OK, I know people like their shallow depth of field pictures, but as I'm going through the voting, I'm noticing pictures where the DOF is so shallow, that there is almost nothing in the picture in focus, or the focused area is not the primary subject of the photo. Let me say, it is ok to have more than 1 square centimeter of the photo that is in focus. Oh well, just my opinion.
OK, I know people like their shallow depth of field pictures, but as I'm going through the voting, I'm noticing pictures where the DOF is so shallow, that there is almost nothing in the picture in focus, or the focused area is not the primary subject of the photo. Let me say, it is ok to have more than 1 square centimeter of the photo that is in focus. Oh well, just my opinion.
"I want comments. If nothing is in focus, I will get 100's of coments, and perhaps finish last! The anti-win!" LOL
I did not enter the Rusted challenge. I can give everyone 10s and not hurt my finish! Not that I will...just teasing!
Oh, I do post comments on them (I've voted on 56% and commented on 11%-48 of all the pics so far - unlike my own entry which has 2 comments with 118 votes), but it just seems that as more and more people are getting the nicer and nicer cameras that can do more and more, they seem to be taking shallower and shallower DOF until they lose the picture to the DOF extreme bug.
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
If you feel it will help the photographer write a comment indicating that the DOF appears to be in the wrong place or too shallow.
Let me say, it is ok to have more than 1 square centimeter of the photo that is in focus. Oh well, just my opinion.
It is also ok to use shallow DOF. If you dont like the shallow DOF on a particular image then it's also ok to vote what you think is appropriate, as I'm sure other people are doing on the shallow and non-shallow dof images.
Of course not. Shallow DOF when used properly works very well. The comment was in reply to the initial statement in this thread regarding out of place DOF and shallow DOF that didn't work.
Hopefully the DOF issue is just related to the learning curve for the camera and we'll see improvements over the next few challenges.
So you are saying shallow DOF is an incorrect thing that when people learn how to use their camera they will do it proper?
It is just one more 'tool' in the photog's toolbox. Get a camera that can do macro For the first time) or a new 600mm lens, an I bet your next 200 pictures are skewed heavily toward useing the new toy/tool/feature.
See a winning or favorite pic that uses shallow DOF and you might try it on your next entry. After some feedback you may know how or when and when not to use it.
Like borders. they may get bad comments, but look at the winning pics...many have them!
I think the 2nd and last one do what they are intended. They bring your attention to the subject. the first has good DOF, but hit the post instead of the rusty pole. 3 and 4 are just a bit off the subject, or they would have been much more effective.
I think all of them show good work of it, just in need of a little more practice (and that is the fun part) and honing of "the craft."
Wanted to give a few examples of pics that drove me crazy with their DOF problems in the rust challenge...
There were a few others, but these were ones that stuck out enough to me as I quickly went back over the ones that I left comments on.
Think in the 3rd and 4th the foucal point is just a bit of the main subjet and suffer badly for that because of the shallow DOF.
Shallow DOF is a great thing in photography but I think skief has a point because it tends to be a litle overdone as is increased contrast and bulky boders.
I tend to agree with the spirit of skief's point. My photo for Opposites is very shallow in DOF, but it was not intentional. I was in a low-light situation that demanded a large aperature. In hindsight, I should have increased ISO to achieve the desired affect. As it stands now, my shot is just too out of focus. To me, this is one of the most challenging aspects of good photography--when and how to use DOF to complement the photograph and how much can you sacrifice in terms of image noise (ISO) to achieve that affect.
this is my rust entry and i was wondering, someone said it was to shallow DOF and another said it was perfect DOF.. so i am 50-50 lol since i am new and have not a clue as to what i am doing and i am here to learn so that i can try to make a life time dream happen maybe more can tell me about the DOF being shallow or not =)
mamabear I think that your picture has good DOF, the subject is in focus, and the background is not. I think the key on DOF is to make the 'subject' in focus, and things that are not important to the picture blurry so as to not draw attention to them and keep the focus on the subject.
I tend to agree with the spirit of skief's point. My photo for Opposites is very shallow in DOF, but it was not intentional. I was in a low-light situation that demanded a large aperature. In hindsight, I should have increased ISO to achieve the desired affect. As it stands now, my shot is just too out of focus. To me, this is one of the most challenging aspects of good photography--when and how to use DOF to complement the photograph and how much can you sacrifice in terms of image noise (ISO) to achieve that affect.
I think your DOF it fine, any more and the background would have been to well focused.
goingskiing, i thought the sharpness of the one link was a great effect
and the the blur of the rest did not take away from the photo ..i felt its what make it a more intresting shot
