Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Robert Mitchell" data-source="post: 99560" data-attributes="member: 11282">Thank you very much.There's a time and a place for shallow depth of field but I've never been one of those guys that shoots wide open for the sake of shooting wide open and it's one of the reasons why I don't currently own or crave f/1.4 glass.Depth of field is one of those things that unfortunately many people don't understand and all too often it can really ruin an otherwise great shot.But like anything else it's all about preference and style. Some people don't want any more than the facial mask to be sharp. Some are fine with a near eye being in focus and the far eye out of focus. To me that just looks sloppy and I'm sorry to say that in many cases the photographer didn't plan or intend that to happen, and sadly, many will resort to the "I meant to do that" rather than owning up to the fact that they were shooting at f/2 when they should have stopped down to f/4 and still gotten a beautiful image with wonderful rendering of out of focus backgrounds, environments, etc.Like I said, there is a time and place for shooting wide open and at times it's absolutely gorgeous, but when the desire to shoot wide open takes priority over all other things, I don't find it interesting or pleasing.My 2 cents. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification