ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ก.ย. 2024
- If you're relying on using shallow depth of field then it's probably time you stopped, and here's why baby.
If you’re interested in more of my work, check out my last book ‘So Far So Good’ www.maxkent.co...
______________________________________________________________
The film I use most of the time - geni.us/TgkbJ
My video camera - geni.us/590CHy
My video lens - geni.us/A8amM3j
My tripod (it’s great) - geni.us/Xkixa8
The safest camera bag I use - geni.us/5bhN0
My ND Filter (for video/slow shutter photography) - geni.us/jRfyfO
The kinda strap I’d suggest - geni.us/u7PxGS
My main lens for shooting film - geni.us/VHlw
My Film Camera - geni.us/bopi3b
My mic - geni.us/0CwBa2L
My external hard drive - geni.us/BR7Jp
**Some of the above are paid Amazon links that will direct you to my associate account through Amazon.com. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. **
_______________________________________________________________
Thank you all for the time you take to watch my videos!
Max
*laughs in 1.2*
Those are some bougee numbers
😂
Shooting at 1.2 all the time is a mark of a noob.
@@ShutterKnack You don't say...
1.2 noob here. If I wanted deep dof, I would have stuck with my phone.
Right, i only use f0.95 now.
I laughed so hard hahahahhaahaha
As an F1.2 shooter this is deeply offensive and borders on hate speech. You'll be hearing from my lawyer
lol i am a firm believer in the f2 so i will be his defence.
@@CZOV you better lawyer up too then bucko, F1.2 is the only way and i will NOT tolerate any slander
Been full-time commercial photographer since 2000. Wide open has its place and closed down has its place. Neither right or wrong. What I have noticed in commercial jobs is that nearly all my clients ask for focus all the way thru the image. This was not the norm in early 2000s when you could use fairly open aperture. I think images on smaller devices sometimes look a bit flat when using wide open lens, hence the demand for complete focus.
You are right... I used f/5 and it was wonderful for portraits. // One thing I would like to add, is f/1.8 f/1.4 is good many times for low light conditions. Sometimes the only thing that will give you a nice shot during those conditions - is cranking the aperture to allow enough light to enter in.
wrong, learn to use flash
@@MrDwyaneWadeFlash3 - True. Flash is good inside. For outside night shots, even sometimes for sunsets, you need more.
How do I flash something 20ft away from me? @@MrDwyaneWadeFlash3
@@MrDwyaneWadeFlash3 lol, flash is a tool, but isn't the same as the real light. For Club photography I mostly shoot at 1.8 in order to capture the real light. Ambient changes when flash comes in. Its a good tool, but it isn't for all cases.
@@juancruzlehmann2959 so say a f1.4 versus an f3.5, which allows more light in, or is ,"Wider." I don't know videography terminology. I just assume the lower the f stop, in this case, say f1.4, is allowing more bokeh.
The photographer James Popsys got me to almost completely stop using a wide aperture for photo and video. What made it click for me was when he showed how he always turned down the “clarity” slider in the edit. I realised that what I disliked was the unnatural level of sharpness and micro contrast
dialing clarity a few notches down is a godsend for digital sensors
laughs in micro four thirds.
My f1.8 is another man's f3.6
"Ok."
[Shoots in f1.4] 🗿
you are absolutely right, man. I spent years chasing wide aperture lenses and then realize all the stuff you are talking about
Everyone seems to miss that shooting wide open isn't always for "creamy backgrounds" but as a communication tool to direct the viewer to the intended subject.
The author of the video says it about 18 seconds in and repeats it at about 40s, separation of subject from background. I don't think many people are missing this fact.
framing, leading lines, color. there’s really a lot of elements we can use to direct a viewer to the subject. I think that’s the point of the video
This is the equivalent of shouting "LOOOK HERE!!", whereas using guiding lines, tonal contrast, light and other techniques is much subtler
All brilliant ideas. At the end of the day, it's all about your style. Or as a creative tool to do something most lens can't, Why we buy a f1.2 or 1.4.
I agree. The fashion for depth of field swings back and forth but, ultimately it’s about the genre you shoot and how you like your pictures to look. Shooting narrow DoF is no more a characteristic of new photographers than shooting everything at f11. Manufacturers do need to keep selling us new lenses though so they need to promote enormous lenses with apertures of f1.4 or wider!
