The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

wide open look photos

geotrupede

New member
Aesthetically: As shown by others, perhaps add more art studies beyond photography to grasp how things can be invisioned.
Technically: I tend to favor fast aperture lenses even as ISO performance increases. I like them for the choice they provide. I can stop them down to f/8, but can't open a f/4 lens to f/1.8, f/1.4, f/1.2 or in the case of my Noctilux @ f/0.95.....
Marc, thanks. I know the tech part. That is the easy bit that everybody can learn and read on a camera manual... unless you buy a used camera without one... like I used to do :)

But what I was asking is in fact was more about the 'art studies' as you call it. That is the bit that I find difficult and infrequently discussed in www forums.
Now I subscribed here because I could see the level of knowledge, expertise and empathy is very high. So I took a chance and asked for help :)

I am trying to figure out (so that I can free myself from straight photography) why and how make a good use of wide open lenses beyond portraits and cliches (like a nice flower, a bike in the street, etc).

Why for example if somebody is shooting a street photo is generally using (forget for a second pre focusing) close apertures and generally prefers a "straight photography" style.

It could be, but is very uncommon, that a street photo has a blurred background and the subject has sharp edges. But why this is never done? Is this a no no?

I have in mind a picture by Norman Parkinson where a lady is completely blurred and the background is extremely sharp. I understand now that it works (thanks for explaining the idea of edges!!!) because of the edges.
But I see this as a unique example... (and btw it is a portrait and not a street scene)

So, in conclusion, thanks to all for your input and please keep it coming as the discussion is extremely exciting and informative, at least for me.

Thank you all!!!
G
 

Shashin

Well-known member
There are two perennial questions about the fundamentals of photography:

It there an intrinsic aesthetic with little or no influence by the photographer (straight)?

Or does the photographer insert him/herself into the process through manipulation?

These two arguments have played out in photography over time. The most well known one was at the beginning of the 20th century with straight photography, but the arguments came up before and after that. Naturally, the answer is both positions are equally valid. It is really an individual preference.

Having a shallow depth of field is no less straight photography as having great depth of field. There is no reason that street cannot have a narrow DoF. This criteria, although not usual, does not change those type of photography per se. Now if you used photoshop to create focus effects, that would be outside straight photography. Whether it is no longer street photography, well, that is hard to say. Most photographic styles are really too subjective to be defined beyond the group of images that fall neatly into them, but even those choices are subjective.

There is no right or wrong approach to anything. You are simply going to have to experiment with the idea to see where it is effective and ineffective. I have always found it takes some time to understand any new approach and then a lot more to really master it--you can usually find a specific situation where it works, but it becomes a one trick pony. It takes a lot more work to find out its dynamic over many conditions.
 

alajuela

Active member
I am trying to figure out (so that I can free myself from straight photography) why and how make a good use of wide open lenses beyond portraits and cliches (like a nice flower, a bike in the street, etc).

Why for example if somebody is shooting a street photo is generally using (forget for a second pre focusing) close apertures and generally prefers a "straight photography" style.

It could be, but is very uncommon, that a street photo has a blurred background and the subject has sharp edges. But why this is never done? Is this a no no?
Hello

I am not quite sure what you mean as to Street Photography - not using wide apertures for selective focus.

To be sure much "Street" photography since usually shot "Head On" does not have much depth of field by its nature.

You should look at -- I think Life Magazine was probally the best out there for the collection of Photographers and Photos using 35mm film and has a fantastic array of street Photography.
Life: The Classic Collection: Editors of Life: 9781603200301: Amazon.com: Books

Here is "Street Shot"



I very rarely shoot smaller than 5.6 unless there is a compelling reason to.

You should look at Ben Rubenstein's B&W sots on the forum, a lot of selective focus.

Maybe we have different ideas of "Street Photography"


I hope this helps

Phil
 
Last edited:

airfrogusmc

Well-known member
Why for example if somebody is shooting a street photo is generally using (forget for a second pre focusing) close apertures and generally prefers a "straight photography" style.

It could be, but is very uncommon, that a street photo has a blurred background and the subject has sharp edges. But why this is never done? Is this a no no?

