3 ms·
Yes, but the point is that people rarely if ever used that level of background blur, as it wasn't trendy to, e.g., take portraits where only one eyelash is in f
by foldr 6y ago
Yes, but the point is that people rarely if ever used that level of background blur, as it wasn't trendy to, e.g., take portraits where only one eyelash is in focus.
- sudosysgen 6y agoReally? Because even really old portraits had huge amounts of background blur: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/aU4oh69TPgC0JrujNVvkOrTeH7Dh37ysBt6HrAMHqT-fFlVCaHJ-ZbDE2u-zd3qxtoXutrn9F-p9IvXl4u2LqbQgyZqeFWg4v1CSecuPkWpN_itze3BLmlYmxT1p4Qf4onGwv-kDgY_oAtjWYJksPZESDVWaJRGFQIlGejtEjI6U54shhDiIyrvy9CSsc2ZYHKzqBaw https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/aU4oh69TPgC0JrujNVvk... for example. Now of course, it wasn't trendy to take portraits with only one eyelash in focus, but the vast majority of people even on FF don't do that. On my 50 1.4 (a lens made for film cameras, btw) if you want to take a picture with such an extreme amount of blur you need to have your subject quite close to you. And there is virtually no one with a lens faster than f/1.4 nowadays.
- slantyyz 6y agoPeople today shoot and chimp, which was impossible back in the day. If you wanted a preview, you needed to have a polaroid around. Film and processing cost money, and took from an hour or to days to get back, so people would set the aperture in a more reasonable range.