I don't mind an enormous lens with f/1.4 but basically every modern f/1.4 is gives ugly bokeh so I don't bother with them and stick to vintage glass which is cheap :D
layers of light is a very good concept to learn. it is possible to jump straight to the more positive advice. art is art, just because one of us isnt into f2 at the moment doesnt mean that others of us (both creators and a variety of audiences) cant be into that at the moment
That’s it Bruce, it’s a tool and if you know why you’re using it then it’s great! If you rely on it too much and you don’t really know why, that can be a problem 🌞
I always wonder why people go to cool locations just to obliterate the background. I like seeing the person and setting
Although if the setting is busy you won't get background separation and the person will blend in. That's not good either. Even shallow depths of fields show enough of the background to figure out what you seeing.
Exactly my point. It's happening in movies, with duch amazing backgrounds and nothing is visible.
Just horrible.
As a complete novice with film photography, I appreciate your video. Some really good nuggets for me to think about next time I go out and take photographs.
I shoot in darker places/inside most of the time, so I usually use a wide aperture. But im using an apsc camera, so the amount of background separation is less than on full frame.
There is a use for both low and high aperture 👍
also apsc has a crop factor of focal length and we forget the F number is calculated by focal length divided by aperture diameter, so when a crop sensor multiplies the focal length by 1.5 it also does so to the F number, this is almost always a bit more than a full stop, F/5.6 for example in an apsc sensor looks like F/8 (5.6x1.5= 8.4, or the longer way: F/5.6 in a 50mm lens is an ~8.93mm aperture, with a 1.5 crop it's a 75mm lens, with the same 8.93mm aperture diameter it's F/8.4)
@@soupslicer136 yea, this is what I meant lol. Just simplified it a bit :D
It's so easy to fall into the wide open trap. Even I still shoot wide open majority of the time. What can I say, the shallow depth of field just looks so nice and its fun watching the DoF move as you frame up. However, I think story is key to photography and often that means context. I often think of a video I watched years ago from a TH-camr, I think his name is Manny, doing outdoor speedlight photography and he was at a beach and was showing how to balance daylight with the highspeed flash allowing him to shooter faster shutters, thus open up his aperture. He showed 2 examples, one at a standard 1/200 shutter meaning he had to stop down to f5.6 I think, and then the option he considered the "best" which was highspeed sync allowing him to be at his f1.8 or whatever it was. Thing was the f5.6 was so much better because the model was standing at the beach with the ocean behind here and a yacht was in the water framed in one of the 3rds, at F5.6 she was separated from the background but you could still make out what was around her and placed her in her environment and it told a story (a barebones one, but a story nonetheless) At f1.8 the yacht was completely blurred and you couldn't really tell where she was. All I could think is why bother doing environmental portraiture if you're going to blur it to the point that you can't see where they are, just shoot it in a studio at that point. Was such an innocuous video but was such an eye opener for me, especially because that wasn't even the point of the video it was just my own intuition that came to this conclusion.
1.8 is pure gangsta, so is 1.2 . But , then again so is f11 if shot right. Bounce around the ap ring and bring that art to life.
I have paid for f1.2, I shoot at f1.2 :D
If you’re splashing the cash you might aswell Pavel 😅
But don't you only get one eye in focus and blur out the rest of the face using Tony 1.2🤣
@@letni9506 True, true. I said it more as a joke.
@@letni9506no. You’ll be surprised at how great 1.2 looks when you get a bride walking down the aisle in a shit lit church!
Same here! I used to be very fixated on getting a blurry background, while I now pay way more attention to other things. It’s all about the process. Learning how light works and getting better at it with every shot is key.
Let's not forget that the focal length changes the depth of field (also the sensor size). With my 28mm I can get a lot in focus with the lens more open, now with my 50mm, even in 5.6, sometimes I can't get everything in focus. For example, if I shoot a group shot with the 28mm at f.2.8, I get everyone in focus, even if there is someone more in front than the other, now with the 50mm I need at least F4 or F5.6 to get all faces in focus.
F8 and be there!
I agree! I’ve been shooting on my 18-135 3.5-5.6 on my 70D instead of my 50 1.8 and it made me realize this, DOF does not make a good image, and if you’re constantly relying on it you need to reconsider your shots; I’ve had a similar thing for a few months with long focal lengths, I would only shoot 80+ mm FF equivalent lenses, until I picked up a Sigma 30mm 1.4 (48mm FF equivalent) and I realized what I was missing out on, not only with the extra sharpness(I mean seriously, it’s sharper than the 1.8 at 1.4 than the 1.8 is at 2.2) but how great car interior shots can look! It’s not my favorite for the full vehicle shots I’ve done, but maybe with sporty cars it would look good.
