Below are four shots I have found in my own archive. All of them were shot with a shallow depth of field, but each for a different reason.
Image 1. Was shot with a view to creating a soft background in contrast to the solid shape with gentle highlights from an Autumn sun. I think it works well and definitely achieved what I set out to do.
50mm Prime. f2.8 @ 1/8000 ISO 1600
Image 2. This was taken on our summer holiday in France. Outside our gite was a Buddleia (AKA Butterfly Bush) which was alive with butterflies. The rationale behind the shallow DoF here was to try to eliminate the distracting foreground foliage of the bush. I took plenty of shots, and some were better than this, but this does exemplify how useful a shallow DoF can be.
75-300 zoom. f5.6 @ 1/3000 ISO 800
Image 3. If you look very carefully at this image you can see just how narrow the DoF is, it literally picks out a single line of barbs amongst a whole leaf full.
24-105 zoom. f6.7 @ 1/250 ISO 100
Image 4. This image is the one that needs to have been approached in a slightly different way. Although I achieved something close to what I had in mind, I think that in hindsight I should have been closer to the sunglasses to get a much shallower DoF. So to get the same composition (I like how much of the frame is/isn’t filled by the sunglasses) I would need to change to my 75-300mm lens. The trade-off is that the image would be further flattened, but I think it would still work better than the current shot.
24-105 zoom. f5.6 @ 1/750 ISO 200
Where a shallow depth of field can isolate and enhance a specific object within a frame, a deep depth of field can achieve a number of objectives. Ansel Adams used a deep DoF to great effect in much of his work to record the beauty and multitude of intricacies within his vast landscapes, allowing the eye to rove and wander, much like the rambler. However, Fay Godwin, active member and leader of The Ramblers Association between 1987-1990, used the same depth of field in a more inventive way. She was able to create juxtapositions within images and black humour too.
Godwin, Fay. 1989, Duke of Westminster’s estate. Vintage Publishing.
The image above is a perfect example. With her camera hyperfocal settings in place, she presents an image where everything (almost) is in focus. In doing so we get a feel for the isolation of the signpost and therefore its futility and indeed pointlessness. With a short DoF all of this would be lost and the post viewed in isolation with no context.
This is a similar image of mine which was shot about a year before approaching this project.
f5.6 @1/250 sec. ISO 800 subject distance 6.5 m. focal length 58.mm. lens Canon EF24-105.
I only needed to get the foreground in focus, so was able to focus a little beyond the post to get the desired effect. The result gives order and direction to the reading of the image, enhancing the humour created by the use of unsubtle semiotics. In addition, the confused footprints going nowhere in the foreground add to the humour of the image.
Photographers such as Gianluca Cosci and Mona Kuhn, who’s work I particularly like and have tried imitate, are renowned for there use of a shallow depth of field. Cosci’s work is typically shot from a very low level and on the streets, which give it a rather dirty feel to, with apertures being extreme (shallow) in nature. His work is pointing out and isolating the minutiae of that which we pass by and tread under foot. I much prefer the work of Kuhn, who, in one of her projects lived with a group of young people who were happy with each other and with their own nudity. Kuhn photographed their interactions and the relationships and tensions within the group. The body of work was shot (deliberately) out of focus. It was sufficient to remove any pornographic feel from the images, but at the same time added a certain delicate grace to the situation, yet still being able to convey they tensions and feelings within the group.
I see! 