Talk:Shallow focus

Example

I think the _Rules of the Game_ example is a bad one. For one thing, using it will confuse readers, since the film is famous for its use of deep focus photography. But I'd also call the shot in question a deep focus shot, and Alexander Sesonske's commentary on the Criterion DVD agrees with me. It's true that Schumacher isn't perfectly clear in the screen capture shown, but he appears somewhat more clear in motion on the Criterion DVD. What's more, one must remember that the negative to _Rules of the Game_ was lost during the war, so the image isn't as good as we could hope. But most of all, any shot in which we notice something in the background (and if you watch it in motion, you definitely notice Schumacher), doesn't qualify as a shallow-focus shot. Much better would be something like the comparison halfway down at <http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/L/A-Robert.R.Lauer-1/Corrigan.html>. (No idea of the copyright status of that). Amolad 04:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is some potential confusion for readers skimming this article (and the one on deep focus), but I also think that this screenshot illustrates a crucial difference between deep focus and what André Bazin and others call composition in depth. The latter is a function of mise-en-scene, determined by how the actors are positioned on the set. The former is a function of attributes of the camera (aperture, focal length, camera-to-object distance). Renoir composes this scene in depth--as he does many others in Rules of the Game--but he does not shoot it with deep focus.

Even though Rules does have a reputation for deep focus, there are many composition-in-depth shots in it that use shallow focus. Here's another example: http://www.tcf.ua.edu/classes/Jbutler/T340/RulesOfTheGame/Rules_13.jpg

If you're looking for "pure" examples of deep focus and composition in depth, you're better off with Welles or Wyler--as can be seen here: http://www.tcf.ua.edu/classes/Jbutler/T440/VisualStyleIllustrations02.htm

Thus, I must disagree with your comment that "any shot in which we notice something in the background (...), doesn't qualify as a shallow-focus shot." And, for the sake of precision, I believe it's important to maintain the distinction between deep focus and composition in depth. However, if you're looking for an example of shallow focus without composition in depth, you can find some in the bokeh article (but that is for still and not motion photography). --Jeremy Butler 12:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

"Shallow Focus" as expressed here, seems more orientated to "film", but if it is inclusive of still photography also; as a supplement, not to supplant the excellent "stone monkey" illustration; I suggest the portrait photo of Theodore Roosevelt, Secretary of the U.S. Navy, that in 1961 (likely far longer too) hung in the second floor hallway outside the admiral's office, of the 9th Naval District Headquarters, Great Lakes Naval Base, Illinois. If the extremely well illustrated "shallow depth of focus" was intentional, or simply indicative of lens quality of that time, I do not know; this goes beyond the traditional front tip of nose out of focus, and ears out of focus; even Teddy's eye-glass lenses are out of focus; but his haunting, ever peering eyes--your psychological and physiological sole and soul focal-point; make their, Teddy's presence; manly manifest. Likely the 9ND "PIO" (Public Information Office) would gladly furnish a copy. Teddy and I got close, eye-ball to eye-ball, that day we; the young and old sailors met across history. I never forgot that illustration of the effect of shallow focus in still photography; now I'm an old man like his illustration then.James A. Miller Jr. (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)focusoninfinityJames A. Miller Jr. (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Rules of the Game 09 kitchen.jpg

The image Image:Rules of the Game 09 kitchen.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Depth of field of the human eye

"The deep focus photographic technique more closely approximates what is seen by the human eye." I read the opposite recently but I couldn't find a good source either way. Anyone have a good source. From my subjective experience as someone with human eyes, I think we have shallow focus. Huey.freeman (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the citation needed tag. In the context of this article (photographic lenses), human eyes have "deep focus". "Shallow focus" in a photographic context means a much shallower focus than the typical human eye. 76.10.155.19 (talk) 03:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I took the unsourced sentence out, as this explanation doesn't ring true. The human eye's DOF is about the same as any other imaging system with similar entrance pupil diameter on a roughly normal lens; it can be fairly shallow, which is why Ben invented bifocals. Dicklyon (talk) 06:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)