This really ruffled some peoples feathers. Oh well, if your feathers aren't reffuled then maybe you should sign up to my email list to be the first to hear about my European photobook www.maxkent.co.uk/ (It'll pop up after a few seconds). Nice one
I shoot it 2.8 from 24mm to 200mm with my 2 beloved lenses. It's still a matter for me to consider though. And I'm supper happy I decided to go for the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 (e mount), because it's just soooo awesome, and I don't really need that 85mm 1.4, this is exactly what I needed. At night for events I obviously need 2.8 but other wise this weekend I tried out shooting at lower f/stops I'm excited to improve my photography ;)
@@yashwinning for me it means simply that he is incompetent , all depends on the lens and no really competent professional would force others what and what not to do. Or as my photography teacher with more awards than i could count in the 80s said , only thing you need to know is the interaction between asa , focal and shutterspeed. Take the books about how to make good photos and throw em away , make the pictures as you feel , following rules only means you copy someone else , there is no art or skill in that. Does not mean you cant take tips or tricks if you are blocked somewhere , but try first yourself.
Yep. Those do and don't videos are just pure nonsense. For instance huge part of large format photography is just about this super shallow depth of field.
Been full-time commercial photographer since 2000. Wide open has its place and closed down has its place. Neither right or wrong. What I have noticed in commercial jobs is that nearly all my clients ask for focus all the way thru the image. This was not the norm in early 2000s when you could use fairly open aperture. I think images on smaller devices sometimes look a bit flat when using wide open lens, hence the demand for complete focus.
Here's on YT everything's black or white bus in photography it's not, there's a specific set of settings for every scenario, also work in the industry and boy oh boy Ytrs just want to be "THAT" opinion that applies to all.
Finally someone who actually understands that photographic choices are never universally right or wrong, but needs to be made according to what you want to achieve. This video sadly adds to hundreds of other oversimplified messages like this. It strikes me as odd that so many RUclipsrs are amateurs catering to other amateurs.
@Zizos I have autofocus lenses. Most of my primes are Panasonic, since I have a Panasonic body, so I can take advantage of the dfd AF tech. Really like the 15mm f1.7 and the 25mm f1.7 for street and events.
Avoiding f1.8 is all fun and games until it gets dark and your subject is moving. It’s not just about shallow depth of field. It’s about letting in more light when there isn’t enough.
You are right... I used f/5 and it was wonderful for portraits. // One thing I would like to add, is f/1.8 f/1.4 is good many times for low light conditions. Sometimes the only thing that will give you a nice shot during those conditions - is cranking the aperture to allow enough light to enter in.
@@MrDwyaneWadeFlash3 lol, flash is a tool, but isn't the same as the real light. For Club photography I mostly shoot at 1.8 in order to capture the real light. Ambient changes when flash comes in. Its a good tool, but it isn't for all cases.
@@juancruzlehmann2959 so say a f1.4 versus an f3.5, which allows more light in, or is ,"Wider." I don't know videography terminology. I just assume the lower the f stop, in this case, say f1.4, is allowing more bokeh.
As a complete novice with film photography, I appreciate your video. Some really good nuggets for me to think about next time I go out and take photographs.
The photographer James Popsys got me to almost completely stop using a wide aperture for photo and video. What made it click for me was when he showed how he always turned down the “clarity” slider in the edit. I realised that what I disliked was the unnatural level of sharpness and micro contrast
layers of light is a very good concept to learn. it is possible to jump straight to the more positive advice. art is art, just because one of us isnt into f2 at the moment doesnt mean that others of us (both creators and a variety of audiences) cant be into that at the moment
That’s it Bruce, it’s a tool and if you know why you’re using it then it’s great! If you rely on it too much and you don’t really know why, that can be a problem 🌞
All brilliant ideas. At the end of the day, it's all about your style. Or as a creative tool to do something most lens can't, Why we buy a f1.2 or 1.4.
Although if the setting is busy you won't get background separation and the person will blend in. That's not good either. Even shallow depths of fields show enough of the background to figure out what you seeing.
@@LeprutzThe 5D began the destruction of cinematography, and Red drove the knife in. It’s as if large sensors and low noise floors made everyone forget how to light. Gregg Toland must be spinning. I shudder to think what Citizen Kane would look like shot by a typical cinematographer today.
Highly recommend everyone to refer to videos that actually educate you on what exactly a lower vs. higher aperture does for your photos, so that you are aware of their technical and aesthetic strengths. Though cinematography can be a great reference sometimes, it is not the same as photography. This is a basic overview at best. Don’t be fooled into thinking that lower apertures are nonsense. Yes shoot at 1.2. Are your photos blurry? That means you’re doing wrong, hun. And as street photographers would say, ‘F8 and be there.’ Absolutely know how to use both. It will make you a better photographer, I promise. Using one over the other, however, will not.
Everyone seems to miss that shooting wide open isn't always for "creamy backgrounds" but as a communication tool to direct the viewer to the intended subject.
The author of the video says it about 18 seconds in and repeats it at about 40s, separation of subject from background. I don't think many people are missing this fact.
I shoot in darker places/inside most of the time, so I usually use a wide aperture. But im using an apsc camera, so the amount of background separation is less than on full frame. There is a use for both low and high aperture 👍
also apsc has a crop factor of focal length and we forget the F number is calculated by focal length divided by aperture diameter, so when a crop sensor multiplies the focal length by 1.5 it also does so to the F number, this is almost always a bit more than a full stop, F/5.6 for example in an apsc sensor looks like F/8 (5.6x1.5= 8.4, or the longer way: F/5.6 in a 50mm lens is an ~8.93mm aperture, with a 1.5 crop it's a 75mm lens, with the same 8.93mm aperture diameter it's F/8.4)
Exactly. Not to forget wide aperture on wideangle lenses is a must. It's way easier to create background seperation with a telelens. And with the autofocus systems nowadays i do not hesitate to use f1.2/1.4/1.8 etc.
