>>4497599
What a good opportunity for you to show how you use this approach in your own work
Sad to hear you also don't take photos

>>4497601
Showing you my photos and videos will contribute nothing to my point. I fell for the shallow dof meme in the past, perhaps I'm overcorrecting now, it doesn't really matter. In early cinema from the 1890s to 1910s shallow depth of field was impossible. Slow film, slow lenses around f/4-f/8, weak lighting forced everything into sharp deep focus. No choice, no creamy blur to mask bad framing. Lumiere, Melies, everyone staged in depth or used tricks like forced perspective in Princess Nicotine because they couldn't soften backgrounds.
Shallow DoF only became easy later with faster stocks and lights, but stayed rare until the 2008 5D Mk II let every amateur blast f/1.4 and pretend it was cinematic. Now it's the laziest crutch going: can't compose, can't block, just drown the mess in bokeh and call it filmic. Right now it mostly acts like a crutch for people too incompetent to guide the eye properly. It's a technique that should be used sparingly with specific intention behind it, like step printing or extreme angle shots.
Anamorphics did the same. Born as a 1950s trick to fight TV with wide squeezed frames, their flares, oval bokeh and stretched shallow look turned into today's overpriced fetish. Beginners chase both as shortcuts instead of learning real craft.

>>4497599
based the trial (1962) directed by orson welles based on the franz kafka novel of the same name starring anthony perkins (most known for his role as norman bates in alfred hitchcocks psycho (1969)) as josef k enjoyer

>>4497601
Holy shit, what an unprovoked cunt you are

>>4497601
Based and this. Sadly you get a retarded essay instead of a photo. Looks like you were right about OP not taking photos.

File: DiffractionCity3-1.jpg (783.2 KB)

783.2 KB JPG

>>4497603
How's the first year of your BA in Film Studies going, anon?

>ask for examples
>get autistic rambling instead

File: night-of-the-hunter-rs-1.jpg (30.6 KB)

30.6 KB JPG

Okay aphantasiabros, here's an example. Exhibit A, this is good photography

File: AnneInterstellar.jpg (128 KB)

128 KB JPG

Exhibit B, this sucks

>>4497614
based night of the hunter enjoyer. that's a midget btw (not the kid in the foreground, the fella on the horse in the background)

>>4497601
at least OP posted a picture you faggot

File: 000018810016 - Copy.jpg (3.9 MB)

3.9 MB JPG

>>4497603
>Shallow DoF only became easy later with faster stocks and lights, but stayed rare until the 2008 5D Mk II let every amateur blast f/1.4 and pretend it was cinematic
Anon, film era lenses will happily make blurry backgrounds. Not sure why you think it's something new. Picrel is a Helios 44-2 (approx 1960s) not even wide open.

>>4497614
This is a good composition, bokeh or not. Very dramatic and atmospheric, and it gives equal weight to the people and their surrounding environment.
>>4497615
This is a boring composition, bokeh or not. It could easily be a portrait shot of anyone and it would only tell as much as their outfit allowed.

File: MDR10313 edit 5x7.jpg (814.1 KB)

814.1 KB JPG

>>4497631
Vintage bokeh can be neat, even in small amounts. Bokeh also takes on a neat quality when it's grainy like yours.

File: 000031140012 - Copy.jpg (4.1 MB)

4.1 MB JPG

>>4497631
wtf why did it rotate. Anyway, another example this time with I think an Industar 50 (f3.5)
>>4497601
Part of the problem with posting photos on here to make arguments is that it will simply be misappropriated as a chance to make a personal attack rather than actually engage in discussion. Ansel Adams could rise from the grave to post here and you'd still get somebody piping up about how acktually it's a terrible photo and he should self deport to the ocean immediately with zero constructive feedback.
>>4497634
I like to do a mix, I've never been a "I need an f0.95 creamy bokeh ultra fast lens" type though. It's not bad or good imo, just another tool you can use. I only shoot film though so my experience may not apply super well to digital.

>>4497615
Nice proof-of-concept. I wonder what the movie will look like, lol.

File: w1500_50567129.jpg (71.9 KB)

71.9 KB JPG

>>4497603
Shallow focus has been a heavily used tool for many great movies throughout history though. For example its used in like every other scene in "The Passion of Joan of Arc" and even in movies like "All Quiet on the Western Front".

This isn't a great shot, but the point isn't for every shot to be screenshot art you can frame on your wall, the point is to serve the scene. The scene needed to focus on a single character during a monologue.

>>4497632
This anon doesn't understand this.

File: passionofjoanofarc.png (472 KB)

472 KB PNG

>>4497638
From Passion of Joan of Arc.

