Question about DoF...

[tob]

Hey,
I was just wondering what you guys think about DoF in photos.. do u prefer the lets call it ''unsharp part'' infront of ur object or rather behind?
I got 2 examples to show you what i mean:
DoF in front of the object:

and behind the object like most of the portraits are made:

A friend of mine attends some kind of a photography school and he told me that the DoF should be rather behind the object in order to lead the view onto your subject and not to make the unsharp part the eyecatcher of the photo.. I can understand it but I'd like to hear what you think about that(since I saw several portraits having ''unsharp parts'' in front of the actual object)

[wulf]

It is down to your judgement. However, if you have a blurry object in the foreground it can look like you were not framing carefully enough so it is far less common as a deliberate choice.

In the example above, I first found myself thinking "why is there a bunch of bananas in the foreground?", which probably serves to illustrate the confusion that choice can introduce.

Wulf

[oldwolf]

depends on what you're trying to achieve with the blurry part.

if done properly the blurry foreground can frame the subject and if the subject is far enough away from the background you can still blur out the background at the same time. like in your first pic you have the trees blurred out.

both are nice pics but i might not have had as much of the bananas/machinery showing in the first pic and tried to find something else to blur out on the other side to frame your subject more.

[dannyrich]

My DOF is before the subject here.

I dont mind as long as it doesnt serve as a distraction.

[imagesbyjk]

I like it. The blurred foreground object gives the image a more candid or almost voyeuristic feel to it. Like we're spying on him. I hope your friend isn't paying a lot to attend that school.

[wulf]

If the school teaches in absolutes then it is no good but I do think it is a good rule of thumb that works in the majority of cases.

In the first shot in the thread, I think it would be stronger if the machinery in the foreground were a bit sharper (not crisp but more immediately identifiable) and the cab of the vehicle behind the subject were softer (ie. probably a narrower aperture but also focus a little in front of the subject so he is still sharp but focus drops off quickly behind him).

Wulf

[tob]

Thanks for your answers

[PhotoNewt]

One last thought...

Since SLR give you so much control over DoF, selective focuing has become a favorite technique of mine over the years. For a portrait for example, you can select a short or moderate telephoto setting (80-135mm) in a lens with large maximum aperture (at least f/2.8). Choose non-distracting but colorful surroundings (example, a girl sitting on a field of flowers).

With a wide aperture (f/2.8 - f/4) and careful focus on the subject you can get very shallow DoF, making the subject stand out from the out-of-focus surroundings. To get such shallow DoF, you need to get reasonably close to the subject (the closer to the subject the less DoF) and move the background farther behind (so is out of the area of sharp focus).

[zespri]

I think it's OK to have a blurry foreground in some situations. I just took this photo of my fur-child a few minutes ago, and IMHO I think the blur improves the photo as it draws my eye to Lilly (my fur-child), rather than the daffodils. Of course I could be talking bollix, but it's an opinion anyway!

[valleygirl]

I've seen photos done with the blurred foreground and, if its done well, it can be a nice effect. I think its important that the blurred image in the foreground is at least identifiable. In other words, you know you are looking through some flowers or leaves to see the image behind it, not some blurry object that looks like someone put a finger or something in front of the lens.