It's so easy to fall into the wide open trap. Even I still shoot wide open majority of the time. What can I say, the shallow depth of field just looks so nice and its fun watching the DoF move as you frame up. However, I think story is key to photography and often that means context. I often think of a video I watched years ago from a RUclipsr, I think his name is Manny, doing outdoor speedlight photography and he was at a beach and was showing how to balance daylight with the highspeed flash allowing him to shooter faster shutters, thus open up his aperture. He showed 2 examples, one at a standard 1/200 shutter meaning he had to stop down to f5.6 I think, and then the option he considered the "best" which was highspeed sync allowing him to be at his f1.8 or whatever it was. Thing was the f5.6 was so much better because the model was standing at the beach with the ocean behind here and a yacht was in the water framed in one of the 3rds, at F5.6 she was separated from the background but you could still make out what was around her and placed her in her environment and it told a story (a barebones one, but a story nonetheless) At f1.8 the yacht was completely blurred and you couldn't really tell where she was. All I could think is why bother doing environmental portraiture if you're going to blur it to the point that you can't see where they are, just shoot it in a studio at that point. Was such an innocuous video but was such an eye opener for me, especially because that wasn't even the point of the video it was just my own intuition that came to this conclusion.
As a new photographer I really liked this way of explanation, espcially the layers of light. I have all the other f stops, I want to learn to use them, and looking at my photos and recognising where I could have perhaps done things different is in part down to this video. Moving forward now into filming this has also added more thought about my lens shopping list. Thank you man.
As a beginner who uses the old x100 currently, F2.8-F8 is insurance against the camera suddenly deciding that your focus is incorrect. I've realized that F2.8 indoors in low light is a lot better to not miss focus than F2.0, and F4-F8 can be very good in street photography, to have your subject quite sharp even if the old camera doesnt focus well (as well as using back button focus so you can pre focus on an area if you are waiting for a subject). Auto Apperture pretty much always wants to shoot in 2.0, so this quirk has made me learn how to use manual and apperture priority.
I can shoot in F1.8 using a m4/3 camera and get the toneh of a full frame lens at F3,6. But have vastly more light entering, which is beneficial for low light. Even at F1 your m4/3 sensor will have toneh of full frame F2.
I agree! I’ve been shooting on my 18-135 3.5-5.6 on my 70D instead of my 50 1.8 and it made me realize this, DOF does not make a good image, and if you’re constantly relying on it you need to reconsider your shots; I’ve had a similar thing for a few months with long focal lengths, I would only shoot 80+ mm FF equivalent lenses, until I picked up a Sigma 30mm 1.4 (48mm FF equivalent) and I realized what I was missing out on, not only with the extra sharpness(I mean seriously, it’s sharper than the 1.8 at 1.4 than the 1.8 is at 2.2) but how great car interior shots can look! It’s not my favorite for the full vehicle shots I’ve done, but maybe with sporty cars it would look good.
As much as I love the background being “a mess of nothing” for portrait-style shots of people and animals… filling the frame, with the rule of thirds for eyes and a bokeh background kind of is photography in easy mode. I have noticed that I find shooting like that easier than larger scenes and have been making an effort to shoot with more backgrounds. I love how you explained the shadow-side. It pairs nicely with an idea from another video about how “light should wrap around objects to create depth”. The whole wrapping idea has been a game changer for how I understand lighting (as I simply didn’t get it at all before that). Thanks for these tips!
It is solid advice. The wide open aperture can definitely be a crutch and relied on too much. I use it all the time, but I started using it when it was not necessary and it just made me miss shots or not really think enough of the entire composition. People getting offended and not understanding the message are just not critical thinkers.
Thank you for sharing your knowledge and opinion! I love shooting wide-open, I'm guilty of shooting it all the time! Part of it is because you paid for the 1.4 or 1.8 and have the tendency to make the most out of your money 😂! This gives me the confidence to close it down more often and challenge myself to use other cinematography techniques to create depth! Love your confidence, brother! Keep up the good work you're doing
Low aperture is not to add depth but to isolate a subject from a distracting background. A big part of sharpness is shutter speed, 125/s is a lot softer than 500-1000/s.
Let's not forget that the focal length changes the depth of field (also the sensor size). With my 28mm I can get a lot in focus with the lens more open, now with my 50mm, even in 5.6, sometimes I can't get everything in focus. For example, if I shoot a group shot with the 28mm at f.2.8, I get everyone in focus, even if there is someone more in front than the other, now with the 50mm I need at least F4 or F5.6 to get all faces in focus.
Same here! I used to be very fixated on getting a blurry background, while I now pay way more attention to other things. It’s all about the process. Learning how light works and getting better at it with every shot is key.
Good stuff. Q: What is the purpose of photography? A: Telling a story. Use the tools available to you to tell the story you want to tell. There will be various elements in a given scene. Include only the elements essential to the story. Crop the rest. If sharp details in the background improve the story, include them. If not, blur them.
I agree. The fashion for depth of field swings back and forth but, ultimately it’s about the genre you shoot and how you like your pictures to look. Shooting narrow DoF is no more a characteristic of new photographers than shooting everything at f11. Manufacturers do need to keep selling us new lenses though so they need to promote enormous lenses with apertures of f1.4 or wider!
I don't mind an enormous lens with f/1.4 but basically every modern f/1.4 is gives ugly bokeh so I don't bother with them and stick to vintage glass which is cheap :D
Good points, a lot of people rely way too much on that background blur. I mean, it also makes sense when you are starting as a beginner, since it's a very easy tool to use, it only relies on investing in the right lens, and it does create something decent most of the time so it is reliable in some way. Compared to having to compose your shot better which is less reliable as a beginner. Although mushy backgrounds and heavy subject separation obviously have their place and they're still important shots to have, it's not a bad idea to learn how to give your shots some variation and how to create good shots that don't rely on a mushy background. That's also a reason why I am usually more impressed when I see a very well crafted cinematic video shot on an iPhone, because I know more work and creativity went into the craft, since you can't really rely on background blur to make your shots look good.
Wow that was super insightful, thank you! I usually was going for more light to have my pictures brighter, I guess I’ll need to see how they turn out when I do go for less openess, it seems I might have overestimated brightness
I too love smaller apertures cause it creates the sharpest images, and sometimes on wide apertures, if the subject has depth, the edges of the subject can go blurry as well. F4-F8 FTW
Amazing, that'a all i needed. The thing is that our eyes blur what's not in our current focus (duh), and the magic is making things come in and out of fucus in the spectator's eye. Not just throwing out your background, giving people a chance to come back and fourth between different plans. Can you make a video showing how to balance the amount of blur with the right exposition?
