Bokeh. and DOF..warning...opinion follows!

Yes and yes. My favorite images lately have deep focus but...

When I do narrative stuff, I love to think about how humans see.. what they look at when and how. Some of these "effects" are vestigial to 35mm film movies and have become part of the the grammar. That notwithstanding, they serve. Rack focus works to direct attention and mimics my eye (sorta) in a room with a couple of people when I shift my eye. Selective focus also mimics what happens when I'm focused intently on what someone is saying my peripheral vision becomes secondary and oddly blurry. I think that's important because it works.

Tangent alert: this is why I don't like hand held generally. I know, heresy! There are wonderful exceptions like Hurt Locker and Blue Valentine. I like to use smooth dolly moves or lock down because my neck and eyes do a splendid job of stabilizing my vision while I move through the world and the dolly move emulates that. Maybe they used dollies originally because the cameras were crazy heavy but to my eye.. that works.
 
In my 40 years in the business I've seen a ton of production techniques quickly become cliches. Who could forget "the quad split" or the rotating 4 sided cube DVD effect? Lasted about 6 weeks. Today we are subjected to endless giant crane moves and 3 foot "dolly moves" for no particular reason. I worked for a client (food) where every television commercial was shot with a snorkel lens.

And then there's this bokeh business. What camera/lens combo has "mostest" bokeh. Hey, I happen to like a soft background in a interview shot but the background doesn't have to look like the E.T. spaceship door opening. When I'm shooting "walk and gun" with the AF I tend to stop down the lens and save my tired eyes from pulling razor sharp focus in every shot. I purchased the AF mainly for it's low light capabilities, prime or zoom still lens compatibility and it's one heck of a camera for under $5-K. Moderately soft backgrounds are icing on the cake.
 
I'm okay with soft backgrounds. This helps separate the subject from the background (if that's your intention). But if you want to show more of a sense of place, then you need deeper DOF to allow the viewer to look around the scene.

The problem is the ultra narrow 1" of DOF which only renders the eyes in focus. The subject isn't the eyes, it's the whole face! You're looking at the face so everything from the nose to just behind the ear should be in focus. So you need around 8" of DOF, then you add a few extra inches of DOF to allow for subject movement. With a medium close up, the DOF should be around 1-2 ft so the whole torso is in focus.

I think some people are using the sledgehammer approach to achieving background separation by shooting wide open instead of more moderate apertures and positioning background elements further away. This will achieve the same background blur (or at least decent background separation) but still permit a deep enough DOF to keep the entire subject in focus (and allow for subject movement).
 
Last edited:
hscully said:
When I do narrative stuff, I love to think about how humans see..
Click to expand...

That's exactly what all of this should be about: We can use extremely small DoF to mimic how our eyes (better: our brain) processes information when under stress and/or when highly concentrated. If we use it all the time, we reduce it to a stylish fad that becomes boring and imho annoying rather sooner than later.

To separate things from the back- or foreground: different situation.

Same applies to hand held. If the situation, the movie, our story telling demands it: Good. Let's use it. If we do it for reasons of stylishness: Think again. It's like the sousaphone - nice instrument for certain purposes but it shouldn't be you only instrument in an orchestra..... ;-)
 
Last edited:
Gotta admit, Shooter, when my Contax Zeiss 50mil first showed up I shot everything at f/2.0 just because I could and quickly tired of the extreme look. Now I shoot more at 5.6/8.0 with a moderate DOF and use the extreme look sparingly.

Just got the CZ 25mm f/2.8 and likewise, am being a little more sensible in how I shoot it. Regardless of which lens, they both produce beautiful looks without necessarily needing to shoot wide open.
 
Its called "cutting the cloth to suit the man" (...or did I just make that up) . How about "horses for courses". What ever ...you get it I am sure.

I was in Paris ( France) last month and in a store called 'Yellow Corner' ( near the Pompidou Centre)

There is the most amazing collection of photographic prints (for sale) in this store /gallery. Modern and historic.