Yes, I did exactly the same. Stopped shooting at f/1.8 and started to shoot at f/1.4 with Sigma primes 40mm and 105mm on both fullframe and medium format 44x33mm.
Agreed. As someone who was trained by professional film photographers I can tell you with confidence that the sweet spot of any lens is 2-3 stops closed from its maximum aperture. So if you own a F1.8 lens, then it will perform best at F4-5.6. Vintage lenses particularly, usually perform poorly wide open. Because they were never designed to be shot wide open.
Most people shooting at wide open apertures like f1.8 are just creating blurry images. Background separation of the subject works well when you need it, but most photos just looks like a blurry image.
I'm glad to see more and more people talking about this because most of the time, the background helps to tell a story, when its all blurry you really need the subject to be golden.
I have never been a fan of shooting wide open using apertures lower than f 4. I absolutely love having as many things in focus as possible in my photos. I love the idea of taking images with plenty of layers and details. I don't care at all about the sought after bokeh effect. I only shoot wide open when it is getting dark and I need more light in my photos.
It all depends on the situation you're shooting and the look you want
I mean.. It's better to have a wide apature lens and closing it down than have the need for a wide apature and don't have it. Shooting weddings indoors with f1.8 gives me the need for an Iso above 1600 many times. I don't want to know the Iso I had to use with an f4 lens
There is a book called f5.6 by Bogdan Dziworski. That book opened my eyes to the beauty of 5.6. For landscapes f.8 is perfect. For portraits, everything between f.9 and f4, depending on the subjects distance and light available.
I would say that what separates a good photographer from a beginner is the ability to read and use light to create meaningful photos and when to use shallow depth of field and when to include the background and environment to give context and tell a more complete story, when I started shooting events, i started paying more attention to lightning and how it would influence my photos, when you are photographing weddings understanding lightning is very important, one other skill required is how to pose people that come in all shapes and sizes and skintones. Before I photographed events I photographed landscape wildlife and other subjects in different lighting and weather conditions but event photography pushed me like no other, working for other people and producing photos fot some one other than my self, was the hardest thing i have done as a photographer. Their is no room for errors.
I started doing photo journalism in college in 1970 with a NikonosII underwater camera with 35mm f/2.5 lens I’d purchased to document my high school SCUBA diving adventures only to wind up selling my the tank and regulator to buy a Nikon Ftn, which was the F model with the metering head, and with it I bought the Nikkor-H 85mm f/1.8, then added another Nikon F body without meter and a Nikkor-H 35mm f/2.0.
I did not purchase a 50mm “normal” lens because a photo journalism textbook I’d bought on my own suggested that at the shooting distances typical in photojournalism the near-far perspective it created wasn’t as compelling as shooting closer with a wider angle 28mm - 35mm lens or from a greater distance with an 85mm - 105mm and that 85mm was ideal for head and shoulder portraits because when cropped in camera the 8ft shooting distance rendered relative size of nose vs. ears and shape of face similar to what is perceived by eye.
The reason for paying a premium to buy pro-level gear and fast lenses for my PJ work wasn’t the desire for shallow DOF and creamy Bokeh it was the fact Tri-X only had a ASA speed of 400 and indoors without flash a fast lens was the only option for correct exposure.
Something I learned early from the same photojournalism book was to use a ‘cinematic’ approach to storytelling. The formula used in movies went a location changes is: 1) wide establishing shot were actor isn’t the focal point, 2) medium crops showing actor in the context of their environment, 3) close-ups of what the actors are doing and their facial reactions, and 4) ‘cut-aways’ which show what the actor is seeing from their POV.
In movies where the camera is stationary but focus is shifted between elements in the scene with wide aperture and shallow DOF it mimics how our eyes would subconsciously shift focus viewing the same scene person. Our eyes do that constantly in a way we are not usually consciously aware of until a frame is put around the scene. A still photo creates a different perception dynamic.
