Super shallow Dof and bokeh just a fad?

[Designer]

. . . grey baby with a red Santa hat plastered all over FB.

 

[JustJazzie]

. . . grey baby with a red Santa hat plastered all over FB.

View attachment 92298

I have those of baby number one. ;-) And also some pretty epic Fourth of July shots using selective color on the red and blue. Taken with my nikon cool pix of corse. Circa 2008ish.

 

[SquarePeg]

As with anything that becomes popular with the masses it then becomes passé to the "elite".

 

[snowbear]

I have those of baby number one. ;-) And also some pretty epic Fourth of July shots using selective color on the red and blue. Taken with my nikon cool pix of corse. Circa 2008ish.

But I suspect you have learned that these tend to draw attention away from the important subject - the child. I'm hoping that she (niece) will also learn this.

In all honesty, I have done a selective color shot, though I did it a bit differently - oil paint on a silver halide print.

 

[paigew]

I dislike most portrait shot "wide open", especially baby pictures.
Nothing worse (to me) than a portrait where the face Is in focus and the ears and/or shoulders are not.....or a baby picture where half the baby is blurry....ugh...

.

See I dislike the opposite. When I see a baby that is 100% focused I think "anyone could have done that with a ps or an iphone". Shooting wide open takes skill and practice. I rarely shoot a (single subject) portrait over 2.8.

 

[pixmedic]

I dislike most portrait shot "wide open", especially baby pictures.
Nothing worse (to me) than a portrait where the face Is in focus and the ears and/or shoulders are not.....or a baby picture where half the baby is blurry....ugh...

.

See I dislike the opposite. When I see a baby that is 100% focused I think "I could have done that with a ps or an iphone.

well, this is why i quantified the statement with "to me", since its just my opinion. I totally agree with the second part though..i think the same thing when i see "portraits" taken by a tree in a park, or pictures of families just doing random stuff instead of formally posed. I think, "dang...why hire someone for that...mom could have just busted out her phone".

 

[Overread]

See I dislike the opposite. When I see a baby that is 100% focused I think "anyone could have done that with a ps or an iphone".

This is an important bit to consider. Most people have a point and shoot camera - and a phone - and a tablet. Getting a shot, especially a portrait, with a wide depth of field is easy - in fact its painfully easy. So they are used to it - its nothing new, nothing special, nothing worth spending money on.

Then you've also got the copy-cat effect. They see professionals (esp in magazines); they see high class photography of a certain style - they want it.

In fact if you read up one of the BIG reasons many people get a DSLR is for that "blurry background effect".



Now those who spend all day looking and taking photos - yeah we do get bored of it. We get bored because we are exposed to and aware of the method so much more. As a result we get dulled to it - we don't want to see it any more. Normal people still want it, but we don't. It's why we also experiment - we shoot different things we take different angles in part because we've been there - done that - got the shot - and now we are moving on.

It's nothing "wrong" with the market or with the majority of people; there is nothing right not wrong to define the two states perfectly like that. It's just different tastes - and the "elite" or the "more experienced" have a different taste to the common person (most elite groups like to make out that their taste is vastly superior - when in general its just different).

 

[runnah]

I don't think snobbery is a factor. It's more the issue of folks only shooting wide open, only buying lenses with the best bokeh.

 

[astroNikon]

I think when someone get a lens capable of a shallow DOF they first think that it solves some problems, such as shooting in low light, or getting OOF background.

They don't correlate it to why the subject is OOF. At least not until they start asking why the subject is so much OOF and how to fix it. Then after one learns more and more about the correlation between the aperture, camera, etc especially using a DOF calculator then it all starts making sense. At least that's how it was for me.

It's all a learning curve.
Then you start learning how to use DOF to your advantage and how you want to use it.

 

[pixmedic]

I don't think snobbery is a factor. It's more the issue of folks only shooting wide open, only buying lenses with the best bokeh.

Photography is like Porn...there's a market for every niche and fetish.
I have a very specific genre of photography in which I like to shoot.
Im pretty good at it, and I have zero interest in branching out into anything else.
Hell, even my product photography is basically formal portraits.
The wife is more varied, but since i only shoot when i want to (or she needs me to) I get to
pick and choose.

She lets me do some of the formal portraits, and I let her do everything else. except when I help with weddings.

 

[JTPhotography]

Not at all a fad. Its not going anywhere because it works. The effect has many advantages, I personally like the look. For portraits, the extreme subject isolation gives a dreamy, flaw-hiding effect that you really can't blame clients for loving. The fact that the lenses specifically designed for this effect are quite expensive, make it a bit more unattainable for many, thus adding to the appeal, both for photographers and clients. There is a reason why most portrait photographers almost always have the Canon 50 or 85 1.2 or the Nikon 85 1.4s, even the 85 1.8. I personally own a Sigma 85 1.4. I don't shoot many portraits, it is a super sharp lens, the shallow DOF is fun to experiment with and works in many situations for landscape too.

And adding to what KMH said, the title of this thread is somewhat incorrect. Super OOF shots can be a fad, but not bokeh. If bokeh is a fad, then high quality lenses are a fad.

 

[jaomul]

Not to disrespect OP but I know you own a 5d3, which is ff, or more to point the type of camera that can do oof type shots easier than a p+s or m4/3 or crop camera. So these shots being easy for you may be the type of shots that others find harder to do. As a result many want to emulate the look, and when perfect it try other things. You on the other hand probably just ticked it off your list as done

 

[runnah]

And adding to what KMH said, the title of this thread is somewhat incorrect. Super OOF shots can be a fad, but not bokeh. If bokeh is a fad, then high quality lenses are a fad.

Incorrect? I prefer to think of it as misdirection.

Not sure I agree. For some folks bokeh is the #1 thing on the list when buying a lens. I for example don't really care so it's down the list after things like sharpness and contrast.

 

[runnah]

Not to disrespect OP but I know you own a 5d3, which is ff, or more to point the type of camera that can do oof type shots easier than a p+s or m4/3 or crop camera. So these shots being easy for you may be the type of shots that others find harder to do. As a result many want to emulate the look, and when perfect it try other things. You on the other hand probably just ticked it off your list as done

I didn't always own a FF camera. Besides it's only marginally harder on smaller sensors.

 

[JTPhotography]

And adding to what KMH said, the title of this thread is somewhat incorrect. Super OOF shots can be a fad, but not bokeh. If bokeh is a fad, then high quality lenses are a fad.

Incorrect? I prefer to think of it as misdirection.

Not sure I agree. For some folks bokeh is the #1 thing on the list when buying a lens. I for example don't really care so it's down the list after things like sharpness and contrast.

Good point, many do over analyze it. I think most of the large aperture lenses are very sharp and contrasty and all have good bokeh. Some do get nit picky with it.