Most people shooting at wide open apertures like f1.8 are just creating blurry images. Background separation of the subject works well when you need it, but most photos just looks like a blurry image. I'm glad to see more and more people talking about this because most of the time, the background helps to tell a story, when its all blurry you really need the subject to be golden.
I agree with a lot of what you’re saying. I started studying images that I admired and they all had deep depths of field (expect portraits) I shoot a lot of film and I think that medium thrives with deeper depths of field.
Another way to create depth is distance to subject. On close portraits, you can shoot at f 8 and still have the background defocused. But most important is DOF is a tool and it must fit your image/visualization of that scene. Sometimes it asks for a shallow DOF, sometimes not. Thanks for the video and showing the work of Robbie Lawrence!
My experience with shooting wide open is that different lenses have their own sweet spot when it comes to aperture. It's a matter of understanding your lens. Shooting wide open is what you'd call, "Pushing your lens to the limit". You're bending more light, and you tend to introduce more chromatic aberration, fringing, and muddy highlights in contrasty scenes. You should only use it when you really need to grab as much light from a dark scene as possible.
I have never been a fan of shooting wide open using apertures lower than f 4. I absolutely love having as many things in focus as possible in my photos. I love the idea of taking images with plenty of layers and details. I don't care at all about the sought after bokeh effect. I only shoot wide open when it is getting dark and I need more light in my photos.
i’ve moved more to f/2.8 for filming and often photographs and when shooting film, i’m more focused on having a good shutter speed for handheld, and a smaller aperture doesn’t bother me, if anything i’ve began slowing down my shutter speed to increase my aperture
I would say that what separates a good photographer from a beginner is the ability to read and use light to create meaningful photos and when to use shallow depth of field and when to include the background and environment to give context and tell a more complete story, when I started shooting events, i started paying more attention to lightning and how it would influence my photos, when you are photographing weddings understanding lightning is very important, one other skill required is how to pose people that come in all shapes and sizes and skintones. Before I photographed events I photographed landscape wildlife and other subjects in different lighting and weather conditions but event photography pushed me like no other, working for other people and producing photos fot some one other than my self, was the hardest thing i have done as a photographer. Their is no room for errors.
shot my entire film at T5.6 on an S35 sensor, had enough DOF to make the image look pleasing while keeping the subject in focus and making ym AC's lifea little easier.
Awesome video. I’ve been avoiding 1.8 (or lower if possible) for sometime, but mostly for what I knew about sharpness. I’m a little obsessed with sharpness, and reading lots of reviews with stats show how at say f2.8, there’s virtually no difference in sharpness between an f1.8 lens and an equivalent f1.4 lens. Save money on lenses too!! Rule of thumb I know there are exceptions.
i have my grandpa's old camera (from 1930s/40s) and I always use f 11 for middle things (it goes up til f16) I can't really see if it is sharp. I just have to hope for the best. my dad kinda said one get's an eye for it. really interesting and I think he's kinda right.
This is the hard truth many people are not ready to hear. Using shallow dof as a crutch, consciously or not, limits you as a photographer. Some outgrow it, others don't, but when you do, you realize how much more difficult removing that crutch can make things, but the payoff is worthwhile.
Agreed. As someone who was trained by professional film photographers I can tell you with confidence that the sweet spot of any lens is 2-3 stops closed from its maximum aperture. So if you own a F1.8 lens, then it will perform best at F4-5.6. Vintage lenses particularly, usually perform poorly wide open. Because they were never designed to be shot wide open.
I got a f/2.8 135mm Minolta lens I've been shooting on, and even the f/2.8 can be too strong at times, being near impossible to nail focus for video as a scene shifts because the throw is just massive for a 135mm. Literally the focus throw is so huge (it's like using a PL lens), I thought the lens was doing something weird with its nonexistent autofocus features on a manual focus adapter (because the slightest difference in distance change means it'll defocus if I'm not continuously pulling focus, mix that in with how fast the lens snaps back to focus when you find an object of that same distance that you can instantly get focus onto, so quickly I was convinced that was an autofocus feature lmao). There are some incredible uses with that aperture, but if I'm trying to capture video, stepping down has saved my sanity since it doesn't require me to buy a follow focus system and 15mm rail system. 1.8 is great if you have an external monitor and good focus peaking, because trying to eyeball it through a tiny LCD monitor or EVH is much slower than big monitor with good assist technology. Me likey big monitor, but if I want to go compact, that fast aperture is a bigger headache than not, especially the more telephoto your lens is.
Basically there is a time and place for extremely wide apertures, if you bought an f1.2 or 1.4 lens you shouldn't be focusing only on using that. That's why aperture is not fixed, use your lenses to the fullest, change things up a bit
You can get great separation from a subject to background at higher f stops than 1.8. I've gotten good separation at f 3.5 on my nikon kit lens. The bokeh isn't as strong, but it still does the job.
F2.8 is probably my favorite not too shallow to cause a majority of the subject to be out of focus up close, shot a photo of my dog at 1.8 and only his nose was in focus and everything else was blurry
It depends on what you’re shooting. When shooting sports, a shallow depth of field (f3.5 or f4) can really help give the subject separation, since it is very difficult to actually control the background if you can at all. Just an example. Also, for close headshots I usually use a longer portrait lens at f2.8… absolutely trying to obliterate the background because it’s not an environmental portrait.
Yes, I did exactly the same. Stopped shooting at f/1.8 and started to shoot at f/1.4 with Sigma primes 40mm and 105mm on both fullframe and medium format 44x33mm.
This is why I love Micro Four Third system. You allow the same light but the aperture is doubled. Which means a MFT F2 will capture FullFrame F2 light but the depth of field will look like FullFrame F4.
i think shooting film has shown me the value in stopping down. did it because I had too because of the static ISO and limited shutter speed, but now i stop down in digital too
I think it's more important to know when to use the lens wide open and when to close it down. I don't see anything wrong with taking pictures at the widest aperture if there's a reason for it. If all of us started going for f8 all the time, in 20 years you'll see videos with 'stop taking photos at f8, they suck'. A photo can suck at any aperture anyway.