Both of these films also used deep focus, before you accuse me of being dishonest.

>>4497603
>but stayed rare until the 2008 5D Mk II let every amateur blast f/1.4 and pretend it was cinematic
Sorry, are we talking about video or stills here? I don't see what difference the 5D Mark II makes for stills over previous cameras.

They hate >>4497601 because he speaks the truth.

>>4497638
Yeah I agree with OP tho, and your point is why YouTubers and Reddit photographers fucking suck — they completely miss the point that bokeh can be used as a compositional tool and/or a narrative tool.
Instead they’re constantly shooting wide open, with photos that have no narrative or story, no composition beyond center placement and MAYBE rule of thirds, but with perfect focus and sharpness, and jerk off because it still looks sharp at 400% zoom and has SNOY in the metadata.

I’ve been looking through some of Saul Leiter‘s work lately and it’s honestly quite a lesson to observe how soft his focus is.

>>4497638
That's an example of bokeh rather than toneh though. You could do it nowadays with a MFT without issue.
This is true for pretty much everything other than Snyder's zombie slop.

>>4497707
They use toneh to compensate for their fear to raise the sensitivity and because they've been told it's a signifier of "pro" photography.
>when the Baudrillard hits

>>4497709
>OP is cinefag
should have seen this coming, kys

File: 0I6A3477.jpg (762.4 KB)

762.4 KB JPG

Janny mad over " meme balls" that he deleted my post and banned me.
>>4497707
This sounds like boomer think, get with the times everyone wants bokeh balls.

>>4497716
Sorry anon, but you've been disqualified from the BALLS competition.
Reason: Your BALLS in the corner of your frame are too pointy. Try square format next time for 100% BALL application

File: allquietonthewesternfront-1354236599.jpg (588 KB)

588 KB JPG

>>4497707
I think that the people trying to do photography like they're shooting a movie are playing a fools game. The inverse, however, shooting video like you're taking photos is what makes good video. In my opinion this is an example of that.

I wanted to find an example for a different point, but I just ended up seeing pic related and really liking it. I do think a modern photography would throw this away though.

File: 530350133_2577728712567792_728511399598544466_n.jpg (2 MB)

2 MB JPG

RETVRN

Sugar thread coming soon with lots of f/8 and be there goodness.

Almost every pan shot I've done of someone going Mach Jesus across the salt is done at f/16 or even lower

File: giugiu.jpg (122.8 KB)

122.8 KB JPG

>>4497707
>bokeh
Cool, I didn't know this was an actual genre. Bokeh was how I started out with photography a decade ago. Love the abstract textures and moods it creates.

>>4497708
>toneh

sharpmaxxing 2026, pogrom fastprimefags

>>4497599
I get where you are coming from but there's no point in imposing restrictions. Just use whatever serves the purpose of visual aesthetic that you want to achieve.

>>4497599
This is just naive thinking
One is not inherently better than the other
Especially for cinematography
You want to use both extremes when appropriate to communicate something
Spamming one or the other is just bad
You have a tool box, use the right ones at the right time. Don't always reach for a hammer or a screwdriver out of some weird autistic principle.

File: 1743738714429894.jpg (1.3 MB)

1.3 MB JPG

>>4497599
Borkah

>>4497981
Nausea inducing, well done.

>>4497981
That is some intense RSA+cateyeing holy sheeit

>>4497599
So you got recommended that 'Why Movies Just Don't Feel "Real" Anymore' video on YouTube didn't you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvwPKBXEOKE

>>4497614
I really don't think this one shows the point. In this one, nothing is in focus. Everything has a dull unsharp mask over it

>>4497615
This is an example of deliberate defocus. It's to show her alienation from the environment she is like she doesn't belong there is isn't part of it

>>4498686
I think anything you have to see on YouTube you have to take with a grain of salt, and some benzodiazepines. Especially that jerk the critical drinker.

>>4498686
There was a comment that I liked on that video. Something like "people used to sweat and look like shit in old movies" and I think that really plays a part in a movie feeling real.

>>4498897
It does. Interestingly as well, that's also why Bruce Lee died. He thought sweating made him look weak and he had his sweat glands surgically removed.

>>4498898
>he had his sweat glands surgically removed
what in the fuck

File: many tiny blue balls.jpg (476.8 KB)

476.8 KB JPG

Do you save your balls /p/? Whats the best way to individually print BALLS?

File: file.png (149.7 KB)

149.7 KB PNG

Why?

File: Red Ball.jpg (11.8 KB)

11.8 KB JPG

>>4498910
Typical Jannie shenagins, I'm using a proxy as to not preform captcha humiliation rites. Must got a banned IP.