2 ms·

4x5 is a whole nother beast though. We're talking about SLRs and fixed-lens cameras. Usually you don't get any movements and very little options on that front u

4x5 is a whole nother beast though. We're talking about SLRs and fixed-lens cameras. Usually you don't get any movements and very little options on that front unless you're using a TS-E. Don't see any reason why the one I picked wouldn't be shot at F1.4. Anyway, here's another random one that does have EXIF that shows what I mean. Just because you're shooting at F1.4 doesn't mean that everything is blown away. https://www.flickr.com/photos/jasoncowellphoto/5534870906 https://www.flickr.com/photos/jasoncowellphoto/5534870906 I guess you can call if "fetishizing" a lens if you want but it's a very popular lens for a reason.

foldr 11y ago
Hmm, the second photo is a case where everything is pretty much at infinity, so the only significant consequence of using a very wide aperture is that you’re letting more light in. (Yeah, you can see that the background is very slightly out of focus compared to the bikes, but the defocusing is so slight that it looks more like a mistake than a deliberate effect.) Plus, look, I know that you didn't choose the photo for it's artistic qualities, but that photo sucks, and the comments on it are like "omg you have a 35L and the photos are sharp". Who the fuck cares if the photos are bad? The vast majority of the photos in the group either have (i) pretty much everything in the picture in acceptably sharp focus (so that even if they were shot at f1.4, they didn’t have to be) or (ii) a close subject (so that a very wide aperture was not necessary to get good separation). Is it possible to imagine scenarios where you need f1.4 to obtain the desired effect? Yeah, sure. But they’re precisely the scenarios that rarely lead to good compositions. I.e., middle ground in focus and foreground and background out of focus.

2 ms·

4x5 is a whole nother beast though. We're talking about SLRs and fixed-lens cameras. Usually you don't get any movements and very little options on that front u

by vvanders 11y ago

foldr 11y ago
Hmm, the second photo is a case where everything is pretty much at infinity, so the only significant consequence of using a very wide aperture is that you’re letting more light in. (Yeah, you can see that the background is very slightly out of focus compared to the bikes, but the defocusing is so slight that it looks more like a mistake than a deliberate effect.) Plus, look, I know that you didn't choose the photo for it's artistic qualities, but that photo sucks, and the comments on it are like "omg you have a 35L and the photos are sharp". Who the fuck cares if the photos are bad? The vast majority of the photos in the group either have (i) pretty much everything in the picture in acceptably sharp focus (so that even if they were shot at f1.4, they didn’t have to be) or (ii) a close subject (so that a very wide aperture was not necessary to get good separation). Is it possible to imagine scenarios where you need f1.4 to obtain the desired effect? Yeah, sure. But they’re precisely the scenarios that rarely lead to good compositions. I.e., middle ground in focus and foreground and background out of focus.