Do you think we should say Shallow Depth of Field better than using Depth of Field?

[Photography]

I am going to make one more tread for while.

Here is a question: Do you think we should say Shallow Depth of Field better than using Depth of Field?

Oh by the way i am going to add the link as you will able to understand better what i am going to suggest on my topic:

First link of Shallow Depth of Field: How to Get Shallow Depth of Field in Your Digital Photos

second link of depth of field: Assignment 14: Be creative with Depth Of Field - Congratulations Freelanceshots! - Assignments - Image Presentation - Photography Community

I will explain what my topic about it:

I am think that Shallow Depth of Field have more meaning to say bokeh than saying depth of field is bokeh as i can tell by the blurry bokeh picture by Shallow Depth of Field than Depth of Field only blurry without bokeh picture as you will able understand.

[dlambert]

They're really two distinct terms with two different meanings. Bokeh is the blurring of the background that we see when a foreground subject is in-focus while the background is out-of focus. Depth-of-field (DOF) is an aspect of a photograph that describes the area that's in focus, and as you indicated, it can be a small value or a large value.

When we see people use the term DOF imprecisely, it's frequently meant to refer to a narrow DOF that produces bokeh in the photo, but it would really be best if we could try to encourage the correct use of both terms, because they're not always associated with one another in this way.

[Mike367]

As dlambert has said, bokeh and depth of field are 2 different things.

All images have depth of field. If you really mean "shallow depth of field", then that's what you should say. "Selective focus" is an acceptable synonym.

[Raoul Isidro]

No to both.
It should be "SLICE OF FOCUS"
Imagine the sharpest focus as a slice of bread, going up and down the distance.
Closing down the aperture makes it a slice of CAKE.
Closing down some more makes it a MATRESS slice.
The slice gets thinner when the subject is closer and the slice gets thicker when the subject is at a distance.
Closing down some more shows you a slice of life....

[i speak in math]

Just to iterate...Bokeh is the quality of the out of focus area not the actual out of focus area. It is similar to describing the taste of something.

[RichardTaylor]

@Photography.
The answer is no.

Three seperate subjects.

(1) DOF is the zone of sharpness.

Here there is a lot of DOF so you cant say shallow DOF.



Camera Canon PowerShot G11
Exposure 0.033 sec (1/30)
Aperture f/8.0
Focal Length 6.1 mm
ISO Speed 80
Exposure Bias 0 EV

(2) However here you can say shallow (an adjective) DOF, as in this example.


Camera Canon EOS 40D
Exposure 0.002 sec (1/640)
Aperture f/5.6
Focal Length 360 mm
ISO Speed 800
Exposure Bias -1/3 EV
Flash Off, Did not fire

(3) As others have said bokeh is how the out of focus area looks.
Sort of "good" bokeh.

Camera Canon EOS 5D
Exposure 0.008 sec (1/125)
Aperture f/4.0
Focal Length 105 mm
ISO Speed 400
Exposure Bias 0 EV
Flash Off, Did not fire

(3B) Not so good bokeh.
Not how those highlights are now hexagons instead of circles.

[Elmo]

Post deleted

[RichardTaylor]

@Elmo

Quote.
So in reality the term DOF means very little in this day and age.
End quote.

I disagree.

All the pics in my post above were shot digitally, and referring to them
So why does one picture have a relatively sharp background and foreground (#1) and another one (#2) have only a narrow zone of sharpness even when viewed at a relatively small size?

Keep in mind I may make prints, or even project the image on a screen, from the digital source so the same principals apply.

Here is another example, of mine, shot on transparency film (35mm slide) in the 1960's and scanned a few years ago.
(#5)


Notice it doesn't really look that different from the pic below taken two years ago.

(#6)

[Photography]

RichardTaylor - Please just stop cover up the whole story about 2 last pictures. I am know it is shallow depth of field bokeh.

Others - If you don't like to suggest my interesting to talking about please just move on. Who are comment this that not what i am looking for the answer. You just knew you were trying to cover the whole story up and right now staff is watching your comments all time on my board. If you don't know what i am talking about and just you need to move on please.

[RichardTaylor]

@ Photography.
My posts stay.

See the posts for the difference in bokeh and depth of field;
namely.
i speak in math
dlambert
and myself.

They are seperate.
This example shows why.

(7) Relatively shallow depth of field, but enough the keeep the subject in focus.
But there is no bokeh (because there is no background).

Camera Canon EOS 350D Digital
Exposure 0.005 sec (1/200)
Aperture f/18.0
Focal Length 100 mm
ISO Speed 400
Exposure Bias 0 EV
Flash On, Fired
.
Here is an example, not mine, of Bokeh - there is no DOF as everything is out of focus.
http://yayeveryday.com/post/65