In 1972 dropped out of college after two years and moved to Washington, DC to try to find work as a photographer, cold-calling every studio and photographer in the phone book with a portfolio of twenty 11x14 Zone System B&W prints I’d dry mounted on 18% gray Zone V 16 x 20 mats per the perceptual gospel of St. Ansel. One of them was Monte Zucker a name I recognized because I had joined the Professional Photographers of America as a$50 per year student member just to get the “Professional Photographer” magazine it published so I could get a clue what working as a pro was like. Monte wrote the column on wedding photography and had placed a help-wanted ad in the Washington Post for a photographic apprentice.
He worked out of his home in Silver Spring, MD and it took me three bus transfers and a mile walk to get there. He generously critiqued each of my prints with a pair of L shaped crop guides in a way I’d never seen before or considered doing. Instead of starting at the edges and making the frame smaller he asked me what attracted my eye and motivated me to take the photo and what I wanted to viewer to dwell on, then he cropped in tight on it with the L’s and expanded the frame saying to tell him “stop” when something contrasting with the background entered the frame.
Once he pointed out the distractions I’d allowed to enter the frame they were obvious. The bigger picture lesson was that photographers take photos because the are emotionally invested / inspired to some degree by the focal point and for that reason often will get “tunnel” vision on it and fail to notice distraction which a view of the photo will not have. He did other things, like spin one of my photos so it was just an abstract blur, then ask me what part of it attracted my eye - the area that contrasted the most in tone of the background.
I was so blow away by the new insights into effective composition that on the long bus ride home I decided to cut down my prints using what I had just learned, knowing I could not reprint them. I cut a set of L’s from the mat of the first one then hacked away until I had a new, lighter weight and better composed portfolio of borderless 8x10, 5x7 and 4x5 prints. I did it hoping Monte would be curious enough to call me back to see what I’d done and be impressed with my ability to absorb and apply what he taught me to hire me, which he did when I agreed to start for $50 per week (about $330 today). Two months later after Gary Bernstein, the assistant he’d trained for two years quit, I was shooting wedding receptions at the top hotels in DC in a custom tailored tux covering the weddings which Gary had been scheduled to cover.
Monte created ‘storybook’ wedding albums containing custom dodge and burned 10x10 color prints he personally trained the technicians at Maisel Photo, the Dallas, TX lab he used. He combined window lit portraits with recreated photos of the ceremony taken with two non-diffused speedlight: one on a bracket 15” over the lens to create a flat foundation of fill recording detail in the men’s black suits, overlapped with an identical flash mounted on a modified medical IV pole that allowed it to be rolled around with one hand. Every shot at the reception was taken with the same dual flash arrangement with careful attention to lighting pattern and precise facial angles which gave his flash lit stills the look of a Hollywood movie which used the same facial angles and lighting pattern which highlighted the front mask of the face. I learned lighting by moving his off camera flash on the IV stand around based on where the nose of the subject was pointing (keeping it 45° to the side where I saw their face at a 45° oblique angle with Monte shooting into the shaded side of the face.
He used Rolleiflex TLR with an 80mm f/2.8 lens. We rarely shot wide open, but for the daylight portraits taken at any available north facing window the aperture was f/4 to f/5.6 necessitated by the slow speed of the color negative film. From him I learned that “lighting” effectively is isn’t just were you aim the light but how it creates contrast on the FRONT of the face, mouth and eyes you want the viewer to find and dwell on by coordinating clothing with background and lighting patterns so the front of the face is what CONTRASTED the most with the negative space in the frame.
For the flash photos I learned from him the effect of inverse-square fall-off and lighting ratio of Fill vs Key flash. “Hard” vs “Soft” perceptually isn’t a matter of how fuzzy the shadows look but rather the shadow gradient which can be controlled with flash to subject distance and the amount of fill used to lift the shadows.
Because of my experience working and learning from Monte back in 1972-74 I came to think in terms of “What is most important to the message and how can I make it contrast from the negative space in the background. There are lots of ways to create contrast: tone, color, shape, texture, relative sharpness.
I left Monte because he cast a very big shadow career-wise and because found shooting weddings boring and dealing with the people not my temperamental comfort zone. I realized I had been attracted to to photo journalism because of my introverted, hang back and observe the action into of being in the middle of it temperament. When an opportunity to work as a technician in the photo lab at National Geographic materialized by a chance meeting with the assistant chief of the lab I took it and found a niche I loved on the technical side.