The over whelming impression is ....deep DOF , pin sharpness , superb tones, incredible timing and stunning composition of frame and action. ( Many of the prints are B/W in a classic manner but the color works are similarly awesome ).

The use of DOF in great work ( stills or cinema) is part of the art.

BTW Scott. Your river works for example are ideal for "deep" classic DOF ( landscape). The Zeisses have a certain 3d characteristic so go for it.
 
Yeah, I agree to an extent. I feel that focus should be used as a tool, not a style. It's funny because everytime a newb comes here and asks what he should get for his first cam, I usually get ripped apart for telling him to get a camcorder over a dslr. I think it's important to learn how to shoot with deep focus first, that way your able to learn how to use shallow focus as a tool, opposed to a style. Because thats what it has become. People shoot so rediculously shallow and for no other reason other than they think it's cinematic. Which is a crock of crap. This is one of the reasons I dislike the large sensor movement.

The other thing that bothers the HELL out of me, is that, all these dslr, and large sensor newbs, cant like a fking scene to save their life. They think just because they can expose an image it's lit. This drives me more crazy than the bokah fad. So in essence, the dslr's have started a generation of lazy, skill-less filmmakers. Not all of course, But many from what i'm seeing on vimeo and youtube.
 
Maybe it's just me but I think people should start out on 16mm if they want to get into being a cinematographer... Shoot reversal stock, see what one stop of latitude really means lol.
 
HDkilledFILM. said:
Maybe it's just me but I think people should start out on 16mm if they want to get into being a cinematographer... Shoot reversal stock, see what one stop of latitude really means lol.
Click to expand...

In a perfect world yes, but it's so damn expensive. Heck if I could afford to do so, Thats all I would shoot.
 
In a sense...you already are shooting reversal stock.

Just happens to be digital reversal stock... so think about it similarly to a film reversal stock.

I would not go back to film stocks for any reason now.
I have shot 100's of thousand of film feet...I have processed millions of feet ( I had a neg only motion picture film processing lab).
I have moved on with the technology.
No going back.
 
Reversal? Or film in general? Reversal haunts me... I shot two features in college years ago on reversal, one on color, the other B+W, neither of which saw the light of day, all I have left is a trailer for one... In my dreams I get to play with 65mm to be printed on 70mm... Talk about 24p, every frame is as big as a postcard!!!
 
Uber-shallow DOF...
Shaky hand-held shots....
Orange & Teal pallettes....
Crazy overcranking....
Overly contrasty HDR tonemapping.....

Somebody please END THE MADNESS!!!!
 
After recently shooting a feature, (very very low budget) I think I have figured out why the use of bokeh was started in the first place. 1. Copy-rite issues.. Try filming an over the shoulder in a room with lots of artwork or bookcase and not use a shallow depth of field. When you get the E&O insurance quotes you will wish you had used it. 2. How are you going to ND the windows and still have them in focus, not going to happen with a low budget film/light kit. Of course this is my opinion, but I think it still holds water. I wish some of my slower lenses had more SDOF for the wide shots. I also feel that everything in moderation is a good thing.
 
It's like someone getting their hands on Photoshop for the first time and going ape wild with the "effects" plugins. Let people use excessive DOF. It just separates the armatures from the pros.
 
I shoot lots of videos for local government. I find shallow depth useful when filming interviews and wish to see whats going on in the background without being able to identify individuals. Usually theres school kids with child protection issues that i dont want to point out to the rest of the class as 'special cases'.
Also on fast run n gun interviews its useful for lifting the interviewee from the clutter of that cramped office they demand to be interviewed in.
I like shallow depth of field but I also like deep focus, all have uses.
 
el presidente said:
I like shallow depth of field but I also like deep focus, all have uses.
Click to expand...

Ditto, I have cams that allow me to get shallow if I want. (and do it easily) that's one of the reasons I bought em. I don't get the opportunity to use it much for what I shoot, but when I do I love it.

ps, isn't bokeh a Japanese word?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top