The "Shallow Focus and Guns" hv20.com Book Club

[Almohada]

A few articles I'd like to share concerning the overuse and misuse of shallow depth of field. This horrendous look is on the rise everyday thanks to the wonderful world of DSLR cinematography. The quest for the most shallow depth of field is absolutely ridiculous. The biggest gimmick ever!!!!!! Sorry people but shallow DOF has been around forever. Fact of the matter is, its sole purpose is to attract your eye to the subject and greatly emphasize it... but it's not for use in EVERY SINGLE SHOT.


http://frankglencairn.wordpress.com/...f-a-new-trend/

http://documentarytech.com/?p=6097

[1]

Like I mentioned several times; what will happen relatively soon is someone with some clout (Tarantino-esque) a will make/post a movie using deep focus,
and everyone will hail him/her for being groundbreaking, and then all the rage will be deep focus, and all the forums will be full of tricks and ways to achieve that "new" look on the cheap.

Sort a DOF-adapter phenomena in reverse:
Before we couldn't afford to get shallow focus without expensive cameras and lenses, so we found tricks and neat ways to achieve that look.
Now we have those cams and lenses for cheap, we will next try and find ways to get the deep focus with those cams on the cheap.

It's like we always want what we can't get (easily). Must be a human thing.

[Almohada]

Well that's sort of what I did with my film. Everything is pretty much deep focus. I can't imagine my film using overkill of shallow dof. It's really sickening and like you said someone needs to step up. Unfortunately for me, film festival folk would probably think my film looks disgusting and too plain and will automatically mark me down..... After being bombarded woth films using extremely shallow DOF, my film will pop out like a sore thumb -- and for them that is not good unless it is a festival judge that knows what he is doing (very rare though most of the time it is BSed and always judge on the appearance over everything that is why I'm worried about my project not being up there with the rest)

But isn't it possible to get deep DOF on DSLRs? Lenses? How about stopping to a small aperture (closing down) and boosting iso or slower shutter speed? Of course that permits more grain but from what I userstand it is possible, right?

[1]

Of course that permits more grain but from what I userstand it is possible, right?

Yeah it is. I did some B&W testing, and the added grain (noise) makes it look quite neat and "filmic". But there's no substitute for LIGHTS LIGHTS LIGHTS unfortunately, and that costs a lot.

Interestingly, I found myself EXAGGERATING the effect by having things very close to the lens, and very far away...it reminded me of those 3D movies
where things keep flying into the camera...maximizing the effect, but eventually being obviously only done FOR the effect.

I guess it's just a natural thing to do...

[Janke]

what will happen relatively soon is someone . . . will make/post a movie using deep focus

Old stuff. Check out Citizen Kane, for instance...

[1]

Old stuff.

Err, I kind of realize that, hence the word 'new' in quotes in message #2.

It just reminds me of the dolly zoom, and how Spielberg re-popularized it (and is sometimes credited with its "invention").

[drapeama]

Almo, I'd say that if you want Deep Focus easily, pretty much any lens can do it, provided it's well lit. Outside, on a sunny day, it would be easy enough to get deep focus. But one thing to consider is the chromatic aberration and lens diffraction when closing the lens.
With a camcorder, I'd say it would be easier to adjust for deep focus.

[Janke]

With a camcorder, I'd say it would be easier to adjust for deep focus.

Indeed. The smaller the sensor, the easier it is to achieve deep focus.

[Krane]

Shallow DOF is coveted because it is something not typically associated with digital (mass uses) cameras. Nevertheless, it can be quite dramatic when uses sparingly and to a distinct and dramatic purpose. A unique talent that will always separate the true artist from the plebeians.

[Bif]

But isn't it possible to get deep DOF on DSLRs? Lenses? How about stopping to a small aperture (closing down) and boosting iso or slower shutter speed? Of course that permits more grain but from what I userstand it is possible, right?

Easy. Smaller apertures and sometimes slightly wider focal length choice.

