Over used shallow D.O.F.

Bill Porter · September 20th, 2005, 01:35 PM

Well, it would be more appropriate to say, "by mini35 adapters, people are talking about shallow-depth-of-field adapters".

There are mini35-style adapters (oscillating), rotating ones, and static (nonmoving) ones.

Marco Leavitt · September 20th, 2005, 01:55 PM

I agree. I usually say 35mm adapters.

Bill Porter · September 20th, 2005, 08:11 PM

Yes, I used to say that too, until I saw people making medium-format adapters as well! There's a guy from out here in California that did one, and the folks at kopfrauschen.de did as well. I know there are others.

Steve Brady · September 21st, 2005, 01:56 AM

As a slightly opposing view, older photography how-to books talk about "presence" - giving a two-dimensional image "depth". Naturally, limiting the depth of field was one of the three main factors controlling presence (the other two being perspective and chiaroscuro).

When I show people snaps that I've taken, they generally seem to consider the pictures that have shallower depth-of-field to be "nice", even when the subject matter and composition are fairly bland.

From that perspective, I'd argue that it's only possible to over-use the effect if not everything that ought to be in focus is in focus.

September 20th, 2005, 01:35 PM	#16
Bill Porter Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Ventura, California, USA Posts: 751	Well, it would be more appropriate to say, "by mini35 adapters, people are talking about shallow-depth-of-field adapters". There are mini35-style adapters (oscillating), rotating ones, and static (nonmoving) ones.

September 20th, 2005, 01:55 PM	#17
Marco Leavitt Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Albany, NY 12210 Posts: 2,652	I agree. I usually say 35mm adapters.

September 20th, 2005, 08:11 PM	#18
Bill Porter Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Ventura, California, USA Posts: 751	Yes, I used to say that too, until I saw people making medium-format adapters as well! There's a guy from out here in California that did one, and the folks at kopfrauschen.de did as well. I know there are others.

September 21st, 2005, 01:56 AM	#19
Steve Brady Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Rainham, Kent, UK Posts: 69	As a slightly opposing view, older photography how-to books talk about "presence" - giving a two-dimensional image "depth". Naturally, limiting the depth of field was one of the three main factors controlling presence (the other two being perspective and chiaroscuro). When I show people snaps that I've taken, they generally seem to consider the pictures that have shallower depth-of-field to be "nice", even when the subject matter and composition are fairly bland. From that perspective, I'd argue that it's only possible to over-use the effect if not everything that ought to be in focus is in focus.