Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Are proper cameras doomed?

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

Focus_Man
Focus_Man  4481 forum posts United Kingdom631 Constructive Critique Points
24 Aug 2012 - 1:56 PM


Quote: In the 'good old days' maximum depth of field used to be the goal, not minimum DoF.

In the old days "PHOTOGRAPHERS USED BOTH MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM whenever required to do so; not just maximum.

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
24 Aug 2012 - 1:56 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139392 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
24 Aug 2012 - 1:58 PM

Going back a lot of years, the struggle was for maximum DoF. Shallow DoF was easy.

Focus_Man
Focus_Man  4481 forum posts United Kingdom631 Constructive Critique Points
24 Aug 2012 - 2:03 PM

Good so we agree, both were in use deliberately - I know - I was there - I was that soldier!

Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139392 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
24 Aug 2012 - 2:08 PM

I'm glad you agree shallow DoF is nothing new and used to be easier.... when photos were being captured on large and medium format film/ plates etc. It was therefore nothing special, as it seems to be regarded today.

Focus_Man
Focus_Man  4481 forum posts United Kingdom631 Constructive Critique Points
24 Aug 2012 - 2:15 PM

Well yes, in the days of plate cameras and glass plates at that, the emulsion speed was slow which made shallow DOF easy and large DoF hard because time exposure was required and subjects had to keep very still.

Once we got to medium format 6x6 and 6x4.5 we could get fast films, well 400ASA was regarded as fast. That made greater DoF much easier to obtain. But as we could not see instant results as is the case now with digital cameras (and telephones) getting the required DoF in some circumstances was still a skill. Maximum DoF and minimum DoF were easy it was the inbetween bits that were difficult.

lemmy
lemmy  71773 forum posts United Kingdom
24 Aug 2012 - 2:30 PM


Quote: Had the guy who invented the word 'bokeh' never heard of differential focussing?

I think bokeh is meant to be the 'artistic' quality of the out of focus area.

If, for example, is it quintessentially reductive in its spacial relationship, the bokeh is considered bad.

On the other hand, if it it contextuously juxtapositioned with the subjective elements of the formally gestured aesthetic, it is good.

As Dr Johnson said, 'when a man is tired of bokeh, he is tired of life'. So true.

Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139392 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
24 Aug 2012 - 2:36 PM

I think bokeh is usually taken to be a bit more specific than differential focussing, in particular the rendering of out-of-focus highlights.

keith selmes
24 Aug 2012 - 4:25 PM

I would have thought that differential focussing is the technique, whereas bokeh refers to a part of the image.

Anyhow, 'bokeh' is 5 characters in 2 syllables, and 'differential focussing' is 22 in 7, so I'm sticking with bokeh Smile

The other phrase I used to see was "out of focus areas" which is also a lot of typing and too much of a mouthful.

The only problem I've seen with" bokeh" is that some people have adopted different definitions from the original translation and intention, which can lead to misunderstandings.

mikehit
mikehit  46182 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
24 Aug 2012 - 4:35 PM

Just what I was going to post in a way.

Bokeh strictly refers to all 'out of focus areas' but some people draw distinctions referring to 'out of focus' if it shows harsh transitions between elements , and 'bokeh' if it is that smooth soft transitions.

llareggub
llareggub  3664 forum posts United Kingdom
24 Aug 2012 - 4:38 PM


Quote:

With a decent camera on the phone you may get photos that you would never have obtained in the first place. The price of that may be some compromise on quality but (and this is one the points of this thread) that compromise is diminishing.

It may very well be one of the points that many people have mentioned in this thread but the thread in itself is entitled "Are proper camera doomed" and for the photographic enthusiast the are most definately not based on anything coming out of the camera phone market at present.

Nobody is questioning the innovation but for me the results are "must try harder" and for every step that a camera phone makes a dedicated camera will always be one step ahead... But I am one of the rare folk whose mobile phone does not even have a camera or interweb connectivity, in fact it is rarely mobile and sits next to my pillow in my bedroom and gets used as an alarm clock my Canon 50D on the other hand goes with me pretty much everywhere Smile

keith selmes
24 Aug 2012 - 4:53 PM


Quote: do we - in reality - increasingly leave them at home and take photos on our mobiles?

That was the original question asked. I would have to say no. The majority of people probably do, and evidently some Ephotozine forum users do, but in general "we" epz photographers probably don't.
It seems likely that most of the people taking the huge numbers of pictures on phones, usually used to leave their camera at home. Whereas most of the people who used frequently to have a camera with them still do.

Seems a reasonable theory anyway, I don't know how you'd quantify it, if it's even worth trying.

keith selmes
24 Aug 2012 - 4:55 PM

As an aside, I have now used my smartphone for mapreading, youtube, email, getting bus timetables, as a wifi hotspot for a tablet and a laptop, and even for taking some photos, but I never have used it for making a phone call, I don't even know how to do that.

Is it time to stop calling them phones ?

Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139392 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
24 Aug 2012 - 5:31 PM


Quote: Is it time to stop calling them phones ?

Mini-tablets? Smile

I rarely use my mobile phone for phone calls. When I receive a call on it I usually manage to press the wrong (virtual) button on the touchscreen - and cut off the call! Grin

Focus_Man
Focus_Man  4481 forum posts United Kingdom631 Constructive Critique Points
25 Aug 2012 - 9:06 AM

I use my mobile phone for making and taking calls. I use one of my cameras for taking photographs.

Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139392 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
25 Aug 2012 - 10:11 AM


Quote: I use my mobile phone for making and taking calls. I use one of my cameras for taking photographs.

How quaint! Grin Tongue

Do you carry a camera around with you at all times then?

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.