Pookie said:
Lazy composition ?!?!?! Do you think any of these are just slapped together? Are you equating bokeh with poor composition because neither have anything to do with each other.
Does a lens that only shoots at f/64 make you any lazier than one that shoots at f/1? It's the kind of question that shows little understanding of photography in general. It's a trap that all newbies to photography fall into. The idea that a piece of equipment will either make or break your success in this field. Lenses fast or slow have no inherent qualities that dictate their absolute use. You don't have to shoot only at 1.2 with a 85mm, it's an artistic choice by the brain behind the camera as to how you will craft an image. Lenses, filters, camera bodies, processing software, etc... are all tools and if you don't know how to use them they won't produce a single image on their own.
A better question is do you prefer a razor sharp or buttery bokeh? The answers you'll receive will provide you a highly varied spectrum of possibilities and none are any more correct than the other. It would be like asking a thousand people which is better... vanilla or chocolate ice cream. Some will chocolate is the very best, other vanilla.... some will say neither, they are lactose intolerant and prefer frozen yogurt.
Clearly, all things being equal, more thought and planning is needed to make more elements work together harmoniously. But some images and their subjects are best expressed with abstract backgrounds. Holloway, for one, tends to manipulate her blurred backgrounds with Photoshop to achieve arched effects and other forms of symmetry, so of course compositional understanding is necessary. She also removes hot spots and dark spots that might be distracting.
"Slapped together" is not a phrase that comes to mind, though "formulaic" may apply if a photographer is offering the same shot over and over (but with different subjects in the same setting and lighting).
George Hurrell is one of my favorite portrait photographers. He often used very shallow DoF for his glamour shots, leaving only vague shadows or softened geometric shapes of props to suggest that a background had some realism--as opposed to a plain black or white backdrop. (So his subjects weren't merely floating in "studio space.")
One might even say that great photographers use shadows and highlights as compositional elements, not just happy accidents of "good" lighting.
But constantly resorting to shallow DoF eliminates storytelling. And it does, to me, sometimes feel like the easy way out during a portrait session. I don't have to worry about how stadium-seating or trees or phone lines will be distracting. But if a college grad wants her team's logo on the field, or her volleyball net, or her lab equipment, to help tell the story of her interests, then more careful and time consuming composition must come into play.
I wondered if other photographers sometimes become so reliant on the ability of fast primes to eliminate background "clutter" that they tend to use it too often and miss shots that might better serve the purpose of the subject. I intended to start a discussion, not a riot!
