Do you think large aperture daylight photos are false?

[kansalliskala]

I mean human iris works so that it closes on bright sunshine and makes DOF naturally longer.

Using large aperture and fast shutter speed to remove background creates unnatural pictures?

[hoanpham]

I don't think we see as camera and lenses.
We can see a limited area in-focus. The brain memorizes and stitches into the bigger picture. I think single photo taken by large aperture is what our eyes can see before brain processing. Similar what we can see in bokeh - all we see by our eyes is in focus, we simple can't look at bokeh as cameras and lenses do.

[poilu]

[rbelyell]

i think many use largest possible aperture in all situations without thinking about what they want to achieve in the shot. this is what 'common' photography has largely become. most of the time, imo, 1.4 is like driving a ferrari in manhattan, nice to have but makes no sense. i dont know about anyone else, but i get great bokeh at 2.8.
tony

[hoanpham]

For me, aperture values depends on distance to object and focal selected.

I like background blurr just enough to have a context in the photo, not just completely blurred. My eyes cannot see this, like which f-stop will give the -just-enough-blurr in a particular case. My selection of f-stop is based on photos taken, what I like as background.

Example,
For 85mm, f4 or f5.6 is good for most half portraits with a relative distance background. But for narrow spaces, I need f2 or f1.4 for the same half portrait. Head shots will not require f2, but f5.6 is fine.

Our eyes would be awesome for photography if we have 'an optical preview' option to check out bokeh and DOF

I tried f1.2 with ND filter in daylight. Most f1.2/1.4 lenses produce CA/PF as hell, but the glowing around highlight areas, sometimes feels as heaven.

[ilguercio]

There is no thing such as unnatural pictures.
Your eyes don't work the same way a sensor does and the purpose of photographing stuff is not to create natual looking pictures but to express yourself.

[rbelyell]

and what if the way 'to express yourself' is to create 'natural looking picture'? i daresay that is a goal of many photographers!
tony

[Nesster]

In my opinion a lot of what we get excited about in photography is both compensation for the 2-d flattening of our normal stereoscopic vision, and at the same time the extra-reality we can acheive via this 2-d rendering: the arrangement of elements, the DOF or lack thereof, the heightened focus/detail, and so on.

[skida]

When you are looking the eye focuses on what you are looking at, everything else is unsharp. As you look around the eye refocuses constantly. If you want natural, you should have everything in focus and then do a big print. As you look at each element in the picture, that element will be sharp and the rest unsharp. The area of sharpness moves around as you scan the picture, just like reality.

A photograph is a frozen moment in time and shots with a narrow DOF are, in effect, what you see for a very brief moment when concentrating on a single subject.

So,

Large DOF = constant reality
Small DOF = momentary reality

[ilguercio]

[Orio]

I'm maybe old fashioned but the subject is what counts for me.
The style, the technique, are important because they help the subject to stand out better
I can not understand nor like those photos where the style and technique are the main or only reason of the photo (rhethorical photos).

[Sevo]

[martinsmith99]

Yes it's false, but when you consider that you're looking at a 2D image from one moment in time, photography itself is false. It's just art.

[Eugen Mezei]

You can train your brain to see the nonfocused image too.
As a first step try to focus on something. Than try to concentrate (with your brain, not the eyes) onto your peripheric vision. Don't refocus. Periferic means left and right but also up and down.
Later you can try to see the blurred background in the middle of the image too. I can do this pretty good, especially when I'm tired. It works for a few seconds, by exercise I have extended this time somewhat.

[visualopsins]

Maybe my brain doesn't work because I have no problem seeing bokeh & oof background rendering when I am looking through the viewfinder.

As Eugen Mezei suggests, the eye's bokeh & oof rendering can be seen, however, that is not how any particular camera lens will render on a photo.

Look through the viewfinder!

[kuuan]

[iangreenhalgh1]

Personally, I think 'bokeh' is one of the worst trends to hit photography and had just led to a whole rash of bad photographs.

[kuuan]

[ForenSeil]

But that nice example is stopped down!

I think to have a nice bokeh and shallow DOF can be really nice, especially for potraits. also at daylight. But I think Ian is right, I can also see a general trend to overusing it. Not only in photography also especially for video filming. I think the main reason for that is that they wan't to seperate their photos from compact cam/camcorder pics from the mass point-an-click shooters, because they can't do it on a different way.

To post another great example of shallow DOF wide open:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lauraleal/7826651090/in/faves-54671350@N02/
I'm a shallow DOF nerd
http://www.flickr.com/photos/54671350@N02/favorites/with/6958445154/#photo_6958445154

[skida]

Anyone visiting this forum for the first time and browsing through the photos posted could be forgiven for thinking that all people are interested in is wide open shots. "Nice Bokeh" is definitely an over used phrase being bandied about. If we use a large aperture to emphasise the subject, the out of focus area should be considered non-important, other than to contrast with the subject. More important than bokeh is what is in the background, ie. no distracting highlights or bright colours.

If I spent ages setting up a shot, getting the light and shadows just right, selecting the right aperture to obtain the desired effect and making sure the image was precisely exposed, I would be a bit insulted if the only comment from someone related solely to the background.

Lenses have a whole range of apertures, each with certain advantages and disadvantages, and we should be using all of them for different subjects.

And speaking about corner sharpness - I don't think I have ever intentionally taken a shot placing and important element right in a corner of the frame. Good sharpness over most of the frame is desired, of course, but I think far too much emphasis is given to corners.

Rant over.

[kuuan]

[fermy]

I don't think photography is about creating "natural" images, whatever that is. To me it is about creating interesting images. Shallow depth of field is one great way to remove the clutter and emphasize the subject. So what if our eyes see differently? For example, in the next shot I wish I could use a wider aperture and blur various tubing even more. Unfortunately, I was already hitting the upper shutter speed limit.



As every useful technique, shallow DOF is often overused. Whether it works or not should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Certainly low light is one good reason to use a large aperture, but that's not an only reason.

[ManualFocus-G]

Shallow depth of field works very nicely for isolating subjects, but I wince when people start shooting landscapes at f/1.4

[fermy]

How do you tell which aperture they are using? My favorite is seeing people shooting city landmarks at night with a flash. Always makes me chuckle.