I have in mind a picture by Norman Parkinson where a lady is completely blurred and the background is extremely sharp. I understand now that it works (thanks for explaining the idea of edges!!!) because of the edges.
But I see this as a unique example... (and btw it is a portrait and not a street scene)

So, in conclusion, thanks to all for your input and please keep it coming as the discussion is extremely exciting and informative, at least for me.

Thank you all!!!
G
Have you ever seen this famous image by Robert Frank? He shifts the focus to the crowd instead of the beauty queen.
http://www.atgetphotography.com/Images/Photos/RobertFrank/frank15.jpg

I also wouldn't get tp hung you on terms because it those term are not very relevant today. Instead I would recommend to do what ever is right to capture your vision. Be honest to yourself first and it will have a way of all working out.

Here's an interesting piece on Franks "The Americans" and it shows how he changed the language.
Inside Photographer Robert Frank's The Americans - YouTube
 
Last edited:

turtle

New member
My take on it is relatively simple and the OP is quite right: the vast majority of world class imagery does not involve extremely shallow depth of field. The reason for this is that it dramatically limits the the options for the image by virtue of limiting attention to a shallow focal plane. You have less flexibility as the photographer. Just compare it to the endless geometry possible with composition and arrangement within high depth of field images... and that's just one 'tool'. I am not saying one is better than the other for a given image, only that one is inherently more limited because less of the image is clear and can be played with.

When very shallow depth of field is used in world class imagery, it is there to serve a specific purpose. In a few very rare cases it is built into the person's signature style and, again, used very purposefully.

Today, some photography enthusiasts use the effect of extremely shallow bokeh as a gimmick, in the same way as some people use extreme wide angles at the expense of everything else. Both make images 'stand out', but not necessarily in a good way.

If you look at a great many famous portraits, they were usually not shot at particularly shallow depth of field. Even the shallow ones were at, say, the equivalent of 85mm and f2-2.8.

My 2 cents is that the decision to use super shallow depth of field is rather like the ending to Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade: choose wisely....
 

geotrupede

New member
My 2 cents is that the decision to use super shallow depth of field is rather like the ending to Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade: choose wisely....
Indeed :) I will think about all of this.
The temptation of shooting a lamp post with a blurred background is indeed strong in me... even if I much prefer the pictures with complex composition and multiple human figures (for what I understand about this... which isn't much).

But Frank seems to be a good balance so will buy a book and study some more.

:)
G
 

turtle

New member
G,

Why not buy loads of books! One of the simplest and greatest pleasures of the modern internet age is buying used photo books online. I tend to buy the less well-rated used copies, which are invariably in wonderful condition at 1/3 of their new price. Go nuts! I wrote a little something about buying photo books here: http://thephotofundamentalist.com/?p=142

FWIW, in reading your response, perhaps its worth adding this: you cannot infuse into a photograph, through technical means, that which is not felt or seen to begin with. As yourself what you would be seeking to achieve by shooting that lamp post with shallow depth of field. Why are you shooting it in the first place? I feel that often people latch onto the shallow DOF 'bug' and go about using this approach as a default, with no particular reason other than 'it looks neat'. When stuck, I'd suggest taking your time and really trying to connect at a visceral level with your subject matter. Once you feel that excitement or buzz rising, that intrigue or compulsion latch on, then the photo will come and how to shoot it will be much more obvious.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
One aspect that seems to be missing in this discussion, (or doesn't seem to have enough emphasis), is the subject itself, be it a thing or an idea.

So, shouldn't the very first creative decision any photographer makes be "what" not "how"? AKA: Intent.

We do not necessarily set out to shoot massive DOF, or shallow DOF … we are making a photo of something. Some expression of that something. Whether it is realistic or more abstract is still driven by what that thing or idea may be, and how we may want to depict it either as an object, or as an emotional representation of an object.

