johnvanr wrote:
Boredom is generally related to a lack of choices (or imagination/creativity). A faster lens offers more choices than a slower lens.
Unless it’s only ever used wide open, which unfortunately seems to be the case for many photographers with their ultra-fast primes. “I have f1.2 so I’m gonna use it!” seems a regular attitude.
In this, I understand both viewpoints. The other side of the argument is that there are photographers who use their fast glass wide open a lot of the time and still create varied, interesting images. Others aren’t afraid of stopping that lens down when required and also create interesting and varied images. Still others seemingly never use them wider than f4 leaving the question of why they bought the super fast version. An f1.2 and an f8 photo can both have merit. Reality is both can offer boring results and both can offer interesting results. It’s all in how the artist uses the tool. So as an absolute statement the premise really isn’t accurate. But as a general trend, at least as witnessed by many images shared here, I think the OP makes a reasonable point, but he should be blaming the artist and not the tool.
A 250mm lens (typical portrait length for half-plate camera) lens at f/5.6 has the same depth of field as a 125mm at f/2.8, which is the same as a 65mm lens at f/1.4
Lot of weirdness here. People are on their own photographic journey. Once upon a time, I was enthralled with wide open shooting. If it could be wide open, I did it. Then I became frustrated with how so much of a family snapshot wasn't in focus due to shallow DOF. I adjusted. I downgraded to an ancient Sony a900 from an a7IV. Wide open shooting suddenly mattered a whole lot again when shooting ISO 1600 has a bit too much noise. Shooting the lovely a mount Sony CZ50/1.4 wide open became necessary indoors. The 24-70/2.8, the same. Necessity changed my shooting style. But my amazing Minolta 100/2 for portraits? For headshots, f/4 to f/8 is typically better. If I need a longer tele, I could shoot it wide open happily. But it is my journey and it probably looks like no one else's journey. Some are enthralled with the fastest lenses they can use and use them almost exclusively wide open. Others stop down whenever they can. It's fine. Let people be on their journey.
And don't forget the cell phone effect. Shallow DOF isn't something they can do without software simulating it. And a lot of us are perfectly happy with cell phones for our daily carry camera, and they often can do a better job with PP than I could.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I vacillate between hope and despair — hope that something will finally kill that godawful “3D” thread, and despair that it might be this instead. ;-)
That "godawful 3D thread" is actully pretty amusing .
Kenneth Lee wrote: Are fast lenses becoming boring?
They have been becoming boring, for a long time.
A 250mm lens (typical portrait length for half-plate camera) lens at f/5.6 has the same depth of field as a 125mm at f/2.8, which is the same as a 65mm lens at f/1.4
[image]
I think we should mention who took an image unless it is our own image. In this case the photographer is unknown so then that could have been mentioned. The is from the collection av glass plates taken care of and later donated to University of Mssachusetts by Terri Cappuccis. From the turn of the last century.
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 →
Let's consider this case from a different angle.
Let's consider a randomly selected group of 100 photographers, all possessing high end Sony cameras with f/1.2 or f/1.4 lenses.
How many of these can be reasonably expected to have (a) good hands-on experience and knowledge of their gear, (b) good experience and skills in photography in general, and (c) sufficient capacity (talent?) for producing visual art?
Realistically, I would say - few (and I cannot count myself as one of the few); thus, I expect that an average Joe photographer who invested into an (expensive!) f/1.2 - 1.4 prime should produce unremarkable and stereotypical work (like you said "...background obliterated. Context is getting lost to bokeh balls").
I also expect this average photographer to praise the quality of the out-of-camera jpegs (or jpegs from Lightroom with minimal post-processing), because they wouldn't like doing post-processing in general.
Finally, this average photographer might have the feeling that when a fair amount of money has been invested into a lens like the 50mm F1.2 GM, then the lens must be used wide-open and it would be silly to use such a lense closed to f/2.8 or more.
In the end, I agree with those who attribute uninteresting (boring?) photography to those behind their cameras, rather than to the gear in use. I also think that the reality is that statistically not many people do (and are capable of doing) art photography. Why do you think wildlife (and especially bird) photography is so popular? This is the subject that is well-defined; it is usually photographed wide-open, and the stereotypical subjects and/or compositions are highly appreciated among wildlife photographers.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I vacillate between hope and despair — hope that something will finally kill that godawful “3D” thread, and despair that it might be this instead. ;-)
If we're lucky, someone will toss in a comment about "color science" and the entire thread will explode like an un-lubricated Leica with a third party li-ion battery.
ruthenium wrote:
Let's consider this case from a different angle.
Let's consider a randomly selected group of 100 photographers, all possessing high end Sony cameras with f/1.2 or f/1.4 lenses.
How many of these can be reasonably expected to have (a) good hands-on experience and knowledge of their gear, (b) good experience and skills in photography in general, and (c) sufficient capacity (talent?) for producing visual art?