Four Thirds sensor is the perfect balance between size, depth of field and image quality. Also f1.8 is perfect on MFT since it's f3.6 DOF on FF. 🙂 f1.2 is nice for the shallow DOF look too.
There is a book called f5.6 by Bogdan Dziworski. That book opened my eyes to the beauty of 5.6. For landscapes f.8 is perfect. For portraits, everything between f.9 and f4, depending on the subjects distance and light available.
I basically only use wide open for low light to keep shutter speeds and iso in check. You can create background blur and separation by getting closer to your subject.
When I started studying photography I used 1.8 aperture on my nifty fifty most of the time just to lower my iso so I don't get a lot of noise from my old canon dslr sensor
I love shooting full frame 50mm f1. I think as iPhone pictures increase in quality, it’s pushing other photographers, like myself to try and use methods that separate our photos from the smart phones. I’m noticing it a lot more background bokeh on tv and in movies these days too.
I shoot wide open on all my lenses. I use my Xiaomi 14 Ultra for photography and some videography as my primary camera. I also have the Pocket 3 and ZV E1.
I photograph for a DJing school and shoot at clubs, events, parties and concerts. Under these conditions, you can't really use a flash. You dint want to daze subjects or interfere with the dark and hazy ambiance of the room. Since most of my shooting is done indoors, I get a ton of interesting artificial lighting to work with. So, I need the wide aperture in order to work with the scene as is. I get a ton of good results, though that might be because try to avoid shooting at iso 16000, due ti my older camera with a fuzzier sensor. Looking forward to upgrading to a ZF though, hopefully that'll give me a few more options rather than buttery 50mm bokeh and an almost impressionist look.
I completely understand the sentiment of the video and there is some great advice in here. Re: the video and some comments, however: What I often don't get in these debates is the lack of mentioning a "why". Almost every example here is a street shot, or an environmental portrait...a genre that, 95% of the time, is defined by "environments". Of course shooting this with a 1.4 or 1.8 defeats the purpose in many cases. More importantly though, the "why": why do you want to shoot at 1.8? Why would you not want to shoot at 1.8? Find reasons for both. Being _intentional_ is the most important element of art, since art is communication. There *are* reasons to shoot wide open -- low light, messy/distracting backgrounds, creating a sense of intense intimacy or focus in a photo -- but doing so because bOkEh is a fairly disinteresting artistic motivation.
On almost a daily basis, I test and check many very expensive 'fast' German lenses. On the whole, when shot wide-open, shots of distant subjects tend to look very disappointing to the point that the lens appears sub-standard in some way but I see it all the time. I wouldn't expect anybody would want to do landscapes at f1.1 but stop down a bit and the image pops. For close subjects, shooting wide open seems much more acceptable, in fact adding an artistic element to portraits etc. Just saying...
Yup. Say those unpopular things. So many people seem to fall down the rabbit hole of low light means open up the aperture, when there's a bit of a decision point in there somewhere regarding upping the ISO and/or adding light to keep from compromising what you're trying to do. Or that not every background needs to be blurred into oblivion; there's value in avoiding having nostrils in focus but not the eyes - forget about ears or hair. If wide open is someone's style preference, do your thing. But, it isn't the only way to work, and isn't even the best way as often as folks say "creamy blurry background" in YT videos.
You know I kinda laughed when people questioned me why do I stop down the aperature so much. Shallow depth of field doesn't always look good. Plus it's too hard to focus with it.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
This really ruffled some peoples feathers. Oh well, if your feathers aren't reffuled then maybe you should sign up to my email list to be the first to hear about my European photobook www.maxkent.co.uk/ (It'll pop up after a few seconds). Nice one
I shoot at 1.4, glad I did not make the mistake to go up to 1.8.
Thanks mate.
I shoot it 2.8 from 24mm to 200mm with my 2 beloved lenses. It's still a matter for me to consider though. And I'm supper happy I decided to go for the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 (e mount), because it's just soooo awesome, and I don't really need that 85mm 1.4, this is exactly what I needed.
At night for events I obviously need 2.8 but other wise this weekend I tried out shooting at lower f/stops I'm excited to improve my photography ;)
*laughs in 1.2*
Those are some bougee numbers
😂
Shooting at 1.2 all the time is a mark of a noob.
@@ShutterKnack You don't say...
1.2 noob here. If I wanted deep dof, I would have stuck with my phone.
As an F1.2 shooter this is deeply offensive and borders on hate speech. You'll be hearing from my lawyer
lol i am a firm believer in the f2 so i will be his defence.
@@CZOV you better lawyer up too then bucko, F1.2 is the only way and i will NOT tolerate any slander
😂
@@yashwinningbokeh is so men....
@@yashwinning for me it means simply that he is incompetent , all depends on the lens and no really competent professional would force others what and what not to do.
Or as my photography teacher with more awards than i could count in the 80s said , only thing you need to know is the interaction between asa , focal and shutterspeed.
Take the books about how to make good photos and throw em away , make the pictures as you feel , following rules only means you copy someone else , there is no art or skill in that.
Does not mean you cant take tips or tricks if you are blocked somewhere , but try first yourself.
Right, i only use f0.95 now.
I laughed so hard hahahahhaahaha
lol! : )
Yep. Those do and don't videos are just pure nonsense. For instance huge part of large format photography is just about this super shallow depth of field.
Follow your heart and own vision
40% of subject’s face is in focus
The irony of this being shot with a shallow depth of field
Been full-time commercial photographer since 2000. Wide open has its place and closed down has its place. Neither right or wrong. What I have noticed in commercial jobs is that nearly all my clients ask for focus all the way thru the image. This was not the norm in early 2000s when you could use fairly open aperture. I think images on smaller devices sometimes look a bit flat when using wide open lens, hence the demand for complete focus.
omg an actually helpful comment.
Yep, the first sign of a semi-experienced photographer is speaking in absolutes.
Here's on YT everything's black or white bus in photography it's not, there's a specific set of settings for every scenario, also work in the industry and boy oh boy Ytrs just want to be "THAT" opinion that applies to all.
Finally someone who actually understands that photographic choices are never universally right or wrong, but needs to be made according to what you want to achieve. This video sadly adds to hundreds of other oversimplified messages like this. It strikes me as odd that so many RUclipsrs are amateurs catering to other amateurs.
laughs in micro four thirds.
