buds ~ all photos (embiggenable)
lighter
blue scissors
red chair
nozzle
red car
lamps
ONE OF THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF MY RECENT artist statement writing preoccupation wherein I mucked around in concepts such as enstrangement, optimistic nihilism, and other conceptual picture making tropes, was a re-introduction to Saul Leiter’s work. I had not pulled out either of the 2 books of his work from my photo book collection in quite a long while.
The unexpected net result of doing so reawakened a long held, whisper quiet murmur in the picture making compartment in my head; call it a retro-ish affinity for photographs that exhibit a narrow / selective depth of field. Long story, short, that murmur has emerged as a full fledged imperative to scratch that narrow DOF itch.
CAVEAT: I lied; forget the word “short” in the last sentence cuz here comes the “long” story END CAVEAT
Back when I began to hone my self-declared Fine Art Photography chops, c. late 1970s, I did so under the influence of several emerging / prevailing fine art photo making concepts; specifically, The New Color Photography which itself was influenced by The New Topographics, the f64 crowd (max DOF), and the deadpan aesthetic (“cool”, un-romanticized, un-idealized, aka: dispassionate). The fact of the matter was simple; all that schmaltzy, idealized, “pretty” stuff was left to the unwashed, “serious” amateur picture making crowd. If one wished to be a “true” serious photographer, one must focus–inasmuch as we are discussing DOF–one’s camera on the rigorous aesthetic concepts of ART – cute kittens, the perfect ozzie & harriet life, and blazing sunsets be damned.
ASIDE The tenets of both of those picture making genres–for simplicity sake, Fine Art (“straight” photography division) v. Decorative–are still very much adhered to to this day. However, it is reasonable to write that photographs that exhibit narrow / selective DOF are not very common in either genre. Which is not to write, non-existent, but rather that it is rare, especially so in the Fine Art genre. END ASIDE
Fast forward to c. 2000 and my move to the Adirondacks where my Fine Art picture making moved from urban to natural world referents. More importantly, re: DOF wise, was my switch from analog to digital image making where max DOF was a somewhat standard feature given the relatively small image sensors, meaning less image magnification on the light sensitive surface*. That DOF factor worked well not only for my natural world picture making but also for my ventures into my other bodies of work; for example, my kitchen sink photography.
That written, somewhere along my picture making line, I began to miss the look of photographs that exhibited a slightly softer background that the higher sharpness / definition of my picture’s primary referent. I even considered, with the introduction of “full frame” digital cameras, of acquiring one for just that purpose. However, the expense of purchasing a full frame body and a couple lenses, even though I could afford it, was deemed to be too much $$$$ for too little return. So, the murmur continued unabated, until…..
…. the iPhone PORTRAIT Mode. It was far from perfect at first but over the course of a number of iPhone generations, it has evolved into a very functional utility / feature that is capable of creating / rendering a very credible simulation of an image file made with a full frame camera + a lens set to its “widest” aperture. I can write that cuz I have actually made some pictures with a near full frame camera with a lens wide open and then pictured the same field of view with the iPhone PORTRAIT mode for comparison.
The results are remarkably similar. Nevertheless I do not doubt that it is quite possible that some persnickety, tight-ass, nitpicking perfectionist just might find something to quibble about, but, really, who cares?
All of that written, and setting aside whether or not one likes the look of a photograph that exhibits the visual characteristics of narrow / selective focus / DOF, I do have a nagging reservation about using the PORTRAIT mode for making such pictures; even though narrow DOF / selective focus is an “honest”, intrinsic characteristic of the medium and its apparatus there is more than a whiff of “special effect” associated with the use of the PORTRAIT mode. And, to be honest, I really dislike the use of special / filter created effects.
The only solution I can come with to ameliorate that dilemma is to lie awake nights over the next week or two trying to come up with rationale for using the PORTRAIT mode for creating narrow DOF instead of do it the “proper” way. That just might solve the problem cuz, ya know, I don't know anyone who could get through the day without two or three juicy rationalizations. They're more important than sex.
PS the photos in this entry are unabashedly inspired by Saul Leiter’s work. As are the brief captions which were typical with his photographs.
*for those unfamiliar with that concept; simply explained, given the same field of view, f8 on a smaller than “full frame” sensor digital device yields a nearly endless DOF, foreground to background. f8 on an 8x10 view camera yields extremely narrow DOF.