DOF, Lighting, Composition or all three?

[Bernice Loui]

Thinking about the recent discussion that began with "Diffraction. When does it really matter with LF?"
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...matter-with-LF

Towards the end of this discussion, the discussion evolved to how much DOF is needed and how to get it.
This got me thinking about which of these three are more significant in an image.. IMO, all three and more.
Inspired me enough to dig out these images made a few years ago at Pacific Groove, CA.

This image was made with the Sinar Norma, 8-1/2" commercial ektar at f11. Yes, the focus falls off behind the statue and tree on the left hand side of statue. Look under the tree into the distance, image area is definitely out of focus.. does it matter, no. More significant to this image is lighting and overall composition. IMO, the more important elements to this image is lighting & composition. "Sharpness" or "Resolution" is a non-issue. Microscope reveals stone texture of the eyes on this statue.



Another image of the same statue, lighting changed due to time of day. This one is done as a portrait style. Lens is a 12" commercial ektar taken again at f11. In both images, camera movement was applied as needed to achieve focus in areas that is to be presented in focus. The out of focus areas are intended to aid the eye to look at what the image is about in addition to the lighting.



Typical Architecture image of the Dr. Hart house in Pacific Groove. Made on a clear blue sky morning. Sinar Norma, 240mm Schneider Xenar at f16. Not a lot special, most if not all the image in focus, boring lighting, typical architecture type composition..


~Discuss.


Bernice

[lenicolas]

The painters of yesteryear rarely (if ever) painted the backgrounds with the same amount of detail as they did the main subjects.
In early recordings, the soloist was made to stand closer to the only microphone, so that their instrument would be loudest and most defined.
In novels, not all characters get their character developed to the same extent as the main characters.

Seems to me all artworks benefit from the author establishing a clear hyerarchy of information.
In photography the tools to achieve this are composition, light (if you control it), and selective focus.

I’m not a fan of the everything-wide-open school of photography, but don’t need the branches of trees on distant mountains to be in focus either.
In small format I think f/4 is a pretty cozy place to be, gives an almost painterly quality to the out of focus areas ; soft but not mushy. In large format I guess that would translate to f/11-16?

[Vaughn]

Composition includes lighting, DoF, sharpness, resolution, and all that. For example, deciding to go with everything sharp/focused, or selectively sharp/focused is a compostional choice when I work. YMMD.

[Tin Can]

I must have thought about sharpness in my sleep last night

Woke up wondering If I want to try some old tricks, such as adding image elements with a second neg and masking

Historically clouds were often added to empty skies, maybe sharp focus aircraft would be interesting to me with people pointing

I have posted before an iPod snap of Chicago's Bean and later found the airplane I never saw, not sharp

of course I am thinking of using old techniques which I never learned...No PS no Digi

now a dim memory intrudes, at Art Institute Chicago downstairs in the photo exhibits there was a large color print, made by a woman which had a vast expanse of green, a person kneeling and perhaps an orange?

Striking!
,
might take me a long time to find that print

[Doremus Scudder]

Composition includes lighting, DoF, sharpness, resolution, and all that. For example, deciding to go with everything sharp/focused, or selectively sharp/focused is a compositional choice when I work. YMMD.

(Vaughn, it seems I'm quoting you a lot these days. Your posts seem to inspire and provoke.)

I'm going to take Vaughn's observation a step further. Composition (including everything Vaughn mentions), spacial organization, choice of subject, all the technical things that go into making a photograph (including film choice, print medium, etc., etc.), all serve to realize our intent as photographers and artists.

Choices (or lack of them) to emphasize one aspect over another, to balance elements, to photograph this and not that are all tools and stylistic preferences that help us make a photograph that communicates, on whatever level, the intent of the photographer. This latter is what really matters; how developed, profound, refined or incisive our intent is, coupled with how accomplished we are technically is what determines and defines our work and its ultimate importance.

Depth of field, lighting, composition, etc. are all just tools. They don't make a photograph work by themselves anymore than a chisel made a difference in Michelangelo's "Pieta." Knowing which chisel to choose for what, however...

Doremus

[LabRat]

I will add (somewhat) look/key/mood...

Rendition can be all well and good, but what "mood" can the subject evoke??? If we photograph a large white church in bright sun, it can have an "everything is right in the world" feeling, but the same church shot low key in semi-darkness with a full moon rising behind it evokes an entirely different mood, so our choices effect the rendition... And type of optic (SF, harder/softer contrast), low/higher key, even night with supplemental or available light speaks volumes...

Then there's concept... Why is the "thing" being photographed and is the veiwer getting the idea??? Is the subject "speaking"???

Many elements are woven into great photos...

Steve K

[h2oman]

[Vaughn]

Why does there have to be a 'thing' that is photographed? Often there is, but most of my images are about patterns of light reflecting off the what is in front of the camera and crafting an image around that.

That first h2oman image is about a thing lit up...oh, my! The Church of the Holy Shaft!

[h2oman]

I posted those two photographs because I thought it was funny that Steve talked about churches when discussing mood, and I just happened two have photographs of a church with what I think are two different moods.

Probably my favorite Vaughn Hutchins photograph is of a wonderful pattern of light reflecting off what was in front of the camera, but if you took away the "thing" (a waterfall), the photograph would have no appeal for me at all!

[Vaughn]

Hey...I do like being around nice things...

And it probably could be considered that I photograph light as a thing...and dang it, there are always a lot of things in my images. It is difficult to compose without things to compose with. Some wonder exceptions, of course.

I did not have a lot of things to work with here, unless you count each sand grain...