Image & Video Galleries > Portrait

Depth of Field, composition and thinking it through...

(1/4) > >>

SandyP:
We all love it. For the most part, big blurred background, we're all "guilty" of doing it. And we always will be.


But find yourself flipping through the countless greatest image makers of all time, portraits, street, sport, fine art, and more, and the vast majority of it is with lots of depth of field (like f/5.6, f/8, f/11 and smaller like f/22).

Now, simply because one did things one way, doesn't mean we have to as well. BUT, I'm finding that it's a far greater challenge, and a far greater pay off, to KNOW WHEN to use small apertures and know when to use big ones.

Composition is far more difficult when you need to think about what is in the background and the foreground. If you can simply blur the background out completely then it hardly matters in most cases. And that's fine. As I said, I do this too. And in many cases it's very cool, and is pleasing for subject separation.


However, having said this, some of the greatest photographers of the past, AND of our present time, often use lots of depth of field. We NEED context in many photos.


This year, I have started to stop down far more often in many situations, to show more context. To gain more depth. To show MORE. It has made composition harder in many cases, but has also paid off.




Let's see your deeper depth of field portraits, group shots, candid moments, whatever. I'll dig out a few. Let's say.... f/5.6 or beyond. :)


This one was from last year, it's on medium format film, a photo of my girlfriend as we walked around, I was testing a new (at that time anyway) camera for me, the Mamiya 645.


This is f/16



kirsten at sunny f/16 by Sandy Phimester, on Flickr

sandymandy:
I think the background of the photo doesnt add anything to the image in this case. Its just a tree, some houses and a tower. Plus its blurred also when u check full size. The focus is totally on this girls face and the fence.

But i like ur thinking :) I think its just hard in places that we percieve as "normal" to include an environment thats really standing out and gets ones attention. Like in war photography sure u can use lots of DOF because the area alone is totally different than what most of us see on ur daily routes. E.g. 3rd world photos, just the way people live there in poor areas gets to the heart often.

Hillsilly:
Yes, but isn't f/16 in medium format the same as f/2 in "full frame"?  (and the same as f/64 in a proper camera).

But, seriously, I think you're on the right track.  I recently compiled a short list of favourites.  They were all, "this is the time we went to....", "this is the time we did.....", "this is ......'s birthday party".  No offence to great portraits with non-distracting backgrounds, but I think people do relate more to a picture with context.

This is also becoming more evident with photo judging, too.  Ten years ago, winning wildlife photos tended to be in-your-face close ups from long lenses.  Now, photos with a "wildlife in its natural environment" focus are getting more attention.  Its funny how tastes change.   

NormanBates:
In terms of depth of field, f/16 in medium format (60mm) is like f/10 on full frame, and like f/6 on APS-C
http://www.similaar.com/foto/doftest/doftest.html

siebzehn:
SandyP asked an very interesting quotation.
In my opinion a lot of us got very fractionated by there fast primes. And realising to have a hammer in there hands so every problem looks like a nail.
More DOF gives you a lot of challenges. You have to get your subject to the right location so you have to know some locations. There are more elements in the picture so composition gets more complex. You have to use light to separate your subject and the background and so on.
I like to start with the question "Is there some reason to go for a small DOF?" and if there is no reason go and solve the problems.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page