Overdoing shallow DOF?

[brucehughw]

Dan,

Another helpful reply, and thanks for including the flower photos. This has been a great thread. It's brought in art, technology, and technique.

Thanks again, Bruce

PS What did you shoot the flowers with?

[DanK]

Bruce,

I shot both with a Canon 50D and 100mm macro. Both are multiple images, focus-stacked with Zerene for greater DOF. The first one is three images. It was shot outdoors using a monopod, and it was all I could do to keep three shots reasonably well aligned. The second was done indoors, on a tripod, and probably is about 12 images, although I don't recall for certain. However, in the second one, I kept the background (the petals) from the front-most image to avoid having them in focus.

Dan

[brucehughw]

Dan,

thanks for sharing your equipment and technique.

Bruce

[Glenn NK]

So my bottom line is: ignore virtually any advice that tells you what you always have to do. Create what you find pleasing. By all means look closely at others' work, because it will give you ideas, but you don't need to follow anyone's path.

Agreed. This should not be about "what's best", but what the artist wants to portray.

I receive daily e-mail postings from Mike Moats (a macro photographer), and ironically in today's post was the following statement (I've forgotten the exact words and deleted the post so will have to rely on my total recall - hah): "Viewers of macro photos tend to like to see everything in focus much like we see with our eyes".

Personally, I usually want more DOF rather than less in a flower, but at the same time, want the BG to be non-distracting (OOF); these are often conflicting requirements.

A good example of this is on the link below; third row, third image from left (bluebells). Eight image stack with the BG softened in PP.

I have two bodies, FF and crop. I usually prefer the crop because it provides better DOF - which of course includes more BG, but using LR, I blur the BG.

Glenn

[William W]

This thread is very good.

. . . if one takes the question more literally, there is a much simpler answer. There is nothing that "we always" should do, and nothing is always better. Do what you like. I'm not being dismissive in writing this. If you like an image with shallow DOF, create it that way. If you don't, then don't. . .

I agree.

To expand and forward the conversation on the topic of using other's work to learn:

It is important to UNDERSTAND and KNOW and be able to explain "WHY" you like it.


Taking Dan's Purple flower - I would argue strongly that the petals should be OUT of focus: my primary rationale is that a shallow DoF creates a soft palette and emphasizes the conformity, pattern, colour, texture and energy of the three centre bits.

My point is that I (very much) "like" the photo of the purple flower - AND - but more importantly (this is where I can learn stuff) I have thought about what elements the Photographer used to MAKE me like it.

Another example I would also argue that the almost Square Crop and the 'avoidance' of the Rule of Thirds makes this image stronger, rather than weaker.


WW

[Mike Buckley]

It is important to UNDERSTAND and KNOW and be able to explain "WHY" you like it.

I think I understand why all of that can be helpful because I almost always do understand all of that. However, I disagree that it's imperative or even important. The only thing that is really important in my mind is that we know whether or not we like something. If I am moved by a photograph, the only thing that matters is that I recognize that that's the case; I don't need to understand why, much less be able to explain why.

On the other hand, your point might be that we need to be able to articulate why we like a photo to be able to incorporate the likeable elements into our own photos. If that's your primary point, I completely agree.

[William W]

. . . your point might be that we need to be able to articulate why we like a photo to be able to incorporate the likeable elements into our own photos. If that's your primary point, I completely agree.

Yes. That's what meant. This was my point. Sorry for not being clear enough.

That's why I used the intro sentence: "To expand and forward the conversation on the topic of using other's work to learn"

***

. . .If I am moved by a photograph, the only thing that matters is that I recognize that that's the case; I don't need to understand why, much less be able to explain why.

That's another option. I choose that option often, too.
Enjoyment for enjoyment's sake.
Understood. I agree.


WW

[pnodrog]

Understanding why you like something will probably not increase your enjoyment but it may well improve your photography or assist in improving someone else's skills.

[jcuknz]

I have a vague memory on this that a few decades ago, perhaps in the fifties or sixties, the 'buzz' was about a new lens for the cinematographer which provided greater DoF by its design than previous designs.