At NGS I was still using a camera but it was a copy camera with a 40x 48 inch film back and 6 x 8 foot copy board used to create halftones and color separations from photos and drawings of map relief made by cartographic artists. In 1979 I became Customer Service Production Manager at Judd&Detweiler a DC magazine printer and was teaching college classes in photo reproduction via halftones and color separation. Ten years later in 1982 raised my right hand and joined the Foreign Service as a printing specialist for the US Information Agency spending 11 of my 28 years there managing the USIA publication production center in Manila, Philippines.
I continued to take photos using everything I had learned and paid it forward by teaching others on the Internet starting in 1994, which when I got or office connected to it and ran a web server creating web pages with digital photos I took with an Apple Quicktake 100 camera. Later in 2000 - 2001 during my third assignment in Manila I taught a class on digital photography sponsored by Kodak Philippines and one on digital editing and color management at a Graphic Arts show creating a web site for the class notes: super.nova.org/PhotoClass/ which evolved into a site with many tutorials which explored how views react to images subconsciously because of contrast and other compositional devices photo.nova.org/
i’ve moved more to f/2.8 for filming and often photographs
and when shooting film, i’m more focused on having a good shutter speed for handheld, and a smaller aperture doesn’t bother me, if anything i’ve began slowing down my shutter speed to increase my aperture
In bright sunlight, I only shoot f16 with my f1.8 lens. Astrophotography, I only use f1.8 though.
Awesome video. I’ve been avoiding 1.8 (or lower if possible) for sometime, but mostly for what I knew about sharpness. I’m a little obsessed with sharpness, and reading lots of reviews with stats show how at say f2.8, there’s virtually no difference in sharpness between an f1.8 lens and an equivalent f1.4 lens. Save money on lenses too!! Rule of thumb I know there are exceptions.
I completely understand the sentiment of the video and there is some great advice in here.
Re: the video and some comments, however:
What I often don't get in these debates is the lack of mentioning a "why". Almost every example here is a street shot, or an environmental portrait...a genre that, 95% of the time, is defined by "environments". Of course shooting this with a 1.4 or 1.8 defeats the purpose in many cases.
More importantly though, the "why": why do you want to shoot at 1.8? Why would you not want to shoot at 1.8? Find reasons for both. Being _intentional_ is the most important element of art, since art is communication. There *are* reasons to shoot wide open -- low light, messy/distracting backgrounds, creating a sense of intense intimacy or focus in a photo -- but doing so because bOkEh is a fairly disinteresting artistic motivation.
This is the reason why i am happy with my Sony 20-70g f4. What a bang for buck lens :)
Same. Pairs extremely well with my zv-e1 for travel.
My A7riii only comes out for professional shoots now😅
This is why I love Micro Four Third system.
You allow the same light but the aperture is doubled. Which means a MFT F2 will capture FullFrame F2 light but the depth of field will look like FullFrame F4.
Very interesting. I used to use hyperfocal at f/11 28mm in the 90's
Nice Chris 🙏
Everyone starts with open lenses :D
But it changes with the skill level.
Liked the layer of light examples. f/10 ... dead giveaway as having grown up with digital cameras; as opposed to the classic on lens aperture progression of 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22
Nah actually shot the FM/FM2 for ages but my F100 shows all kinds of apertures 👍
Great Video! Good food for thought for reflecting about usage of 1.8
I notice many comments from people showing off they have lenses faster than 1.8. So dumb. I’ve shot on a 0.95 lens and so what? It doesn’t make you a good photographer. People really do think the gear you have is equal to your talent. 🙄🙄🙄🙄
Your eyes don't see at the equivalent of f/1.8. Normally the depth of field is equivalent to f/18 at full frame. In bright light it goes to about f/50. In the dark (or when you see someone attractive) about f/6.
I think that the super wide apertures are trying to replicate the loss of resolution at the edges you get when the eye is wide open and the mental process where we automatically isolate people.
I think F/1.8 needs to be an artistic choice, not the default.
Exactly, super shallow dof reminds me the same effect as when you're focusing on a single object with your eyes, unable to notice everything around
@@KingFiercer_zipthat’s why it’s perfect for the portraits of the ones you love
I photograph for a DJing school and shoot at clubs, events, parties and concerts. Under these conditions, you can't really use a flash. You dint want to daze subjects or interfere with the dark and hazy ambiance of the room. Since most of my shooting is done indoors, I get a ton of interesting artificial lighting to work with. So, I need the wide aperture in order to work with the scene as is. I get a ton of good results, though that might be because try to avoid shooting at iso 16000, due ti my older camera with a fuzzier sensor. Looking forward to upgrading to a ZF though, hopefully that'll give me a few more options rather than buttery 50mm bokeh and an almost impressionist look.
