds. It's probably not a bad exercise to remind ourselves it is just another technique to be used when required rather than making it a default for everything and maybe try and work a little harder to make all elements of a picture work rather than just blurring everything.
Mark_L wrote:
This is true but shallow dof is easy to overuse and it is easy to get lazy with backgrounds. It's probably not a bad exercise to remind ourselves it is just another technique to be used when required rather than making it a default for everything and maybe try and work a little harder to make all elements of a picture work rather than just blurring everything.
Yep, I was only attempting to explain it, not say it's right or best. I had a second photographer last year that asked for some critique and one of the things I pointed out were a lot of photos shot in plenty of light at f1.4 where everything was at such a distance that DOF really didn't come into play. They would have looked identical except much sharper and with less purple fringing if they were at f2.8. This person actually seemed to not know that lenses are sharper and have less fringing stopped down.
I think I like this concept a lot because I also quite enjoy some good PJ stuff.