Do you prefer narrow or wide dof?

[tecboy]

I have met photographers get obsessed with narrow dof. Some use very fat lenses or fast lenses, and some use very long and big telephoto lenses. I see photographers with telephoto lenses stand really far away from the model maybe about 50ft. I have met a photographer who has more experiences than I do and respect another photographer who shoot very shallow dof and think has very good skill in composition. I understand the clutter background will help blurred out to separate the model and make it pops, and the image more appealing. Maybe if I get a fast lens or telephoto lens, and I should get respect as a skilled photographer. I have been to a lot of events photography, and I know the organizers don't want a very blurried background. They want to see the background, so they can recognize the event and location. On several events that I volunteered photographing the independent film festival, and they want a lot of advertising logos on the walls, bottles, cups, pamphlets, and etc. in the photos as well as guests to promote these companies. I prefer wider dof.

 

[table1349]

I prefer what ever gets the job done the way I envision the shot. There is no one size fits all. A PHOTOGRAPHER has the ability to visualize the image and knows what to do to bring that visualization to life on film or in a digital format.

 

[Designer]

I have met photographers get obsessed with narrow dof.

It's a fad.

A good photographer will manipulate the DOF to his needs. Sometimes shallow, sometimes deep as the shot requires.

 

[KmH]

I prefer shallow, when appropriate, deep when appropriate, and in between when appropriate.

 

[Derrel]

I prefer shallow, when appropriate, deep when appropriate, and in between when appropriate.

Different KINDS of photos typically benefit from the RIGHT degree of depth of field! Many landscapes appear best with fairly deep DOF, someting that used to be called "pan focus"...or from near-to-far being in clear focus.

Many portraits look good with a sharp, crisp subject, and a background that is somewhat out of focus, to totally "blown out", or un-recognizable; many portraits shot with fast, long lenses at their wider f/stop openings, like say the 200mm f/2 or a 300mm f/2.8 lens, show this so-called "blown-out background" effect.

DIfferrent "types" of photos often fall into fairly similar f/stop uses....close-ups often benefit from f/22 to f11 type f/stop selection; macro shots often look good with deep DOF; the thing is, DOF is dependent on the type of photo, the subject matter, and the desired pictorial or creative effect.

MANY nwebies fall into that "shoot everything wide-open" trap...the 'Net has made such newb-shoot styling fairly common. At the opposite end are the people who rage against "diffraction" are also kind of funny, as these guys (they are always guys!) fear f/5.6 or smaller!

KmH's post sums it up perfectly: DOF is supposed to be appropriate to the photo at hand!

 

[Tee]

While I agree that DoF is dependent on the subject, one factor that does play into my decision is background. If the background is busy or cluttered, I will more often than not shoot wide to bring the attention back to the subject.

 

[fmw]

Often, the shallow depth of field is employed to hide a poor choice of venue and background. I tend to shoot things more often than people so I use deep depth of field more often than shallow. All of it has its place. It is a matter of using what the subject demands.

 

[snowbear]

Yep, varied DoF depending on what results I want.

 

[Alexr25]

As others have said the DoF in an image to suit the content of the image but often novice photographers, and increasing not so novice photographers, use shallow DoF to hide the fact that they have absolutely no idea of what constitutes good composition.

 

[Vtec44]

Shallow DOF. I'm on f1.4-1.6 all the time with my 50 or 85mm. I also mix it up with wide angle shots with my 24mm, especially environment portraits.

 

[chuasam]

shallow DOF...great way to make use of simple studios

 

[astroNikon]

Yes.

I guess it depends on what artistic value you are after with the image you want to capture.

In some "artistic" portraits I can be at f/1.4
Standard "studio" at f/5.6
This past weekend I shot a bunch of travel soccer tryout pics at f/11 as total image detail was the objective @ 85mm at about 6 feet away. But for adults I was mostly at 55mm as I was maximizing the subjects image on the sensor plus dof.

So a lot of it also depends upon your distance to the subject and focal length and objective.

 

[benhasajeep]

Sometimes when I can't decide, I will shoot with shallow, deep, and intermediate dof's. And then see what I like better afterwords.

 

[Bebulamar]

I prefer a lot of DOF. I do use long lens for subjects that I can get close because I want the distance perspective and yet a tight composition. I do not use the long lens for shallow DOF.

 

[petrochemist]

Some shots I've used F1.2, some ~f128, some have needed focus stacking to get enough DOF & some needed tilt to reduce DOF. However most would be taken between f4 & f11.

Usually the DOF should be great enough to include all the subject, but shallow enough to reduce the emphasis of non subject parts of the image (if any). Note in portraiture the subject could be a persons eye rather than the whole face. As with so many choices in photography it's a matter of getting the right balance for the image desired, only using one extreme is reducing artistic control.