no votes here yet either, but it's a rather large challenge. I think most people are thinking, "I'll vote on that small Immovable challenge, it's easy."
I have viewed some of the shallow depth of field photos and very few have shallow depth of field. Nice subjects and out of focus backgrounds. I understand shallow depth of field to be foreground out of focus in focus subject and background out of focus.
I have viewed some of the shallow depth of field photos and very few have shallow depth of field. Nice subjects and out of focus backgrounds. I understand shallow depth of field to be foreground out of focus in focus subject and background out of focus.
Not necessarily. It means having a small portion of your overall image in focus. You don't *have* to have a foreground element to have a shallow DOF.
I have viewed some of the shallow depth of field photos and very few have shallow depth of field. Nice subjects and out of focus backgrounds. I understand shallow depth of field to be foreground out of focus in focus subject and background out of focus.
If you cannot see the forground in the photo, how would you know? So the short answer is no. Just having a small amount of dof is shallow dof. it does not have to show oof foreground and bg.
I have viewed some of the shallow depth of field photos and very few have shallow depth of field. Nice subjects and out of focus backgrounds. I understand shallow depth of field to be foreground out of focus in focus subject and background out of focus.
If you cannot see the forground in the photo, how would you know? So the short answer is no. Just having a small amount of dof is shallow dof. it does not have to show oof foreground and bg.
Indeed if you can not see the foreground how do you know the dof is shallow at all? Someone could have shot at F/45, cropped out the 4 miles of foreground in the shot and just entered an image showing the tail end of the focal plane and the oof areas beyond it. Devious bastards.
