Comrades! Not every shot that has a subject receding into the distance requires you to select an aperture (assuming you are even consciously doing it) which tosses 3/4's of the shot out of focus. Once in a while, ONCE IN A WHILE, it would be really nice to see the whole damn thing in focus.
With my film camera (35mm Pentax K1000) I do alot of shooting on the 210 end of my 70 to 210 and as long as light conditions allow it I shoot F/22 constant. I really only end up needing to use an aperture and deepen or lessen the depth of field when im using a prime (only have two of them).
Actually I find that to be a pretty likable abstract.
Point of my semi-humorous (or attempted humorous) rant is that shallow depth of field is not always required to emphasize a receding subject. Often, or as often, I think it would be nice to be able to see the subject in good detail as it moves into the background. That's all. I think it is a technique which is being overused and in some cases used to ill effect.
Actually I find that to be a pretty likable abstract.
Point of my semi-humorous (or attempted humorous) rant is that shallow depth of field is not always required to emphasize a receding subject. Often, or as often, I think it would be nice to be able to see the subject in good detail as it moves into the background. That's all. I think it is a technique which is being overused and in some cases used to ill effect.
True, very true. Each technique has a purpose. Just know why you are using the technique rather than just for the heck of it. ;o)