Realistically, I would say - few (and I cannot count myself as one of the few); thus, I expect that an average Joe photographer who invested into an (expensive!) f/1.2 - 1.4 prime should produce unremarkable and stereotypical work (like you said "...background obliterated. Context is getting lost to bokeh balls").
I also expect this average photographer to praise the quality of the out-of-camera jpegs (or jpegs from Lightroom with minimal post-processing), because they wouldn't like doing post-processing in general.
Finally, this average photographer might have the feeling that when a fair amount of money has been invested into a lens like the 50mm F1.2 GM, then the lens must be used wide-open and it would be silly to use such a lense closed to f/2.8 or more.
In the end, I agree with those who attribute uninteresting (boring?) photography to those behind their cameras, rather than to the gear in use. I also think that the reality is that statistically not many people do (and are capable of doing) art photography. Why do you think wildlife (and especially bird) photography is so popular? This is the subject that is well-defined; it is usually photographed wide-open, and the stereotypical subjects and/or compositions are highly appreciated among wildlife photographers.
RustyRus wrote:
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.
I don’t think there was some previous era when most portraits were identifiable by location. Even something like McCurry’s Afghan Girl (1984) gives you no information about where it was photographed.
There aren't that many tools available for separating a subject from the background in the field. One is lighting: use flash to make the subject significantly brighter than the ambient exposure, effectively darkening the background. In daylight, however, that can require a heavy strobe powerful enough to overpower the sun by a couple of stops. Another is shallow depth of field, which separates the subject through focus. A third is tonal separation, placing the subject against a background with contrasting brightness or color, but that depends heavily on the location and your ability to choose the composition.
In many real-world situations, shallow depth of field is simply the only practical tool available... Unless you have a leaf or global shutter, then the sun can be overpowered with a speed-light, no heavy strobes required.
aCuria wrote:
I don’t think there was some previous era when most portraits were identifiable by location. Even something like McCurry’s Afghan Girl gives you no information about where it was photographed.
Maybe I'm in the minority here, or people just want a reason to argue or maybe I am just wrong? (I'm okay with any of the three).
Take the photo of the Afghan girl. It gives so much context it even got a name. And notice that the context isn't coming from the background, it's her eyes, the worn headscarf, the whole frame. Not all context needs to be in the background. Look through the Thypoch threads, the portrait threads, the Viltrox threads and so on. Tons of amazing photographs, and also tons of exactly what I'm talking about.
It's even happening in movies, where razor thin depth of field is almost punishing to the eye. Look at Obsession, or a hit show like White Lotus.
And to be clear, I'm not arguing against having access to fast glass. I own multiple Leica Noctiluxes. I'm just saying the look is being overused, and in my artistic opinion it's ruining more photographs than it's helping. When everything is shot wide open, nothing stands out for it anymore. The shallow look loses its impact precisely because it's everywhere.
Again, just my opinion here.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I vacillate between hope and despair — hope that something will finally kill that godawful “3D” thread, and despair that it might be this instead. ;-)
Ironic, the people that bitch about the 3d thread the most are the ones that seem to visit the thread on a regular basis…and keep it alive by posting their bitch.
aCuria wrote:
I don’t think there was some previous era when most portraits were identifiable by location. Even something like McCurry’s Afghan Girl (1984) gives you no information about where it was photographed.
There aren't that many tools available for separating a subject from the background in the field. One is lighting: use flash to make the subject significantly brighter than the ambient exposure, effectively darkening the background. In daylight, however, that can require a heavy strobe powerful enough to overpower the sun by a couple of stops. Another is shallow depth of field, which separates the subject through focus. A third is tonal separation, placing the subject against a background with contrasting brightness or color, but that depends heavily on the location and your ability to choose the composition.
In many real-world situations, shallow depth of field is simply the only practical tool available... Unless you have a leaf or global shutter, then the sun can be overpowered with a speed-light, no heavy strobes required....Show more →
That’s fine if one’s goal is to always separate the environment from the subject. Steve’s famous photo could have easily been shot in a New York studio as the entire context around the subject has been washed away.
ruthenium wrote:
Let's consider this case from a different angle.
Let's consider a randomly selected group of 100 photographers, all possessing high end Sony cameras with f/1.2 or f/1.4 lenses.
How many of these can be reasonably expected to have (a) good hands-on experience and knowledge of their gear, (b) good experience and skills in photography in general, and (c) sufficient capacity (talent?) for producing visual art?
Realistically, I would say - few (and I cannot count myself as one of the few); thus, I expect that an average Joe photographer who invested into an (expensive!) f/1.2 - 1.4 prime should produce unremarkable and stereotypical work (like you said "...background obliterated. Context is getting lost to bokeh balls").
