With the sheer amount of fast glass on the market today, has the wide-open look become the default?
It seems every new prime ships at f/1.2 or f/1.4, and half of them look the same: subject sharp, background obliterated. Context is getting lost to bokeh balls. If a portrait tells you where you are, is that becoming the outlier? You can't tell if the shot was made in Lisbon or a parking garage, and it doesn't seem to matter in most cases.
Shallow depth of field is a great tool. But when it becomes the reason for the picture instead of a choice in service of it, you're left with something technically clean that could've been made anywhere by anyone. Thoughts?
Don't blame tools for the shortcomings of the artist. There are times where the background could ruin the image, and it's a good option to have around then. There are times the background will add to the photo, and any lens can be adequately stopped down to emphasize that.
Yes, and I hate it. Sure, sometimes (?) the background is so awfull that it has to be turned to mush; more often, though, it just shows a lack of creativity.
Altglas wrote:
In times of expensive data storage a shallow depth of field is becoming much more important than ever.
It allows higher rates of file compression!
...add good denoising, and you may double the savings!
EB-1 wrote:
You can stop down a fast lens to a smaller aperture, but a slow lens will never open up to be fast.
EBH
Of course you can- My comment is around no one is choosing to stop them down. All of the photos are starting to look the same- In a basement or in France?
RustyRus wrote:
With the sheer amount of fast glass on the market today, has the wide-open look become the default?
It seems every new prime ships at f/1.2 or f/1.4, and half of them look the same: subject sharp, background obliterated. Context is getting lost to bokeh balls. If a portrait tells you where you are, is that becoming the outlier? You can't tell if the shot was made in Lisbon or a parking garage, and it doesn't seem to matter in most cases.
Shallow depth of field is a great tool. But when it becomes the reason for the picture instead of a choice in service of it, you're left with something technically clean that could've been made anywhere by anyone. Thoughts?...Show more →
I don’t think there is any less interest ini the narrow DOF, abundant bokeh style. That’s been around for a long time and seems to continue to show up a lot.
I do think there is an increased recognition that smaller maximum aperture lenses have some compensatory advantages for certain kinds of use, most of which are obvious: smaller size, lower weight, decreased cost, excellent optical quality. And with cameras’ high ISO performance (and post-processing NR) continuing to improve it is less likely that one needs the super large apertures in order to deal with low light.
There is still a place for the big aperture lenses — though f/1.2 really doesn’t gain you much over f/1.4 — but there’s an increased recognition that a larger aperture lens is not automatically a better lens.
By the way, those large aperture lenses can also shoot at smaller apertures, which your critique of the lenses seems to ignore. If you are doing a shot, say a portrait, and you want some level of detail in that Lisbon shot to be less fuzzy, you just stop down. Photographers have always known that the extra large aperture is something that is sometimes appropriate and sometimes not.
In essence, I think your critique may be more about hypothetical photographers who might always shoot wide open on f/1.4 and f/1.2 lenses and not about the lens capabilities. I’m sure that some overuse that technique, just as some overuse just about every technique or trick in photography. But that doesn’t mean the technique isn’t valid — it just means that it isn’t always the best choice.
RustyRus wrote:
Of course you can- My comment is around no one is choosing to stop them down. All of the photos are starting to look the same- In a basement or in France?
I've only been to France a couple times and in a basement like three times in my life so it's not the best analogy for me.
I do wonder how much is because nobody bothers to control the backgrounds or move the subjects around.
Most cultural stuff runs in cycles. I remember when everyone started with wideangles and fisheyes in the 60s and early 70s and I was sick of it after a while. Maybe in the 2030s or 2040s DOF will be more in vogue.
need a poll, whats the ratio of average photographer to good creative photographers using fast (1.2 1.4) to not so fast lens (2.8 4.0) for portraits. for me it depends on the subject/subjects im shooting.
RustyRus wrote:
Context is getting lost to bokeh balls.
What the hell are you talking about? I probably shoot 90% of the time at f/1.2, and I can probably count the bokeh balls in my pictures on one hand. The same goes for the completely fuzzy background.
Here are just three examples.
I think the only way fast lenses are becoming boring is that they used to come with optical flaws together with their speed. Designing f/1.2 or even faster lenses seems to be easier now, as they are close to their 1.4 counterparts when it comes to aberrations handling...
Nifty Fifty wrote:
What the hell are you talking about? I probably shoot 90% of the time at f/1.2, and I can probably count the bokeh balls in my pictures on one hand. The same goes for the completely fuzzy background.
Here are just three examples.
Obviously you can shoot wide open and not blow out the background. I actually love this form of photography with fast lenses when you're focused closer to infinity, and I like using it to show off a lens's character within a scene.
It's all art, so however people want to shoot is fine by me. For me, the look is just starting to feel overused, everywhere, like it's become the default.
