Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more
Can't Access your Account?
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
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.
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
Going back a lot of years, the struggle was for maximum DoF. Shallow DoF was easy.
Good so we agree, both were in use deliberately - I know - I was there - I was that soldier!
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.
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.
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.
I think bokeh is usually taken to be a bit more specific than differential focussing, in particular the rendering of out-of-focus highlights.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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 ?
Quote: Is it time to stop calling them phones ?
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!
I use my mobile phone for making and taking calls. I use one of my cameras for taking photographs.
Quote: I use my mobile phone for making and taking calls. I use one of my cameras for taking photographs.
Do you carry a camera around with you at all times then?
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
You must be a member to leave a comment
Get the latest photography news straight from ePHOTOzine in your email every month and win prizes!
1st October 2014 - 31st October 2014
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
View October's Photo Month Calendar