I also expect this average photographer to praise the quality of the out-of-camera jpegs (or jpegs from Lightroom with minimal post-processing), because they wouldn't like doing post-processing in general.
Finally, this average photographer might have the feeling that when a fair amount of money has been invested into a lens like the 50mm F1.2 GM, then the lens must be used wide-open and it would be silly to use such a lense closed to f/2.8 or more.
In the end, I agree with those who attribute uninteresting (boring?) photography to those behind their cameras, rather than to the gear in use. I also think that the reality is that statistically not many people do (and are capable of doing) art photography. Why do you think wildlife (and especially bird) photography is so popular? This is the subject that is well-defined; it is usually photographed wide-open, and the stereotypical subjects and/or compositions are highly appreciated among wildlife photographers.
I would disagree on the Wildlife piece- I understand what you are saying but you could give me a 600f/4 Lens and a Nikon Z9 and I couldn't touch any of those photographs I see-
The art of being in the right spot, location, time of day, tracking etc is an art form all its own-
Afgan Girl is a stellar example of a singular image being made with what would be by today’s standards, technically mundane gear. IIRC McCurry used a Nikon FE2 with a lowly 105/2.5 lens mounted, and gasp, Kodachrome 64 film. Yet the background is sufficiently blurred and the eyes, oh those eyes, are not only sharp, but captivating. Framed brilliantly by both contrasting and complimentary color and clothing. Genius.
aCuria wrote:
I don’t think there was some previous era when most portraits were identifiable by location. Even something like McCurry’s Afghan Girl (1984) gives you no information about where it was photographed.
There aren't that many tools available for separating a subject from the background in the field. One is lighting: use flash to make the subject significantly brighter than the ambient exposure, effectively darkening the background. In daylight, however, that can require a heavy strobe powerful enough to overpower the sun by a couple of stops. Another is shallow depth of field, which separates the subject through focus. A third is tonal separation, placing the subject against a background with contrasting brightness or color, but that depends heavily on the location and your ability to choose the composition.
In many real-world situations, shallow depth of field is simply the only practical tool available... Unless you have a leaf or global shutter, then the sun can be overpowered with a speed-light, no heavy strobes required....Show more →
There are all kinds of ways of making portrait photographs. It is certainly possible to place a contextualizing background behind the subject. (You'll see a fair amount of that in things like photographs of executives, with stuff in the background that signifies their status — desks, tall buildings, line-ups of awards, you name it.) That's one approach. But imagine if that were the only approach to portraiture?
Often the idea is to prevent the background from distracting from the person and his/her character as depicted in the photograph. The Curry photograph is a great example — it would not have been improved by including some local buildings in the background. Instead we're left to look directly at the young woman. (The nondescript background is just one aspect of why this photograph has been so effective. The intense stare is part of it, but color relationships are also important — including the color of that background — and the beautiful light.)
I'd also bet good money that he did not shoot this at f/1.4 or f/1/2. (That's a guess, and I'm prepared to be proven wrong.) I suspect that a slightly smaller aperture was used to give enough DOF to bring the subject pretty fully into focus, but a large enough background (and probably a somewhat long focal length) to sufficiently blur that background.
A fundamental issue with this thread, besides its inane assumption that everyone using a f/1.4 or f/1.2 lens just shoots at the largest aperture (seriously?), is that it tries to suggest that there is some "right way" to make phtographs and that a whole bunch of people who don't do that are doing in the "wrong" way." That's obvious nonsense, easily proven by looking at a range of excellent photography.
- - -
chez wrote:
Ironic, the people that bitch about the 3d thread the most are the ones that seem to visit the thread on a regular basis…and keep it alive by posting their bitch.
Speaking of "posting their bitch" (?)... It is difficult to describe the pleasure with which I look forward to receiving regular moral instruction from you, Bg Fella. I'll give it all due consideration.
(Also, how would be able to report such a thing unless you, uh, "visit the thread on a regular basis?" ;-)
Jack Flesher wrote:
Afgan Girl is a stellar example of a singular image being made with what would be by today’s standards, technically mundane gear. IIRC McCurry used a Nikon FE2 with a lowly 105/2.5 lens mounted, and gasp, Kodachrome 64 film. Yet the background is sufficiently blurred and the eyes, oh those eyes, are not only sharp, but captivating.
What are we even talking about? Is the shallow depth of field of a 2.5/105mm lens less boring than that of a 1.2/50mm lens simply because it is supposedly less spectacular? That's completely absurd.
The depth of field at 2.5/105mm is practically identical to that at 1.2/50mm, provided the distance is chosen so that the subject is the same size in both cases.
BTW, like @gdanmitchell I would also guess that the 105mm lens was stopped down slightly when photographing the Afghan girl.
...
?)... It is difficult to describe the pleasure with which I look forward to receiving regular moral instruction from you, Bg Fella. I'll give it all due consideration.