My f1.8 is another man's f3.6
Going from m43 to ff feels like everybody is doing it wrong, so many reasonable sized overlooked lenses when you know you're happy at f3.6 lol.
I've only had the 12-35 f2.8.
f1.8 or 1.2 could be nice. Maybe a few primes could fill that "want".
@Zizos I mainly shoot with primes, it's really fun to work with a fixed focal length IMO. And they are so much faster than the zooms.
@@englematic The zoom was the first lens I got and I stuck with it. Did you get manual primes or electronic?
@Zizos I have autofocus lenses. Most of my primes are Panasonic, since I have a Panasonic body, so I can take advantage of the dfd AF tech. Really like the 15mm f1.7 and the 25mm f1.7 for street and events.
Avoiding f1.8 is all fun and games until it gets dark and your subject is moving. It’s not just about shallow depth of field. It’s about letting in more light when there isn’t enough.
Good point! His original point's are great too though.
But then it's like he said, a conscious decision!
You are right... I used f/5 and it was wonderful for portraits. // One thing I would like to add, is f/1.8 f/1.4 is good many times for low light conditions. Sometimes the only thing that will give you a nice shot during those conditions - is cranking the aperture to allow enough light to enter in.
wrong, learn to use flash
@@MrDwyaneWadeFlash3 - True. Flash is good inside. For outside night shots, even sometimes for sunsets, you need more.
How do I flash something 20ft away from me? @@MrDwyaneWadeFlash3
@@MrDwyaneWadeFlash3 lol, flash is a tool, but isn't the same as the real light. For Club photography I mostly shoot at 1.8 in order to capture the real light. Ambient changes when flash comes in. Its a good tool, but it isn't for all cases.
@@juancruzlehmann2959 so say a f1.4 versus an f3.5, which allows more light in, or is ,"Wider." I don't know videography terminology. I just assume the lower the f stop, in this case, say f1.4, is allowing more bokeh.
As a complete novice with film photography, I appreciate your video. Some really good nuggets for me to think about next time I go out and take photographs.
The photographer James Popsys got me to almost completely stop using a wide aperture for photo and video. What made it click for me was when he showed how he always turned down the “clarity” slider in the edit. I realised that what I disliked was the unnatural level of sharpness and micro contrast
dialing clarity a few notches down is a godsend for digital sensors
layers of light is a very good concept to learn. it is possible to jump straight to the more positive advice. art is art, just because one of us isnt into f2 at the moment doesnt mean that others of us (both creators and a variety of audiences) cant be into that at the moment
That’s it Bruce, it’s a tool and if you know why you’re using it then it’s great! If you rely on it too much and you don’t really know why, that can be a problem 🌞
All brilliant ideas. At the end of the day, it's all about your style. Or as a creative tool to do something most lens can't, Why we buy a f1.2 or 1.4.
I always wonder why people go to cool locations just to obliterate the background. I like seeing the person and setting
Although if the setting is busy you won't get background separation and the person will blend in. That's not good either. Even shallow depths of fields show enough of the background to figure out what you seeing.
Exactly my point. It's happening in movies, with duch amazing backgrounds and nothing is visible.
Just horrible.
@@LeprutzThe 5D began the destruction of cinematography, and Red drove the knife in. It’s as if large sensors and low noise floors made everyone forget how to light. Gregg Toland must be spinning. I shudder to think what Citizen Kane would look like shot by a typical cinematographer today.
Did not expect to be told not to shoot at max aperture by someone named Max.
you are absolutely right, man. I spent years chasing wide aperture lenses and then realize all the stuff you are talking about
Thank you for making this. All art has its creators that don’t think outside the box as often as they should. It’s good to be versatile.
Highly recommend everyone to refer to videos that actually educate you on what exactly a lower vs. higher aperture does for your photos, so that you are aware of their technical and aesthetic strengths. Though cinematography can be a great reference sometimes, it is not the same as photography. This is a basic overview at best. Don’t be fooled into thinking that lower apertures are nonsense. Yes shoot at 1.2. Are your photos blurry? That means you’re doing wrong, hun. And as street photographers would say, ‘F8 and be there.’ Absolutely know how to use both. It will make you a better photographer, I promise. Using one over the other, however, will not.
Everyone seems to miss that shooting wide open isn't always for "creamy backgrounds" but as a communication tool to direct the viewer to the intended subject.
The author of the video says it about 18 seconds in and repeats it at about 40s, separation of subject from background. I don't think many people are missing this fact.
framing, leading lines, color. there’s really a lot of elements we can use to direct a viewer to the subject. I think that’s the point of the video
This is the equivalent of shouting "LOOOK HERE!!", whereas using guiding lines, tonal contrast, light and other techniques is much subtler
I shoot in darker places/inside most of the time, so I usually use a wide aperture. But im using an apsc camera, so the amount of background separation is less than on full frame.
There is a use for both low and high aperture 👍
also apsc has a crop factor of focal length and we forget the F number is calculated by focal length divided by aperture diameter, so when a crop sensor multiplies the focal length by 1.5 it also does so to the F number, this is almost always a bit more than a full stop, F/5.6 for example in an apsc sensor looks like F/8 (5.6x1.5= 8.4, or the longer way: F/5.6 in a 50mm lens is an ~8.93mm aperture, with a 1.5 crop it's a 75mm lens, with the same 8.93mm aperture diameter it's F/8.4)
@@soupslicer136 yea, this is what I meant lol. Just simplified it a bit :D
Exactly. Not to forget wide aperture on wideangle lenses is a must. It's way easier to create background seperation with a telelens. And with the autofocus systems nowadays i do not hesitate to use f1.2/1.4/1.8 etc.
This is bang on. I think an element of chasing the more wide open aperture come from video and working with low light.