Four Thirds sensor is the perfect balance between size, depth of field and image quality. Also f1.8 is perfect on MFT since it's f3.6 DOF on FF. 🙂 f1.2 is nice for the shallow DOF look too.
f4 zooms now fills my day
You have to read your scene first. With a lot of practice you can look at a scene and already know what settings you will use to make your photo.
soft images with blurry backgrounds.I cant understand why people like it. in argentina, 95% of the advertisements are shot that way!
You can get great separation from a subject to background at higher f stops than 1.8. I've gotten good separation at f 3.5 on my nikon kit lens. The bokeh isn't as strong, but it still does the job.
You don't create depth you create shallow depth of field.
I’m very tempted to get the Fuji 16-50 2.8-4.8 to stop me from shooting open all the time.
you mean that shit kit lens on APS-C eh? if so, don't even bother
I got a f/2.8 135mm Minolta lens I've been shooting on, and even the f/2.8 can be too strong at times, being near impossible to nail focus for video as a scene shifts because the throw is just massive for a 135mm. Literally the focus throw is so huge (it's like using a PL lens), I thought the lens was doing something weird with its nonexistent autofocus features on a manual focus adapter (because the slightest difference in distance change means it'll defocus if I'm not continuously pulling focus, mix that in with how fast the lens snaps back to focus when you find an object of that same distance that you can instantly get focus onto, so quickly I was convinced that was an autofocus feature lmao). There are some incredible uses with that aperture, but if I'm trying to capture video, stepping down has saved my sanity since it doesn't require me to buy a follow focus system and 15mm rail system.
1.8 is great if you have an external monitor and good focus peaking, because trying to eyeball it through a tiny LCD monitor or EVH is much slower than big monitor with good assist technology. Me likey big monitor, but if I want to go compact, that fast aperture is a bigger headache than not, especially the more telephoto your lens is.
Coming to terms with the f2.8 monster i have become 😂😂
Nikon's 135 1.8 Plena disagrees 🙂 Kidding aside, you raise some very good points here. I agree it's important to know what aperture to use, and when. I see so many new photographers getting overly preoccupied with "style", trendy presets, and just shooting everything exactly the same in general.
There’s a little truth in every joke, that lens is ridiculous and I wish I could afford it 😭
I love shooting full frame 50mm f1. I think as iPhone pictures increase in quality, it’s pushing other photographers, like myself to try and use methods that separate our photos from the smart phones. I’m noticing it a lot more background bokeh on tv and in movies these days too.
Now where did I put that pin hole?
as an f1.4 shooter: i am neither offended nor pleased with your opinion; i merely have a neutral stance because i sit in the middle....
i don't even shoot at f1.4
Yup. Say those unpopular things. So many people seem to fall down the rabbit hole of low light means open up the aperture, when there's a bit of a decision point in there somewhere regarding upping the ISO and/or adding light to keep from compromising what you're trying to do. Or that not every background needs to be blurred into oblivion; there's value in avoiding having nostrils in focus but not the eyes - forget about ears or hair. If wide open is someone's style preference, do your thing. But, it isn't the only way to work, and isn't even the best way as often as folks say "creamy blurry background" in YT videos.
I wonder what is more intimidating: a youtuber or my mother telling me not to do something. Instagram is now full of multi-plane photographs where the challenge seems to fill the frame with as much elements as possible, with no connection between them or visual interest. Let's stop doing that too then.
Are we talking portraits here? Shooting wide open with a super fast lens is for the amateur who's been watching too many TH-cam "photographers". Look at work from the greats like Avedon, Newton, Meisel and others and you will find they rarely shoot a super shallow DOF. Try shooting f/1.2 where the models face is falling out of focus or even f/1.8 with a blurry mess behind your subject and any agency or editor will show you the door. Been shooting fashion/portraits professionally for 20 years. I rarely shoot wider than f/2.8 on 35mm/FF and most the time Im up around f/4 or so, especially when shooting medium format.
every time i look at my exif data it's surprising how many of my cityscape shots end up being f4 or f5
When I started studying photography I used 1.8 aperture on my nifty fifty most of the time just to lower my iso so I don't get a lot of noise from my old canon dslr sensor
If I shouldn't shoot at F/1.8, what's the point in buying a lens after the kit lens? Kit lenses provide f/4 and higher.
