Styles or Techniques without using DOF or Bokeh ?

This is hard for me to explain so please hang in there. I currently pushing myself not to overuse DOF / Bokeh in my photography. I see a lot of shooters using great fast glass at 1.4, 1.8 to get that creamy Bokeh in order to separate themselves apart from the typical iPhone user.

Maybe it is just me but I see many wedding and portrait photographers using these techniques to almost an extreme level without much creativity. Is this due to the huge influx of iPhone shooters and cheap dslr owner, I do not know ? Maybe the client wants that ??

So for my purpose I am trying to simplify my gear (think Bridge Cameras) and get away from expensive gear and go low tech high concept if that makes any sense ?

So are there any famous photographers that really tried to stay away from DOF, Bokeh or better know as that blurry background ?

I have a few techniques such as using front lights and a darken backgrounds, or getting the subject against walls as to not be a distracting backdrop.

I feel like some of the old masters of photography probably had a slew of methods. The last 10 years of photography seems like a rapid arms race to get the latest camera bodies and fastest glass. Adjust wide open an let it rip.

Thanks

Jay

Maybe it is just me but I see many wedding and portrait photographers using these techniques to almost an extreme level without much creativity. Is this due to the huge influx of iPhone shooters and cheap dslr owner, I do not know ? Maybe the client wants that ??

I think it has less to do with iPhones and more to do with some amount of individual choice and, in some cases, a lack of creative ability to figure out other ways of shooting besides using dof. I prefer portraits that use backgrounds to help tell the human story or provide character to the subject or overall photo, so I see minimizing backgrounds, often not always, as missed opportunities. Portraits against blank or plain walls, though they sometimes work, run the risk of seeming stilted or being boring, the opposite of a too-busy and distracting background. Choosing a workable and portrait-supporting background and how to handle it is as important as other aspects of portraiture. Sometimes a simple change of angles or perspective goes a long way in making the difference between an eff3ctive and ineffective background. It also depends on the type of portrait you’re doing, whether more of a “yearbook” head shot or more of a character study, or lifestyle shot, etc.

Apples & oranges?

I guess the indoors part of weddings gets shot (rather) wide open, because there is simply no light and folks expect their pro to handle that while still not delivering mainly high ISO noise?

Old masters? - LF cameras / MF gear in studios. What else than bokeh would their Petzvals & Imagons be generating? There was never enough light in the old days either.

Get your balance right and think before you switch systems. - Is going from DSLRs to bridge cameras really "low tech"? I have no clue what kind of bridge camera we might be talking about but the awesome ones seem to be about 2k€. If you are sick of the no DOF shots why not leave the fast glass at home and stick to something dimmer and more portable? I simply think there is no need to go from one extreme to another. - Stick to the inexpensive middleground. - An elderly SLR with an unspectacular zoom is likely enough to take a bearable portrait at medium apertures and generate a bit of bokeh on the way.

Anyhow: Why are we discussing the overhead? - Shoot as you like! - If something feels wrong to you(!) it can't be right, no matter what & how I might argue.

I assume some subjects aren't well suited for biting sharpness in harsh light. Some folks used softeners in the past, others retouched the heck out of their captures and maybe the insanely wide open approach works these days. But if you don't like it, why buy and bring such glass + maybe even ND filters?

are there any famous photographers that really tried to stay away from DOF, Bokeh or better know as that blurry background ?

Majoli? / The flashing Leica street shooter / journalist guild? Adams' f64 group? I think if you go back in time you'll find some that used a pre-zone focused snapshooting technique with 35mm cameras and there were enough old school journalists content with 35 & 85/90mm f2 + 21 & 180mm f2.8 and eager to bring something home for sure instead of going through an entire roll or more to hopefully nail a wide open bokeh shot.

Michael thanks for the input. I kind felt a little crazy for posting. Seems like all the newer photographers are relying on bokeh very heavily.

You have any artist that you want to try to emulate?

Myself I shot wildlife for a few years an that shooting wide open is pretty much standard plus with super zooms the background gets compressed an blurred.

Looking to get some variety

Jay

This is hard for me to explain so please hang in there. I currently pushing myself not to overuse DOF / Bokeh in my photography. I see a lot of shooters using great fast glass at 1.4, 1.8 to get that creamy Bokeh in order to separate themselves apart from the typical iPhone user.