In this promotional piece I avoided the use of wide apertures because it was necessary to show some depth. It's an introduction to our San Angelo Gun Club range facility and we needed the imagery to encompass reasonable detail for the depth of each of our ranges and shooting bays shown as well as following the "action" from the position allowed me by the Range Officer without having the moving shooters go out of focus. Most of it was done with the "kit" zoom that often comes with these DSLRs. Watch in 720p:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRz0JuJwo-M

What you're seeing is a surge of use of ONE TECHNIQUE (that's been around almost as long as photography has) by a bunch of folks who have little or no grounding in basic photography and a "culture" that siezed on and fixated on the use of shallow zone of focus in the same way they have mindlessly fixated on 24fps as being the only "cinematic" frame rate.

These people have recently "discovered" it and with the right gear found it easy to implement. It may or may not be appropriate to the scene being filmed. I don't know. Apparently I'm not watching the same films you are.



What I'd like to know is this: Just what is your professional or educational photo/motion picture experience level that you base your scathing judgements on?

Here's mine: 23 years full time professional photography. 10 years part time before that, and about 11 years as an avid amateur prior to all that.

The technique you object to so much was something we called simply "selective focus", we (pros) used it as appropriate to our subject and it's treatment. I don't doubt that it is being overused by the folks who've recently discovered it but that should in NO WAY impact on you.

Use it or not. Your choice.

Bruce Foreman

[MrMicah]

I do recall, as a novice photographer, trying to avoid shallow DOF in case my focus was not quite sharp on the object of interest.

But once I learned how to use it, to exclude backgrounds etc, it was just a useful technique in the appropriate circumstances.

[1]

This thread is funny - we're all arguing on the same side.

[Jim E]

In this promotional piece I avoided the use of wide apertures because it was necessary to show some depth. It's an introduction to our San Angelo Gun Club range facility and we needed the imagery to encompass reasonable detail for the depth of each of our ranges and shooting bays shown as well as following the "action" from the position allowed me by the Range Officer without having the moving shooters go out of focus. Most of it was done with the "kit" zoom that often comes with these DSLRs. Watch in 720p:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRz0JuJwo-M

You know how lucky you are to live in a State/Country where you are still able to do that, don't you, Bruce?

Here, we do have gun clubs, but it is such a difficult and long-term process to join one, let alone to buy a gun to use there, that most people don't bother. Once, anybody could buy almost any kind of centre-fire rifle from a store and take it out bush the same day. To get a concealable gun took a little longer, but it wasn't impossible, by any means.

But then we had the Port Arthur massacre, an event that was probably the first real "mass shooting" in this country of any significance. Our government's knee-jerk reaction was to ban all firearms. Even, would you believe, air rifles and black powder rifles! I had to hand in all my guns, and I've never bothered to submit to the egregious process of getting a firearms licence and buying another gun.

I consider the process of applying for a gun licence as similar to a convicted criminal appealing his sentence.

Seeing those guys having such innocent fun shooting at targets with Colts and 30.30s made me want to move to the US, specifially Texas.

[Almohada]

Wow that's pretty crazy stuff. "Each member has a key to the gate" .... yikes.

[Dr. Benway]

trying to avoid shallow DOF in case my focus was not quite sharp on the object of interest.

Aye, it's often best not to shoot at your maximum aperture - say f2 - tyros should try taking it down to f4 or f5.6. Given the right lens enough of the background is rendered obscure while retaining a sufficient depth of focus to allow for head movements, etc.

[Janke]

It's an introduction to our San Angelo Gun Club range

Bruce: I have one nit to pick: Those titles with colored dropshadows.... they are soooo 1980s corporate U-matic video style...

[Bif]

Wow that's pretty crazy stuff. "Each member has a key to the gate" .... yikes.

And what's the problem with that? We don't have any paid "staff" to watch people, we try to kind of "self police" with volunteer "Range Officers" (I'm one) who drive around with signs on their vehicles, stop and visit with shooters, tactfully correct any improper/potentially unsafe practices and drive on. The gate must remain locked so non members can't drive on and start "blasting away".

Night shooting is permitted and members who want to do that have to be able to open the gate and secure the range when done.