I basically only use wide open for low light to keep shutter speeds and iso in check. You can create background blur and separation by getting closer to your subject.
It'll be funny when you come back to it in a few years and rewatch your video
Thanks for doing a public service. Wide open has it's places. Generally with beginners and Greig Fraser.
So true! At the beginning I was shooting wide but now I see differently. Thank you for the video and for suggesting having a look at Robbie Lawrence.
I don't know, I more often see people relying on a shallow aperture with a high iso to see everything
I honestly cant keep track of what any camera spec even does except shutter speed.
What about indoor videography? Is low f-stop more prominent? Also would you still do lights on one side for talking head indoor vids? Thanks
Bizarre. I shoot close sports with the RF85 f1.2 @ f1.2. It looks fantastic.
Why ?
One method to isolate the competitor form the back ground crowd is slow shutter panning, the resultant motion blur masks the crowd nicely.
However, the chances of that horse over the jump,being all sharp at 1/20th sec are slim.
Better to use 85mm f1.2 at a high shutter speed. This achieves similar backgound blur, but the subject is tack sharp, and the image looks 3d.
Know when and where to use all of the tools at your disposal?
Layers of light? Can you do a whole video on it?
Watching this video through an f/0.95 lens
Sometimes wide open is the way to go... sometimes f16 is the call. The only aperture i find entirely useless is f22 f32 etc
I now shoot on Apeture priority 5.6 or 6.3 (going to f11 if I REALLY need the foreground and backround in focus for some interesting compositions) at auto iso street and nature and wow I wanna hit old me with a stick, F/2.8 and below is now for indoors only and for some portraits (people still like bokeh, and well ofc I do too if tasteful)
Shallow depth of field looks overdone, tacky and gives off small town wedding photographer vibe, but f/ 1.4 is a lifesaver in low light
Sergey Maximishin, a multiple times World Press Photo winner said in one of his interviews that he always shoots f22. Lol, I barely go past f8, because THE Diffraction. Guess that is why I ain’t got a World Press Photo. :)
Damn the algorithms are really smart these days. Ive looked up robbie Lawrence on TH-cam awhile ago after seeing his photography from the paris olympics and your video got recommended on my feed. Great video tho🎉
The reason I dislike youtube filmmakers teaching about cinematic looks. Now every goddamn film in theaters are all blurry. Where are the great deep focus shots with meaning?
If you want depth, shoot with a 3D camera. Problem solved. And everything can be in focus. 🙂
hard to have story when most of your image is just completely blurry
great video & loved the examples. gonna think about depth with light & color
I learned this the hard way 😂
To be honest I just decide what I want to shoot. Do I want to separate from the background as much as possible cause of whatever reason? Wide aperture. Do I want to keep multiple elements in focus because they add to my photo? Close it down however much I need to get it all in. Do I need a fast lens cause I'm taking action shots? You can bet your a** I'm using a mix of apertures and my ISO to get the work done.
i don't even shoot with cameras anymore
Aps-c cropping would love those f0.95 or T1.2 for cine/videography. Big pro decked out 4igs are scary for street content.
Watching this to see if he’ll blink with both eyes
😑
Im gonna keep shooting at 1.8 just out of spite because I like my photos and my shots a 1.8 get a ton of praise.
As a video person I shoot at 2.8+ unless i specifically need that much bokeh/blur for various reasons.
Chuckles in f0.95
Beautiful video ❤
don't shoot in 1.8. Got it. *dials down to 1.2 on 50mm
I’ve been shooting for 5 years now and until this year I’ve only used cheaper f4 lenses and been perfectly fine!
That being said I just purchased my first 24-70 f2.8 😂
Often the more expensive lenses will be higher quality overall and F2.8 will still have its uses for sure 🌞
You don't create "depth" but using a wide aperture. Its the opposite.
i just had family photos at the beach because the camera focused on the kid next to the mom and son and it was completely ruined
This is a weird video. All levels of aperture have their place. I like my studio shots at f/8, I like my indoor action at f/3.2, but I like my outdoor portraits at f/1.4 while I’ll do street photography with the same lens at f/4.
Great tips and great recommendation of that photographer
I only shoot f5.6 35mm fl. Layers, light, colors and motion blur act as separating techniques. I'm influenced by Koudelka and Webb.