Shallow dof is extremely abused in photography but especially in videography and basically the ultimate youtube/netflix lazy trash signifier at this point. In 2026 we're deepfocusmaxxing. Reject bokehslop.Retvrn to composition.
>>4497599What a good opportunity for you to show how you use this approach in your own workSad to hear you also don't take photos
>>4497601Showing you my photos and videos will contribute nothing to my point. I fell for the shallow dof meme in the past, perhaps I'm overcorrecting now, it doesn't really matter. In early cinema from the 1890s to 1910s shallow depth of field was impossible. Slow film, slow lenses around f/4-f/8, weak lighting forced everything into sharp deep focus. No choice, no creamy blur to mask bad framing. Lumiere, Melies, everyone staged in depth or used tricks like forced perspective in Princess Nicotine because they couldn't soften backgrounds.Shallow DoF only became easy later with faster stocks and lights, but stayed rare until the 2008 5D Mk II let every amateur blast f/1.4 and pretend it was cinematic. Now it's the laziest crutch going: can't compose, can't block, just drown the mess in bokeh and call it filmic. Right now it mostly acts like a crutch for people too incompetent to guide the eye properly. It's a technique that should be used sparingly with specific intention behind it, like step printing or extreme angle shots.Anamorphics did the same. Born as a 1950s trick to fight TV with wide squeezed frames, their flares, oval bokeh and stretched shallow look turned into today's overpriced fetish. Beginners chase both as shortcuts instead of learning real craft.
>>4497599based the trial (1962) directed by orson welles based on the franz kafka novel of the same name starring anthony perkins (most known for his role as norman bates in alfred hitchcocks psycho (1969)) as josef k enjoyer
>>4497601Holy shit, what an unprovoked cunt you are
>>4497601Based and this. Sadly you get a retarded essay instead of a photo. Looks like you were right about OP not taking photos.
>>4497603How's the first year of your BA in Film Studies going, anon?
>ask for examples>get autistic rambling instead
Okay aphantasiabros, here's an example. Exhibit A, this is good photography
Exhibit B, this sucks
>>4497614based night of the hunter enjoyer. that's a midget btw (not the kid in the foreground, the fella on the horse in the background)
>>4497601at least OP posted a picture you faggot
>>4497603>Shallow DoF only became easy later with faster stocks and lights, but stayed rare until the 2008 5D Mk II let every amateur blast f/1.4 and pretend it was cinematicAnon, film era lenses will happily make blurry backgrounds. Not sure why you think it's something new. Picrel is a Helios 44-2 (approx 1960s) not even wide open.
>>4497614This is a good composition, bokeh or not. Very dramatic and atmospheric, and it gives equal weight to the people and their surrounding environment.>>4497615This is a boring composition, bokeh or not. It could easily be a portrait shot of anyone and it would only tell as much as their outfit allowed.
>>4497631Vintage bokeh can be neat, even in small amounts. Bokeh also takes on a neat quality when it's grainy like yours.
>>4497631wtf why did it rotate. Anyway, another example this time with I think an Industar 50 (f3.5)>>4497601Part of the problem with posting photos on here to make arguments is that it will simply be misappropriated as a chance to make a personal attack rather than actually engage in discussion. Ansel Adams could rise from the grave to post here and you'd still get somebody piping up about how acktually it's a terrible photo and he should self deport to the ocean immediately with zero constructive feedback.>>4497634I like to do a mix, I've never been a "I need an f0.95 creamy bokeh ultra fast lens" type though. It's not bad or good imo, just another tool you can use. I only shoot film though so my experience may not apply super well to digital.
>>4497615Nice proof-of-concept. I wonder what the movie will look like, lol.
>>4497603Shallow focus has been a heavily used tool for many great movies throughout history though. For example its used in like every other scene in "The Passion of Joan of Arc" and even in movies like "All Quiet on the Western Front".This isn't a great shot, but the point isn't for every shot to be screenshot art you can frame on your wall, the point is to serve the scene. The scene needed to focus on a single character during a monologue.>>4497632This anon doesn't understand this.
>>4497638From Passion of Joan of Arc. Both of these films also used deep focus, before you accuse me of being dishonest.
>>4497603>but stayed rare until the 2008 5D Mk II let every amateur blast f/1.4 and pretend it was cinematicSorry, are we talking about video or stills here? I don't see what difference the 5D Mark II makes for stills over previous cameras.
They hate >>4497601 because he speaks the truth.
