OK, we have very different opinions about what's required in the way of DOF to make a "good" photograph. There are literally 23, 987, 645 photographers who believe that good photographs can be made using shallow DOF. Portraits are but one example that such a technique often benefits. That said, the softening or blurring of backgrounds (and, perhaps to a lesser degree, foregrounds), has been considered a very viable and helpful technique almost since the dawn of photography.
Capturing "reality," as you suggest, isn't always desirable, or indicative of a good photograph. Many people, both on this list and off, myself included, can give numerous examples of this. A photograph isn't, never was, and never will be, reality. Personally, I find it sad that you prefer, or choose, to limit your photographic expression, although, based on the photos of yours that I've seen, a somewhat greater DOF to achieve some additional sharpness may serve you well. But to make so broad a statement as you have is, perhaps, disrespectful, and certainly it discounts, the vision and sensibilities of others. I now stand by my pre-caffeined thought that your statement is inane. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Jens Bladt > Shel, I believe you might need another cup of coffee. > Having enjoyed such a drink you may want to give it a second thought, after > which I'm sure you'll agree that:( > > (Here I wanted to make a long speach about why they invented lenses (in > stead of just using pin hole cameras) and why they - at the same time - > invented adjustable apertures - in order to allow stopping down the used > lenses (to a small hole - pretty much like the pi hole camera, which by the > eay will render very sharp images - without using a lens) - in order to > achieve better sharpness than the big lenses could provide fully "open"). > > But I won't. > In stead of starting with the basic history of photography, I'll just remind > you, that the world is three dimentional - it's round - not flat like at > lens test target. This means, that in order to make photographs, that by > most people can be recogniosed as a good photograph (which BTW means that it > looks at least a little like the real subject) has at least some resemblence > with the world we know and see, a certain amount of Dept Of Field is > required. > > This is why I want better image quality/less noice at high ISO speeds. I > want to use my lenses stoped down - not fully opened. That is why I don't > want "faster glas", Faster glas means LESS DOF - provided, naturally, I'm > actually using this speed (read: large apertueres) to render pictures. > That's what i DON'T want. - most of the time. > I would shoot 90% of all photographs at F.8- F. 11 if I my gear would allow > me to. > > Regards > Jens > > Jens Bladt > http://www.jensbladt.dk > > -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- > Fra: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 11. februar 2006 15:22 > Til: [email protected] > Emne: RE: New High End DSLR Speculation > > > At first read, that seems to be a most inane statement, but maybe there's > more to it than my pre morning coffee brain can understand. Perhaps you > can elaborate upon it, specifically, why is a certain range of DOF > important for "good" photographs, what is a good photograph, and what does > sensor or film size have to do with anything? Thank you for your > indulgence. > > Shel > > > > > [Original Message] > > From: Jens Bladt < > > > Most good photographs will require at least some DOF (F.4 - F.8) for > > APS-sized sensors. > > >