It's so easy to fall into the wide open trap. Even I still shoot wide open majority of the time. What can I say, the shallow depth of field just looks so nice and its fun watching the DoF move as you frame up. However, I think story is key to photography and often that means context. I often think of a video I watched years ago from a RUclipsr, I think his name is Manny, doing outdoor speedlight photography and he was at a beach and was showing how to balance daylight with the highspeed flash allowing him to shooter faster shutters, thus open up his aperture. He showed 2 examples, one at a standard 1/200 shutter meaning he had to stop down to f5.6 I think, and then the option he considered the "best" which was highspeed sync allowing him to be at his f1.8 or whatever it was. Thing was the f5.6 was so much better because the model was standing at the beach with the ocean behind here and a yacht was in the water framed in one of the 3rds, at F5.6 she was separated from the background but you could still make out what was around her and placed her in her environment and it told a story (a barebones one, but a story nonetheless) At f1.8 the yacht was completely blurred and you couldn't really tell where she was. All I could think is why bother doing environmental portraiture if you're going to blur it to the point that you can't see where they are, just shoot it in a studio at that point. Was such an innocuous video but was such an eye opener for me, especially because that wasn't even the point of the video it was just my own intuition that came to this conclusion.
As a new photographer I really liked this way of explanation, espcially the layers of light. I have all the other f stops, I want to learn to use them, and looking at my photos and recognising where I could have perhaps done things different is in part down to this video. Moving forward now into filming this has also added more thought about my lens shopping list. Thank you man.
As a beginner who uses the old x100 currently, F2.8-F8 is insurance against the camera suddenly deciding that your focus is incorrect. I've realized that F2.8 indoors in low light is a lot better to not miss focus than F2.0, and F4-F8 can be very good in street photography, to have your subject quite sharp even if the old camera doesnt focus well (as well as using back button focus so you can pre focus on an area if you are waiting for a subject). Auto Apperture pretty much always wants to shoot in 2.0, so this quirk has made me learn how to use manual and apperture priority.
I can shoot in F1.8 using a m4/3 camera and get the toneh of a full frame lens at F3,6.
But have vastly more light entering, which is beneficial for low light.
Even at F1 your m4/3 sensor will have toneh of full frame F2.
I agree! I’ve been shooting on my 18-135 3.5-5.6 on my 70D instead of my 50 1.8 and it made me realize this, DOF does not make a good image, and if you’re constantly relying on it you need to reconsider your shots; I’ve had a similar thing for a few months with long focal lengths, I would only shoot 80+ mm FF equivalent lenses, until I picked up a Sigma 30mm 1.4 (48mm FF equivalent) and I realized what I was missing out on, not only with the extra sharpness(I mean seriously, it’s sharper than the 1.8 at 1.4 than the 1.8 is at 2.2) but how great car interior shots can look! It’s not my favorite for the full vehicle shots I’ve done, but maybe with sporty cars it would look good.
1.8 is pure gangsta, so is 1.2 . But , then again so is f11 if shot right. Bounce around the ap ring and bring that art to life.
As much as I love the background being “a mess of nothing” for portrait-style shots of people and animals… filling the frame, with the rule of thirds for eyes and a bokeh background kind of is photography in easy mode. I have noticed that I find shooting like that easier than larger scenes and have been making an effort to shoot with more backgrounds.
I love how you explained the shadow-side. It pairs nicely with an idea from another video about how “light should wrap around objects to create depth”. The whole wrapping idea has been a game changer for how I understand lighting (as I simply didn’t get it at all before that).
Thanks for these tips!
It is solid advice. The wide open aperture can definitely be a crutch and relied on too much. I use it all the time, but I started using it when it was not necessary and it just made me miss shots or not really think enough of the entire composition. People getting offended and not understanding the message are just not critical thinkers.
Thank you for sharing your knowledge and opinion! I love shooting wide-open, I'm guilty of shooting it all the time! Part of it is because you paid for the 1.4 or 1.8 and have the tendency to make the most out of your money 😂! This gives me the confidence to close it down more often and challenge myself to use other cinematography techniques to create depth!
Love your confidence, brother! Keep up the good work you're doing
Low aperture is not to add depth but to isolate a subject from a distracting background.
A big part of sharpness is shutter speed, 125/s is a lot softer than 500-1000/s.
Let's not forget that the focal length changes the depth of field (also the sensor size). With my 28mm I can get a lot in focus with the lens more open, now with my 50mm, even in 5.6, sometimes I can't get everything in focus. For example, if I shoot a group shot with the 28mm at f.2.8, I get everyone in focus, even if there is someone more in front than the other, now with the 50mm I need at least F4 or F5.6 to get all faces in focus.
Same here! I used to be very fixated on getting a blurry background, while I now pay way more attention to other things. It’s all about the process. Learning how light works and getting better at it with every shot is key.
Good stuff. Q: What is the purpose of photography? A: Telling a story. Use the tools available to you to tell the story you want to tell. There will be various elements in a given scene. Include only the elements essential to the story. Crop the rest. If sharp details in the background improve the story, include them. If not, blur them.
I agree. The fashion for depth of field swings back and forth but, ultimately it’s about the genre you shoot and how you like your pictures to look. Shooting narrow DoF is no more a characteristic of new photographers than shooting everything at f11. Manufacturers do need to keep selling us new lenses though so they need to promote enormous lenses with apertures of f1.4 or wider!
I don't mind an enormous lens with f/1.4 but basically every modern f/1.4 is gives ugly bokeh so I don't bother with them and stick to vintage glass which is cheap :D
I have paid for f1.2, I shoot at f1.2 :D
If you’re splashing the cash you might aswell Pavel 😅
But don't you only get one eye in focus and blur out the rest of the face using Tony 1.2🤣
@@letni9506 True, true. I said it more as a joke.
@@letni9506no. You’ll be surprised at how great 1.2 looks when you get a bride walking down the aisle in a shit lit church!
@@letni9506You can do full body portraits or even shoot larger subjects and you still get nice background separation at f/1.2.
Good points, a lot of people rely way too much on that background blur. I mean, it also makes sense when you are starting as a beginner, since it's a very easy tool to use, it only relies on investing in the right lens, and it does create something decent most of the time so it is reliable in some way. Compared to having to compose your shot better which is less reliable as a beginner.
Although mushy backgrounds and heavy subject separation obviously have their place and they're still important shots to have, it's not a bad idea to learn how to give your shots some variation and how to create good shots that don't rely on a mushy background.
That's also a reason why I am usually more impressed when I see a very well crafted cinematic video shot on an iPhone, because I know more work and creativity went into the craft, since you can't really rely on background blur to make your shots look good.
