Your Depth Isn't Deep

[HarmDogg]

I have had a few photos spoon-fed to me recently over the past few weeks of various things like people, flowers, and other inanimate objects. I couldn’t help but notice a flurry of comments all regarding the field of depth and its artistic use.

In my opinion, a few winds of a dial does not constitute talent or creativity. Are these simply empty comments to cater to this elitist social group of photography? Or are people really that captivated by the affects of change in aperture?

I understand certain needs of a photo and when to use either a deep or shallow aperture, but should the use of these trivial camera settings be commended? Great job on using heat and water to cook those noodles!

I open this up for your feedback. Regarding aperture, is this just a very basic tool for photographers which doesn't necessarily warrant accommodation? Or is there more than meets the eye?

[CiiVii]

That drives me nuts as well! "Great DoF" when it's razor-thin and you can barely tell what they were taking a picture of. Here's my take on it:

With the advent of digital photography, it was difficult to control depth of field. What they got was everything in focus, all the time (think most point and shoots). Once digital SLR's came out, we gained control of DoF in digital cameras. "Yay!" everone shouted, "Bokeh for all!!" NOW the problem I see it that in order to get enough light to get a decent exposure and to avoid motion blur, the average DSLR pic is taken with wide-open apertures. I see it as a weakness that it is so hard to get decent (meaning more when you need it) DoF with a DSLR without sacrificing elsewhere.

If a narrow DoF is complimentary to the photograph, I'm all for it. Better yet to get exactly what one wants/needs in focus in order to convey one's vision.

[dcclark]

Yes, how about going with the phrase "appropriate depth of field for the subject!" That would at least make more sense -- if you've shot a flower at f/11 and the background is full of busy crap, then you may have a huge DoF, but it's not "great". :P

But I admit it -- I've said things like "great DoF" too -- when I think that someone either got a photo with amazing depth (unusually so), or exceptionally narrow DoF executed very well (such as having really perfect focus and composition on a flower). Now that I'm thinking about it, I could have just as easily said that instead of "Great DoF!".

But one thing you said that bothered me is this -- yes, changing the aperture ("a few clicks of the dial") is not exactly a huge, difficult thing. But choosing an appropriate aperture and using the resulting DoF well in your photo is an artistic choice. Don't forget, you're at Digital Photography School. A lot of people here are still learning just what aperture is in the first place, and how it matters.

[BEGM83]

I dont see the issue with it.

To me it says that your picture is sharp, clear, and the subject jumps out at you.

[dakwegmo]

Choosing a the appropriate depth of field to get everything you want in focus, and nothing you don't want in focus is a skill that's relevant to making good photos. In that regard I don't mind getting that comment or seeing it mentioned on others when it's clear that the depth of field is perfect for the subject. On the other hand it is annoying when the depth of field isn't relevant to the shot, or worse when it really isn't right.

[douglas]

Originally Posted by CiiVii

That drives me nuts as well! "Great DoF" when it's razor-thin and you can barely tell what they were taking a picture of. Here's my take on it:

With the advent of digital photography, it was difficult to control depth of field. What they got was everything in focus, all the time (think most point and shoots). Once digital SLR's came out, we gained control of DoF in digital cameras. "Yay!" everone shouted, "Bokeh for all!!" NOW the problem I see it that in order to get enough light to get a decent exposure and to avoid motion blur, the average DSLR pic is taken with wide-open apertures. I see it as a weakness that it is so hard to get decent (meaning more when you need it) DoF with a DSLR without sacrificing elsewhere.

If a narrow DoF is complimentary to the photograph, I'm all for it. Better yet to get exactly what one wants/needs in focus in order to convey one's vision.

I hope the average DSLR picture is not taken with a wide open aperture...that,s OK when you have a reason for it. Most people I think can get a decent exposure at f8 using other variables available.

[RLucas]

Originally Posted by HarmDogg

I have had a few photos spoon-fed to me recently over the past few weeks of various things like people, flowers, and other inanimate objects. I couldn’t help but notice a flurry of comments all regarding the field of depth and its artistic use.

In my opinion, a few winds of a dial does not constitute talent or creativity. Are these simply empty comments to cater to this elitist social group of photography? Or are people really that captivated by the affects of change in aperture?

I understand certain needs of a photo and when to use either a deep or shallow aperture, but should the use of these trivial camera settings be commended? Great job on using heat and water to cook those noodles!

I open this up for your feedback. Regarding aperture, is this just a very basic tool for photographers which doesn't necessarily warrant accommodation? Or is there more than meets the eye?

According to your past posts, the opinion was that no one should be taking pictures of anything really, so I guess aperture doesn't or shouldn't matter in your world.

[RolandAA]

Being able to, dramatically blur out an image background or foreground isolating part of an image, to gently blur and draw the eye to a part of an image, or to keep an entire image sharp is a powerful tool. By manipulating DoF we can create very different images of the same object.

[dcclark]

Originally Posted by RLucas

According to your past posts, the opinion was that no one should be taking pictures of anything really, so I guess aperture doesn't or shouldn't matter in your world.

Interesting -- I checked out some past posts.

To HammDog, it sounds like you're kind of stuck on the negatives here. Maybe it's good to stop worrying about what others are saying, and just make photos which you like. Then feel free to drop by and share them (SYS or Critique). It'll probably help things look a little more positive!

[BCampbell]

If I spent time on all of the comments and commentary on other people's photos that I think are undeserved, misplaced, mistaken, or just plain wrong, I wouldn't have any time left to make my own photos.

There's no accounting for taste.