DOF in LF portraiture

[BrianShaw]

I think I've started noticing a trend in LF portraiture discussions that I find disconcerting... the quest for 'bokeh' seems to be driving very shallow DOF -- to the point where noses are sometimes out-of-focus. Yet these portraits often garner lots of praise from fellow on-line photographers.

I've observed similar situation with regard to food photography in the cooking/foodie magazines and newer cookbooks... only a narrow band of food is in focus -- both foreground and background is quite out-of-focus (OOF).

Is this really a new trend, or have I been not paying attention. In portraiture I always strive for in-focus eyes and noses in portraiture and can't accept less. It never bothers me if ears and background are OOF, but eyes and everything in front of the eyes up to, and including the tip of the nose (at least) ought to be in focus.

Am I intolerant in my distain for OOF foregrounds? Please adjust my attitude if it needs adjusting!

[Frank Petronio]

It is just a preference, not a right or wrong answer. I like to vary it and it all depends. I love the way some short DOF photos work. But sometimes it does feel like cheating - even the 50/1.4 on my DSLR can do a nice short DOF portrait very easily. It is almost like cheating.

But then again I can blast strobes and shoot perfect long focus portraits all day too... simple and effective.

The revival of the short DOF trend in commercial photography sort of started around the middle 1990s and, as trends go, has passed more or less. But lots of commercial photographers are slow to pick up on trends, so what was popular in the hottest circles circa 1995 maybe just now be "hot" with some shooters now.

Guys like Raymond Meeks made a lot of money doing it just like Jim Galli and many of us are doing now. Graflex SLRs, fast vintage lenses, etc.

But fashion shooters like Arthur Elgort were using Graflex SLRs in the 1970s. It all depends.

Somewhere there are still people shooting eggs on black plexiglass like they did in 1983. Trends come and go, but copycats and uncreative photography lasts forever.

[BrianShaw]

Okay, Frank, I guess I'm declaring my preference. OOF noses are wrong.. simply wrong, whether the eyes are in focus or not.

I have less problem with OOF foregrounds on commercial (product) images. In fact, I guess I can even go so far as that they are okay because they are 'art'. But you (or anyone else) may never be able to convice me that in-focus eyes with out-of-focus nose/chin is okay.

Sheesh... I nver thought I'd be such an out-of-touch-with-what's-cool fuddy-duddy at such a young age!

[PigleT]

Out-of-focus foregrounds cacn be quite strange, at least in some areas. What matters is whether it was done deliberately and whether it, in some mystical way, "works with the rest of the picture". This could be down to angle of approach: if it's a straight lens-to-nose standing composition, I'd agree it's probably wrong. But if it's the sort of fine art where you take a short down a recumbent model's forehead past nose and blur the rest into the distance, it could probably work.

[Capocheny]

Brian,

I'm with you on your "shooting style." However, things do change and it can be argued that some of these changes aren't always for the best. As Frank said... it's just a personal preference.

That said, I'm always amazed when I pick up a high-end magazine and look at some of the images on the pages. The shooting styles are certainly contrary to what I was brought up with (or, what I'm use to!)

But, time waits for no man and times are a changing and have been... for a very long, long time!

Cheers

[Jay DeFehr]

I think that, in part, the "rules" we break help to define our personal styles, and in the end, each image must stand on its own. In some portraits, I find oof features distracting and even ruinous, but in others, I find the same effect enchanting. There's no accounting for taste.

Jay

[Joseph O'Neil]

I don't care much for "bokeh", I think the term, while useful to be aware of, is a wee tad too trendy anymore.

As for portraits, if you look at portraits from pre WW2, many of them had only the eyes AND nose in focus - people do notice the nose, I think. IMO, this was done due to technology at the times - slow lenses, slow film - you worked with what you had.

IMO, you have to go back to pre WW - ONE to see noses out of focus on a more common basis.

During WW2, film and lens technology incresed expotentionally, and so after WW2, you see very different portriats - film and lenses were a lot faster. Kinda like how at the start of the war bi-planes were still in combat use (the attack onthe Bismark was by Swordfish biplanes) but at the end of the war, we had jet fighters.

So IMO, the sytle changed due to technology available.

as for having photogrpahs with one plane in focus, depending on the picutre itself, I kinda like the effect. With many (perhaps most) digital images, everything is in focus, everything is "perfect." Deliberately having what you want the "reader" (or whateve ryou call the person looking at your photograph) to see or notice above all else in your picture by use of selective focusing, is a legit way of doing things. But like everything else, sometiems it works, sometiems it doesn't.

It's just another technique or tool or keep handy in the arsenal.

But personally, I like to see the nose in focus too. Unless it's got a great bit pile of blackheads or a nasty zit right on top.



joe

[Jay DeFehr]

IMO, you have to go back to pre WW - ONE to see noses out of focus on a more common basis.

During WW2, film and lens technology incresed expotentionally, and so after WW2, you see very different portriats - film and lenses were a lot faster.

Wouldn't faster lenses suggest less dof, and not more?

Here's a portrait made with modern film and a modern 58mm f 1.2 lens.

Jay

[BrianShaw]

Wouldn't faster lenses suggest less dof, and not more?

If used wide open, I suppose you are correct ;-)

[BrianShaw]

But personally, I like to see the nose in focus too. Unless it's got a great bit pile of blackheads or a nasty zit right on top.

Isn't this EXACTLY what PS is for ??? he-he-he!