Nice video this.
Will be saying "Layrs o liiyt" to myself today.
Great video! I agree and notice that most people also use fast apertures to allow them to be lazy about their background choice.
Wow that was super insightful, thank you! I usually was going for more light to have my pictures brighter, I guess I’ll need to see how they turn out when I do go for less openess, it seems I might have overestimated brightness
I too love smaller apertures cause it creates the sharpest images, and sometimes on wide apertures, if the subject has depth, the edges of the subject can go blurry as well. F4-F8 FTW
Amazing, that'a all i needed. The thing is that our eyes blur what's not in our current focus (duh), and the magic is making things come in and out of fucus in the spectator's eye. Not just throwing out your background, giving people a chance to come back and fourth between different plans. Can you make a video showing how to balance the amount of blur with the right exposition?
"Ok."
[Shoots in f1.4] 🗿
Most people shooting at wide open apertures like f1.8 are just creating blurry images. Background separation of the subject works well when you need it, but most photos just looks like a blurry image.
I'm glad to see more and more people talking about this because most of the time, the background helps to tell a story, when its all blurry you really need the subject to be golden.
It's ironic that we use a "shallow" depth of field to create "depth".
Really great video. I feel like I've learnt a lot and will experiment with more apertures
I agree with a lot of what you’re saying. I started studying images that I admired and they all had deep depths of field (expect portraits) I shoot a lot of film and I think that medium thrives with deeper depths of field.
Another way to create depth is distance to subject. On close portraits, you can shoot at f 8 and still have the background defocused. But most important is DOF is a tool and it must fit your image/visualization of that scene. Sometimes it asks for a shallow DOF, sometimes not.
Thanks for the video and showing the work of Robbie Lawrence!
My experience with shooting wide open is that different lenses have their own sweet spot when it comes to aperture. It's a matter of understanding your lens. Shooting wide open is what you'd call, "Pushing your lens to the limit". You're bending more light, and you tend to introduce more chromatic aberration, fringing, and muddy highlights in contrasty scenes. You should only use it when you really need to grab as much light from a dark scene as possible.
I have never been a fan of shooting wide open using apertures lower than f 4. I absolutely love having as many things in focus as possible in my photos. I love the idea of taking images with plenty of layers and details. I don't care at all about the sought after bokeh effect. I only shoot wide open when it is getting dark and I need more light in my photos.
i’ve moved more to f/2.8 for filming and often photographs
and when shooting film, i’m more focused on having a good shutter speed for handheld, and a smaller aperture doesn’t bother me, if anything i’ve began slowing down my shutter speed to increase my aperture
I would say that what separates a good photographer from a beginner is the ability to read and use light to create meaningful photos and when to use shallow depth of field and when to include the background and environment to give context and tell a more complete story, when I started shooting events, i started paying more attention to lightning and how it would influence my photos, when you are photographing weddings understanding lightning is very important, one other skill required is how to pose people that come in all shapes and sizes and skintones. Before I photographed events I photographed landscape wildlife and other subjects in different lighting and weather conditions but event photography pushed me like no other, working for other people and producing photos fot some one other than my self, was the hardest thing i have done as a photographer. Their is no room for errors.
shot my entire film at T5.6 on an S35 sensor, had enough DOF to make the image look pleasing while keeping the subject in focus and making ym AC's lifea little easier.
Awesome video. I’ve been avoiding 1.8 (or lower if possible) for sometime, but mostly for what I knew about sharpness. I’m a little obsessed with sharpness, and reading lots of reviews with stats show how at say f2.8, there’s virtually no difference in sharpness between an f1.8 lens and an equivalent f1.4 lens. Save money on lenses too!! Rule of thumb I know there are exceptions.
F8 and be there!
i have my grandpa's old camera (from 1930s/40s) and I always use f 11 for middle things (it goes up til f16) I can't really see if it is sharp. I just have to hope for the best. my dad kinda said one get's an eye for it. really interesting and I think he's kinda right.
This is the hard truth many people are not ready to hear. Using shallow dof as a crutch, consciously or not, limits you as a photographer. Some outgrow it, others don't, but when you do, you realize how much more difficult removing that crutch can make things, but the payoff is worthwhile.
Agreed. As someone who was trained by professional film photographers I can tell you with confidence that the sweet spot of any lens is 2-3 stops closed from its maximum aperture. So if you own a F1.8 lens, then it will perform best at F4-5.6. Vintage lenses particularly, usually perform poorly wide open. Because they were never designed to be shot wide open.
Nice surprise to find pictures of my town in this video
I got a f/2.8 135mm Minolta lens I've been shooting on, and even the f/2.8 can be too strong at times, being near impossible to nail focus for video as a scene shifts because the throw is just massive for a 135mm. Literally the focus throw is so huge (it's like using a PL lens), I thought the lens was doing something weird with its nonexistent autofocus features on a manual focus adapter (because the slightest difference in distance change means it'll defocus if I'm not continuously pulling focus, mix that in with how fast the lens snaps back to focus when you find an object of that same distance that you can instantly get focus onto, so quickly I was convinced that was an autofocus feature lmao). There are some incredible uses with that aperture, but if I'm trying to capture video, stepping down has saved my sanity since it doesn't require me to buy a follow focus system and 15mm rail system.
1.8 is great if you have an external monitor and good focus peaking, because trying to eyeball it through a tiny LCD monitor or EVH is much slower than big monitor with good assist technology. Me likey big monitor, but if I want to go compact, that fast aperture is a bigger headache than not, especially the more telephoto your lens is.
Very interesting. I used to use hyperfocal at f/11 28mm in the 90's
Nice Chris 🙏
This is the reason why i am happy with my Sony 20-70g f4. What a bang for buck lens :)
Same. Pairs extremely well with my zv-e1 for travel.
My A7riii only comes out for professional shoots now😅
Basically there is a time and place for extremely wide apertures, if you bought an f1.2 or 1.4 lens you shouldn't be focusing only on using that. That's why aperture is not fixed, use your lenses to the fullest, change things up a bit
You can get great separation from a subject to background at higher f stops than 1.8. I've gotten good separation at f 3.5 on my nikon kit lens. The bokeh isn't as strong, but it still does the job.