 

Maybe it is just me but I see many wedding and portrait photographers using these techniques to almost an extreme level without much creativity. Is this due to the huge influx of iPhone shooters and cheap dslr owner, I do not know ? Maybe the client wants that ??

 

So for my purpose I am trying to simplify my gear (think Bridge Cameras) and get away from expensive gear and go low tech high concept if that makes any sense ?

 

So are there any famous photographers that really tried to stay away from DOF, Bokeh or better know as that blurry background ?

 

I have a few techniques such as using front lights and a darken backgrounds, or getting the subject against walls as to not be a distracting backdrop.

 

I feel like some of the old masters of photography probably had a slew of methods. The last 10 years of photography seems like a rapid arms race to get the latest camera bodies and fastest glass. Adjust wide open an let it rip.

 

Thanks

 

Jay

It depends on what suits the subject and the circumstance. If the photographer wants to focus on the facial features of the subject itself and nothing else, if thats the intent, then a creamy blurred background may work. The problem arises, when someone thinks that blurred background is a formula to successful portraiture and sticks to that. That would stifle creativity. I think, it always helps to keep an open mind.

I like the so called environmental portraiture, where the person is shown in conjunction with his/her environment. It tells a lot about a person's character, or create new persona, or act as looking glass into someone's character. It helps to note that many 'famous' photographers, who are known for their portraits, hardly used bokeh or creamy backgrounds, blurred background yes, but not featureless. Check out Diane Arbus's work. She has used all sorts of focal lengths for her portraits, from wide to telephoto, and most of them with vivid backgrounds. Even Avedon and Irving Penn who shot a lot of portraits in studio setup didn't use blurred out backgrounds in most photos. They focused more on creative lighting or poses, angles and camera effects, highlighting special features in their subjects.

@The Shadow and@Supriyo have already covered the maint points I wanted to add. IHMO the main point is be creative and flexible. If a lot of photographers are doing the same thing you can bet that it sooner or later going to become a cliche. In-focus (or slightly blurred) backgrounds are fine if they enhance the photo. Most of my own engagement/wedding photographs (very long ago!) had visible, neutral but attractive backgrounds.

I've just been re-reading a 10-year-old book on Celebrity and Performance. This book has has nothing to do with weddings but it does illustrate the different kinds of approaches/backgrounds that different portrait photographers choose. One or two photographers chose a narrow DOF but many chose an in-focus background that in some way matches/enhances the portrait. Sometimess context-related, sometimes in the studio.

If you don't blur the background with a narrow DOF then you have to think a lot more about the background:)

It depends on what suits the subject and the circumstance. If the photographer wants to focus on the facial features of the subject itself and nothing else, if thats the intent, then a creamy blurred background may work. The problem arises, when someone thinks that blurred background is a formula to successful portraiture and sticks to that. That would stifle creativity. I think, it always helps to keep an open mind.

 

I like the so called environmental portraiture, where the person is shown in conjunction with his/her environment. It tells a lot about a person's character, or create new persona, or act as looking glass into someone's character. It helps to note that many 'famous' photographers, who are known for their portraits, hardly used bokeh or creamy backgrounds, blurred background yes, but not featureless. Check out Diane Arbus's work. She has used all sorts of focal lengths for her portraits, from wide to telephoto, and most of them with vivid backgrounds. Even Avedon and Irving Penn who shot a lot of portraits in studio setup didn't use blurred out backgrounds in most photos. They focused more on creative lighting or poses, angles and camera effects, highlighting special features in their subjects.

Thanks for the artists names. I will check them out.

Turning The Lens Around - Digital Photo Pro,

some portrait settings here.

Do you really need to change gear in order to change style? Take the photos you want, why care if it is trendy or not? A great photo is a great photo regardless.

I appreciate using my 85mm tilt/shift lens for portraiture as it allows me to get anything from extremely shallow depth of field to a large depth of field.

Another trend is (over)using flash in daylight, thanks to HSS and high-ISO becoming increasingly better. That more and more people do it does not stop me from using flash (even my ringflash) outdoors if I want to take such a portrait.

@michaelmowery, when you mention 3D quailities, I think of the photos I took 20 years ago with my Pentax 67 - I really liked the look it gave.