The notion of striving to see the world around us (the "what") differently is rampant in the visual arts. Braque and Picasso invented Cubism by studying the continuum of time and space where we see things from different perspectives at different times on one plane. David Hockney later experimented with Photo Cubism, and even tried it with motion picture works … his feeling was that Cubism had not been fully explored yet, and may never be, so it was still a valid endeavor. If I recall correctly, he felt painting was more elastic for these explorations and stopped doing it photographically.

Artistic "Intent" is the cornerstone of the visual arts. The Artist is setting out to express something … what medium or tool, and their intrinsic properties that may be used is directly related to that intent.

I know a lot of artists, and every one of them has thought this through.

Cindy Sherman is an extremely successful example of artistic intent, and arguably one of the more influential artist using the photographic medium.

http://breadandcircusnetwork.wordpr...story-portrait”-series-as-post-modern-parody/

Cindy Sherman:since Duchamp, perhaps no artist has had a greater influence on art

Without "Intent", isn't it all sort of the cart leading the horse? Who cares if one uses extreme DOF or Shallow DOF is it is just being used like a parrot, or just because you can.

I wonder if Jeff Wall pixel peeps the corners of his creative narrative photographic art works?

I wonder if Elliot Erwitt worried that the background was out-of-focus on some of his iconic and often deeply human images (like the iconic image of the Chihuahua next to the Great Dane's legs and some woman's boots … or his famous image of the girl holding a flower facing soldiers with bayonets … or the Frenchman and boy on a bike heading down a tree lined country road … or the couple kissing in the rear-view mirror of a car … etc., etc., etc.)?

Amongst all the chatter regarding the physical properties of photography, I wonder how many of us have a defined artistic intent that those properties are disciplined to?

- Marc
 

geotrupede

New member
I think you are definitely right. Purpose is essential.
But assuming there is one, otherwise we would not be here, the next step would be to define the 'how'.
And this is why I have been looking into styles and wondering why all the street photos I have seen, until I asked here, seemed to be all of a kind. Very gritty, sharp with extensive use of hyperfocal (we live in a autofocus time... so you could have f1.4 and focus in a glimpse)

My question is just about style.
Like having to write a book and having to decide the style of your writing once you know what the story is about.
And questioning why none of the writers uses that particular style (wide open lenses for street photos which are not portraits), if this is because such style is kitsch or because it is wrong or simply because all the writers are bound to a cliche of what is right stylistically.

Anyway, I can see now that the story is different, that there are more styles than the ones I originally knew. I have been told about lines and how to look at images and I wish to thank the people here for sending me in the right direction, thanks!

G
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
One aspect that seems to be missing in this discussion, (or doesn't seem to have enough emphasis), is the subject itself, be it a thing or an idea.

So, shouldn't the very first creative decision any photographer makes be "what" not "how"? AKA: Intent.

- Marc
I kind of counted that as given, but maybe it isn't?

Changing the aperture is more or less a continuous process for me, and I even carry two cameras with different focal length lenses sometimes to be able to increase or decrease DOF more than what would be possible with a single lens.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I think you are definitely right. Purpose is essential.
But assuming there is one, otherwise we would not be here, the next step would be to define the 'how'.
And this is why I have been looking into styles and wondering why all the street photos I have seen, until I asked here, seemed to be all of a kind. Very gritty, sharp with extensive use of hyperfocal (we live in a autofocus time... so you could have f1.4 and focus in a glimpse)

My question is just about style.
Like having to write a book and having to decide the style of your writing once you know what the story is about.
And questioning why none of the writers uses that particular style (wide open lenses for street photos which are not portraits), if this is because such style is kitsch or because it is wrong or simply because all the writers are bound to a cliche of what is right stylistically.

Anyway, I can see now that the story is different, that there are more styles than the ones I originally knew. I have been told about lines and how to look at images and I wish to thank the people here for sending me in the right direction, thanks!

G
I was hoping we could discuss this subject beyond the original question, which you seem to feel has been asked and answered.

Purpose isn't quite the same as Artistic Intent is it? We may all subscribe to having the purpose of making meaningful photos (or a write a book, or make a painting), but it is how we intellectually and emotionally define our specific Intent that determines the "what" of our visual expression and how successful we may be in achieving that purpose.

