In the Defense of Depth Article on TOP (re: Shallow Depth of Field Fad)

[Frank Petronio]

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/06/in-defense-of-depth.html

Not a fan of the too-digital/dumb/amateur comments that The Online Photographer attracts these days - but John Kennerdell's essay, In the Defense of Depth Article , is quite relevant to many of us here.

I agree with him.

[Jim Jones]

Me too. Shallow DOF is the quick and simple way to isolate the main subject from its environment. It is an equipment based shortcut. A photographer based technique is to use light and composition to do the job. Artists with full control over their images have done this for hundreds of years. Mere money can buy the formats and lenses for shallow DOF. Mastering less esoteric equipment is more admirable.

[pbryld]

Could not agree more.

[Eric Rose]

I agree wholeheartedly with the author. On the other hand I find many of the absolutist comments from some of the TOP brethren to be as shallow as the current rage of razor thin DOF. Like most things in photography it's a tool to be pulled out when needed to achieve a certain look. To shoot everything either at f64 or f1.2 would soon become a crutch. As with any "crutch" your visual mobility is reduced.

[Jay DeFehr]

I agree with the author, but not with Jim Jones above. Effective use of dof is a control, not a default. I am at least as bored by the corner to corner, front to back sharpness of small sensor camera, or f/64 school images as I am with the blurry nose and forehead wet plate look.

And I think the author might have missed something in his comparison of photographers of old working towards dof, and contemporary photographers working away from it-- both groups were/are resisting the technical defaults of their equipment. the simple fact that attaining greater dof was more challenging for the old photog's than attaining shallow dof is for modern ones shouldn't distract from the fact that both approaches are fundamentally aesthetic, though mediated by equipment and technique.

All the above being said, I suspect the ultra-shallow dof trend in portraiture is a fad, and fading quickly, along with the soft focus look. And this is coming from one who regularly uses selective focus with SF lenses, though in a more moderated way than many others. The bottom line is that equipment and technique can be tools, or crutches, and it's not always easy to know which.

[Tobias Key]

I agree with the author, but not with Jim Jones above. Effective use of dof is a control, not a default. I am at least as bored by the corner to corner, front to back sharpness of small sensor camera, or f/64 school images as I am with the blurry nose and forehead wet plate look.

And I think the author might have missed something in his comparison of photographers of old working towards dof, and contemporary photographers working away from it-- both groups were/are resisting the technical defaults of their equipment. the simple fact that attaining greater dof was more challenging for the old photog's than attaining shallow dof is for modern ones shouldn't distract from the fact that both approaches are fundamentally aesthetic, though mediated by equipment and technique.

All the above being said, I suspect the ultra-shallow dof trend in portraiture is a fad, and fading quickly, along with the soft focus look. And this is coming from one who regularly uses selective focus with SF lenses, though in a more moderated way than many others. The bottom line is that equipment and technique can be tools, or crutches, and it's not always easy to know which.

I wholeheartedly agree. I think collectively we should be wary of any technique that can effectively be bought rather than learned. Such is the spread of information now you likely to inspire a million copyists in short order, and your technique becomes a cliche in record time.

[Mark Sawyer]

I'm afraid I didn't think much of the article. Kennerdell only thinks of shallow depth as a fad, crutch, or gimmick, never as an aesthetic way of seeing and flavoring the world, never as a close companion to atmospheric perspective, never as a study of the beauty of optics and how we might see the world if our own eyes weren't constantly auto-focusing on whatever we point them at.

I have no problem with deep or shallow depth of field, but I think if one decides ahead of time, "all my photographs will look like this", it's a limit. That in itself isn't a problem; we put so many other limits on ourselves, working in lf, a particular process or genre... Indeed, another limit may help tie one's work together.

But it should be a limit that's thought out by the photographer, and fits his or her vision and goals. Kennerdell's is a shallow :rolleyes: and one-sided arguement, one to be considered, but balanced by another side...

[E. von Hoegh]

It's a tool, like any tool it can be misused. The dilettante digitographers just have a shiny new toy to play with, they'll get tired and move on soon enough.

[Harley Goldman]

As some others have stated, I find shallow DOF to be a tool, not a crutch. It works well in some images, not in others. It is just one more option to make the photographer's vision and creativity come across in an image. Use it when it furthers your goal.

[mdm]

Shalloe DOF is limiting to anyone trying to actually see and develop because it limits you to making pictures of some simple thing, you are essentially a product photographer, like Mr Sawyer. However if you are interetsed in the relationship between things and light and other things, like Strand, specially Sudek, Shore at his best, Friedlander etc, then DOF is something you use very subtly as a tool to focus the viewers attention where you want it and move their eyes around space.

[Jay DeFehr]

Shalloe DOF is limiting to anyone trying to actually see and develop because it limits you to making pictures of some simple thing, you are essentially a product photographer, like Mr Sawyer. However if you are interetsed in the relationship between things and light and other things, like Strand, specially Sudek, Shore at his best, Friedlander etc, then DOF is something you use very subtly as a tool to focus the viewers attention where you want it and move their eyes around space.

Dof exists over a range limited at either end by equipment and technique, and is one of many elements of composition. Using shallow dof well is demanding, and as the image space becomes more shallow, dof becomes more exacting. That you can't use this effect with any subtlety or nuance is not evidence of its imitations, but yours.

[jnantz]

in addition to shallow DOF i try not to focus anymore either ...
i'm not sure what the point is.
it is much easier to let entropy do its thing ..

[jcoldslabs]

The merits of shallow DOF are up for debate, but shallow DOT (depth of thought) is never a good idea.

Jonathan

[sumo]

Isn't it all a matter of taste? Is it wrong to enjoy thin DOF photos or indeed, photos where everything is sharp?
Photography is an art and the most important thing is the final result. Whether you achieve what you want at F1.8 or F45 is not really relevant.
Do Monet's paintings suck because they're not as "sharp" as Renaissance era paintings?
Tastes change over the years. Art changes. So does photography.

The photographers who automatically go for the widest aperture (or for the most DOF) without thought for the subject matter or their personal vision are basically missing something. Photographers who aim for a certain DOF because photographers of the past photographing similar subject matter did are also missing something.

As a lot of the previous posters have said, its just another tool for people to use. Not all landscapes have to be perfectly sharp back to front and not all portraits have to be with shallow DOF. As photographers we should feel free to play with a certain photograph, exploring its possibilities. People who argue for one way or another saying one way is "better" or more worthy than the other are limiting themselves in my opinion, not only technically, but in their growth as an artist.

[Moopheus]

Also, I think he is using historically mixed frames of reference. He forgets that for most of the time that cameras have been easily available to amateurs and casual users--i.e., since the age of Eastman--the vast majority of their cameras have been fixed-focus cameras with tiny lenses and wide dof. That was what most people used. But then you didn't really have that much control over it. If you wanted more, you had to get a better camera, and that didn't really happen in large numbers until affordable 35mm slrs became widespread. There was never a time when the methods of any of the photographers he mentions was related to the way amateurs took pictures.

[Oren Grad]

If you haven't already, please read John's follow-up, and Mike's:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/06/in-defense-of-depth.html?cid=6a00df351e888f883401774293a021970d#comment-6a00df351e888f883401774293a021970d

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/06/i-should-have-said.html