Great Video! Good food for thought for reflecting about usage of 1.8
F2.8 is probably my favorite not too shallow to cause a majority of the subject to be out of focus up close, shot a photo of my dog at 1.8 and only his nose was in focus and everything else was blurry
It depends on what you’re shooting. When shooting sports, a shallow depth of field (f3.5 or f4) can really help give the subject separation, since it is very difficult to actually control the background if you can at all. Just an example.
Also, for close headshots I usually use a longer portrait lens at f2.8… absolutely trying to obliterate the background because it’s not an environmental portrait.
Yes, I did exactly the same. Stopped shooting at f/1.8 and started to shoot at f/1.4 with Sigma primes 40mm and 105mm on both fullframe and medium format 44x33mm.
great video & loved the examples. gonna think about depth with light & color
This is why I love Micro Four Third system.
You allow the same light but the aperture is doubled. Which means a MFT F2 will capture FullFrame F2 light but the depth of field will look like FullFrame F4.
Aperture Isn't doubled. F2 will be f2 regardless the sensor size
So true! At the beginning I was shooting wide but now I see differently. Thank you for the video and for suggesting having a look at Robbie Lawrence.
San Sebastián and Cantabria spotted. Nice video !
🔥
Brilliant. Thank you for making this video. I needed to hear this and I agree with it. It makes sense
i think shooting film has shown me the value in stopping down. did it because I had too because of the static ISO and limited shutter speed, but now i stop down in digital too
I think it's more important to know when to use the lens wide open and when to close it down. I don't see anything wrong with taking pictures at the widest aperture if there's a reason for it. If all of us started going for f8 all the time, in 20 years you'll see videos with 'stop taking photos at f8, they suck'. A photo can suck at any aperture anyway.
Love your F 1.8 Footage
Four Thirds sensor is the perfect balance between size, depth of field and image quality. Also f1.8 is perfect on MFT since it's f3.6 DOF on FF. 🙂 f1.2 is nice for the shallow DOF look too.
There is a book called f5.6 by Bogdan Dziworski. That book opened my eyes to the beauty of 5.6. For landscapes f.8 is perfect. For portraits, everything between f.9 and f4, depending on the subjects distance and light available.
the shot at 4:50 is unreal!
Oh yeah! This was from one of my favourite projects, Britains mad traditions!
I basically only use wide open for low light to keep shutter speeds and iso in check. You can create background blur and separation by getting closer to your subject.
When I started studying photography I used 1.8 aperture on my nifty fifty most of the time just to lower my iso so I don't get a lot of noise from my old canon dslr sensor
f4 zooms now fills my day
I mainly use 1.8 for low light so that my ISO doesn't sky rocket and the shallow depth of field is just a plus at that point
I’m very tempted to get the Fuji 16-50 2.8-4.8 to stop me from shooting open all the time.
you mean that shit kit lens on APS-C eh? if so, don't even bother
I love shooting full frame 50mm f1. I think as iPhone pictures increase in quality, it’s pushing other photographers, like myself to try and use methods that separate our photos from the smart phones. I’m noticing it a lot more background bokeh on tv and in movies these days too.
This is why the 24-105mm f4 sony G lens is a masterpiece, but i do like f1.4 just for certain low light conditions.
I shoot wide open on all my lenses. I use my Xiaomi 14 Ultra for photography and some videography as my primary camera. I also have the Pocket 3 and ZV E1.
I photograph for a DJing school and shoot at clubs, events, parties and concerts. Under these conditions, you can't really use a flash. You dint want to daze subjects or interfere with the dark and hazy ambiance of the room. Since most of my shooting is done indoors, I get a ton of interesting artificial lighting to work with. So, I need the wide aperture in order to work with the scene as is. I get a ton of good results, though that might be because try to avoid shooting at iso 16000, due ti my older camera with a fuzzier sensor. Looking forward to upgrading to a ZF though, hopefully that'll give me a few more options rather than buttery 50mm bokeh and an almost impressionist look.
I completely understand the sentiment of the video and there is some great advice in here.
Re: the video and some comments, however:
What I often don't get in these debates is the lack of mentioning a "why". Almost every example here is a street shot, or an environmental portrait...a genre that, 95% of the time, is defined by "environments". Of course shooting this with a 1.4 or 1.8 defeats the purpose in many cases.
More importantly though, the "why": why do you want to shoot at 1.8? Why would you not want to shoot at 1.8? Find reasons for both. Being _intentional_ is the most important element of art, since art is communication. There *are* reasons to shoot wide open -- low light, messy/distracting backgrounds, creating a sense of intense intimacy or focus in a photo -- but doing so because bOkEh is a fairly disinteresting artistic motivation.
Beautiful video ❤
F8 and be there. Unless it's portrait time or you really need separation. I don't go below 2.8.
On almost a daily basis, I test and check many very expensive 'fast' German lenses. On the whole, when shot wide-open, shots of distant subjects tend to look very disappointing to the point that the lens appears sub-standard in some way but I see it all the time. I wouldn't expect anybody would want to do landscapes at f1.1 but stop down a bit and the image pops. For close subjects, shooting wide open seems much more acceptable, in fact adding an artistic element to portraits etc. Just saying...
Yup. Say those unpopular things. So many people seem to fall down the rabbit hole of low light means open up the aperture, when there's a bit of a decision point in there somewhere regarding upping the ISO and/or adding light to keep from compromising what you're trying to do. Or that not every background needs to be blurred into oblivion; there's value in avoiding having nostrils in focus but not the eyes - forget about ears or hair. If wide open is someone's style preference, do your thing. But, it isn't the only way to work, and isn't even the best way as often as folks say "creamy blurry background" in YT videos.
You know I kinda laughed when people questioned me why do I stop down the aperature so much. Shallow depth of field doesn't always look good. Plus it's too hard to focus with it.
David Lean and Steven Spielberg are good example of people who don't use shallow DOF. The environment is half the story.
You don't create depth you create shallow depth of field.
I always stop down to f4 - f5.6. worked for years
My 0.95 scoffs at you, my friend!!! 😬
which lens is it?
You have to read your scene first. With a lot of practice you can look at a scene and already know what settings you will use to make your photo.