If it is all a given, then what is your Artistic Photographic Intent?

That would help go beyond the original question and help define the possibilities a bit more concisely. But you didn't state what your intent was, just a question about style, specifically wide-open look photos. The presumption that Intent has been well defined isn't necessarily a given … especially with photographers IMO.

To see well defined photographic intent including words from the photographers themselves, take a peek at some of the essays on the Burn Magazine website curated by David Allan Harvey. Be sure to go deep into their archives.

burn magazine

So, once defined, wouldn't a well defined Intent inform the "how", and questioning what others do or don't do would then become less relevant? Who cares what someone else's work looks like?

The only thing we really need know is the full spectrum of photographic properties, and then use them like any visual artist uses their chosen tools. The cross pollination comes from ideas that influence, not the tools, techniques, or style used which are "democratically" available to everyone at this point in the history of photography. Cindy Sherman's style wasn't new, what she was saying was.

I came to better understand this notion of how Intent can cross-pollinate and evolve after reading the book "Geniuses Together". I wish more photographers did this sort of exchange of ideas.

IMO, the notion of photographic style or styles is a box that, except for some, many never break out of. Style can be the same from one photographer to the next, but it is the "now" property of photography, and what intent was behind that depiction that defines its' uniqueness.

Just thinking out loud, because I'm renewing my own search. I once did very personal work, and have lost that over the years … and wonder what may be next in my trek? Style isn't the answer and never was, of that I am sure.

- Marc
 

geotrupede

New member
Marc,
if purpose or intent, which are synonymous, are what you wish to discuss, then why not start a post... So far I have only seen very helpful and nice posts.
Chances are you will experience the same welcoming environment.
G
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Sometimes, I get a feeling that the styles becomes the intent, or at least part of it. With some of David Burnett's photos, I certainly get that feeling. That doesn't detract from his superb style, but it does give documentary photography another, almost surreal dimension.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Not Purpose or Intent … Purpose and "Artistic Intent". Artists do not write their "Artistic Purpose". Look up Purpose verses Intent. While they are somewhat linked, they are not synonymous.

Anyway …

I chimed in because you said you got your answer, and thought to expand on the subject in what I think is a relevant manner … to which you replied in a dismissive manner IMO.

Please do not be so dismissive of other's ideas, and any participation in a discussion of the type that is in this section of the forum … which has always been open to interpretation, and not confined to a narrow spectrum when talking about subjects this complex and far ranging.

While you may disagree, I am actually trying to be helpful by challenging the line of thinking with something else that IMO has a direct relation to the subject at hand … whether it was supposed to be a "given" or not … I personally do not believe it is a given, and the vast majority of photography is proof of that (unfortunately mine included these days).

Oh well …

- Marc
 

Shashin

Well-known member
I think Mark's point is pertinent. I think technique, style, and intent need clarification. The OP is really talking about a technique applied to a genre of photography. Style is not technique, but rather something intrinsic in the expression in an image. With creative photographers pursuing their own work, it is intrinsic in the photographer.

As far as intent, that can be a real creativity killer. First, I doubt any photograph, at least a powerful one, can have any kind of intent explicit. The intent of the artist is really irrelevant because the meaning or significance of any art work really come from the viewer--it is a personal relationship. The best the photographer can do is make a compelling image with which the viewer can reflect.

As far as the photographer, technique is something to play with and use. Playing with techniques opens possibilities. Whether that leads to anything worthwhile depends on the photographer's more stylistic criteria. We just hope the audience gets it, and if not, we need to rethink the thing to see if it is us or them. ;)
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Geotrupede,
Don't be scarred off by the strong opinions here. These are friendly, resourceful people. There are no absolute answers to these questions. It's all about experience and opinions and a tiny bit about theoretical truths.
 

geotrupede

New member
Provided we stay polite, we respect each other, we do not patronise, we do not make fun of or judge, all is fine. So if you feel you are not doing anything of the above, please keep the flow going. All good here. All friends.
In any case the subject of my question was really about style so if the discussion has to open up let's change the post and start a wider one.
Thanks
G
 
Top