Texas law is "silent" on long guns and shotguns, in most parts of the state there is no problem having such in the vehicle. Recent changes to state law allows a loaded handgun in the vehicle as long as the person has no criminal record and is not involved in criminal activity.

As a guess I would say 25-40% of our members hold a Texas Concealed Handgun License so I see no problem with members having a key to the gate. Better they have a key to a safe place to shoot, no?


Starting this month that key will not be issued until the new or renewing member takes an orientation class on safety and range procedures. I take mine in a week.

Bruce Foreman

[Bif]

You know how lucky you are to live in a State/Country where you are still able to do that, don't you, Bruce?

Yes, I do.

we had the Port Arthur massacre, an event that was probably the first real "mass shooting" in this country of any significance. Our government's knee-jerk reaction was to ban all firearms. Even, would you believe, air rifles and black powder rifles! I had to hand in all my guns, and I've never bothered to submit to the egregious process of getting a firearms licence and buying another gun.

I understand. I've read up on what it's like in your country.

Seeing those guys having such innocent fun shooting at targets with Colts and 30.30s made me want to move to the US, specifically Texas.

Until your citizens band together and "unelect" your current lawmakers, replacing them with some that have a mandate to undo those bans, nothing will change.

Bruce Foreman

[Janke]

I had to hand in all my guns, and I've never bothered to submit to the egregious process of getting a firearms licence and buying another gun.

Funny though, those with illegal arms didn't have to hand them in, or register them...

In Finland, new licenses are valid only for five years. This is due to the two massive school massacres in the past few years.

But, old licenses aren't revoked (which is fortunate for me) - but that doesn't really help the situation, does it?

Guns don't kill by themselves, someone has to pull the trigger. With society going down the drain, there are more and more pullers.

[Dr. Benway]

...there are more and more pullers.

Ain't that the truth!

[Jim E]

Until your citizens band together and "unelect" your current lawmakers, replacing them with some that have a mandate to undo those bans, nothing will change.

Not gonna happen, Bruce. We don't have an NRA here, or any kind of lobby for gun-owners.

Our current government, (if you can call it that), is a destructive bunch of liars, losers, and leftists. Like all Labor parties, they claim to "represent the masses", but they've done so much damage to this country it will take years for us to recover. Even if the conservatives get back in, they won't reinstate gun rights because this country's citizenry has markedly "leftist" tendencies.

Conservative parties only get elected after years of Labor government have finally caused so much damage that even the dullest Joe Sixpack notices it! Whenever conservatives do finally get in, they know they'll need several terms to clean up the mess, so they avoid alienating the non-conservative voters.

That's what happens when a society is started on the basis of convict immigrants. We're all descended from British thieves and pick-pockets, y'know!

[Dr. Benway]

We're all descended from British thieves and pick-pockets, y'know!

Fewer by the day given curent rates of immigration.

[Almohada]

With society going down the drain, there are more and more pullers.

Focus pullers? Haha sorry, sorry. Had to get back on topic!

[Jim E]

Funny though, those with illegal arms didn't have to hand them in, or register them...

One sometimes suspects that western governments are okay with that. They know they can't take guns off criminals, and that makes them look bad. So they make up for that failure by taking them off ordinary people. Makes it look like they've actually got some power, y'see. The only people it impresses are people who don't own guns.

In Finland, new licenses are valid only for five years. This is due to the two massive school massacres in the past few years.

But, old licenses aren't revoked (which is fortunate for me) - but that doesn't really help the situation, does it?

Nothing can really help the situation, least of all government legislation. Because the situation is that people who really want to commit a massacre will find a way to get guns. Anti-firearm legislation does absolutely nothing except make illegal gun-suppliers richer.

Guns don't kill by themselves, someone has to pull the trigger. With society going down the drain, there are more and more pullers.

...and wankers and tossers and jerk-offs.

[Jim E]

Fewer by the day given curent rates of immigration.

Absolutely, Doc! We are the modern-day equivalent of the North American Indians. We are being invaded and conquered, except without a shot being fired.

Of course, if the invaders did fire shots, we wouldn't be able to shoot back.