Yup. Everything you've read about Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, and the other members of the "f/64 group" is wrong. The only reason they worked at getting maximum depth of field in their images was that shooting wide open is too hard.
aborr wrote:
Yup. Everything you've read about Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, and the other members of the "f/64 group" is wrong. The only reason they worked at getting maximum depth of field in their images was that shooting wide open is too hard.
In a redneck drawl... "Now, I don't cayer hoo y'are, that's fuunnee"
I know that Joe Mcnally hates shallow depth of field stuff. He uses wider angle lenses with smaller aperture because he believes that showing the environment in which the portrait is taken is as important as the subject it self. But small aperture photos require that the background looks interesting, and that the lighting is properly sculpted. Shallow DoF hides a lot of imperfections associated with environment or when creating sophisticated lighting scenes (like during events) is not possible.
bgbs wrote:
I know that Joe Mcnally hates shallow depth of field stuff. He uses wider angle lenses with smaller aperture because he believes that showing the environment in which the portrait is taken is as important as the subject it self. But small aperture photos require that the background looks interesting, and that the lighting is properly sculpted. Shallow DoF hides a lot of imperfections associated with environment or when creating sophisticated lighting scenes (like during events) is not possible.
Every artist is different and has unique preferences. For example. I love extremely shallow depth of field portraits such as those done by Pete Zelewski: http://www.flickr.com/photos/petezelewski/
I also enjoy seeing everything in the frame crystal clear such as much of the work of the great street shooters of years gone by like Garry Winogrand.
