Shallow depth of field seems like THE hollygrail in photography but most photographers simply don’t understand the mastery is the opposite. Deep depth of field is actually much harder to perfect. Jimmy explores the ideas and explains why you need both in your photography if you want to complete your training and become a ‘Jedi’ in #photography. #photography101 #learnphotography
Our new website
▶ Check out my gear on Kit:
For more information about Olympus gear. Visit
For more information about Billingham Bags:
Claim your 2-month extra music subscription from our music provider “Artlist”. Visit the website here:
Remember to also follow us at the following links:
FB –
Instagram –
Twitter –
Check out our gear that we use on this Channel and Jimmy’s work. These are affiliate Amazon links and if you buy, you don’t pay extra but there are some tips for us 🙂
Panasonic Leica DG 25mm 1.4 ASPH ———
Panasonic Leica DG 42.5mm 1.2 ASPH ——
Mavic Pro ———————————————–
Billingham Hadley ONE —————————
Billingham Hadley Small ————————-
Billingham Eventer ———————————-
Billingham 25 ——————————————
Please support us by subscribing to our channel @red35photography.
Shad Thames! Thx to Jimmy for giving me some insight on this wonderful location for a night shot of the Tower Bridge last summer…at a very deep field of view! 😎
Nice bike Jimmy…
What's the difference between depth of field and bokah? Both seem to be blurring the foreground or background out to some degree. Thanks
I'm coming from analogue & smartphone photography, thinking about buying into a digital system now… You made me think twice if full frame is the right choice for me – I might wait till an OMD 1 mark iii is on it's way..
Again nice video, but what is the model of your helmet, I like it a lot 🙂
Thank you!
DOF ≈ 2 r² N Δ / f², where r is the distance to the subject, N is the aperture number as in f/N, f is the focal length, and Δ is the maximum diameter (measured on the sensor) of the blur-circle of a point source that human eye would still perceive as acceptably in focus. Common practice is Δ=L/1500, where L is the diagonal length of the sensor. So for a given distance to your subject, the DOF is determined by the focal length, the aperture, and the sensor size, such that a m43 17mm lens at f/1 roughly has the same DOF as a FF 35mm lens at f/2 (because the L of a m43 sensor is ~half of that of a FF). My point is, when you say "when talking about DOF (of m43 and FF), …, people easily compare apples to oranges", I don't see how. It's really as simple as multiplying by 2 to get the DOF-equivalent aperture, just like everybody does for getting the FOV-equivalent focal length. Now that they are both apples, we can ask the question: why don't m43 companies make 17mm f/1 lenses as compact as FF 35mm f/2 lens? Not to mention the fact that there is no auto-focus 17mm f/1 lens YET from m43… While I totally agree with you that photographers should not be spoiled by shallow DOF, I think no one would complain about a FF 35mm f/2 lens giving a DOF that is too shallow. I am also a fan of m43, but I don't think professional photographers, street/reportage photographers, or even newbies should miss the chance of experiencing the DOF of a FF 35mm f/2 lens… 🙂
Amen, brother 👍 Just today I did a practical DOF comparison with a friend who owns a FF cam. With a little recomposing my MFT photos with less bokeh were more meaningful, because the then better identifyable surroundings gave the whole picture a context. In other cases a shallower DOF were the (little) better choice. In the end it was a draw. Including the weight and price tag… Well, you can imagine the outcome 😁
Sometimes, my impression is it is most important what is in the background than in the foreground. And as a MfT-user i can say, yes you can shallow depht of field. otherwise i woulnd use it! But it is only an option to make the picture pleasing. So get out and take pictures..not bokehs 😉
Will you be doing Brompton reviews? You wouldn't be the first m43 youtuber to do it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMnqFShmML8
you remind me of mumen ride, you watch one punch man?
I must admit that i'm a f…..g user and lover of shallow depth of field. That's why i shoot 8×10 for my portrait works, but sometime i'm very glad to have a Panasonic G9 with an 1.4 lens. With it small sensor, depth of field is more large at 1.4, compare to FF camera, meaning if i'm in a dark wedding venue, i can take some pics with another thing in focus than a bride eyelash.
On another day, i'm liking to use shallow dof to blur the background when this one is ugly, sometimes we don't choose the shooting location and i use this to do the job
Thank you for commenting on this. Besides making something stand-out or "pop", bokeh is also a process of de-emphasising elements (like background) from the frame. That's why it can be so creatively limiting. You can tell better stories if you frame your subject within the wider context of the world around you. Bokeh shots too often omit it.
Thanks for the vlog Jimmy, great advice/help, I'm glad you moved as the skateboarder at the start was a super distraction.
shaky/wobbly video. Cellphone footage?
Wise Words!
I think the obsession with bokeh is just a phase similar to the "bright and airy look" in wedding photography.
The British want chips with everything. Photographers today want bokeh with everything. With the slide shows I put on in clubs I was complimented on "clear front to back sharpness" by "normal" people, nobody said anything about the bokeh photos. That said they were not photographers !
Excellent video. Let me be blunt, Depth of Field is a lens abberation and use of shallow DoF is fashionable bollocks; there was no word for Bokeh until this century and now its mainly used as a marketing tool. DoF is one of the creative adjustments of photography and mostly shooting wide open is an admission that you have no skill as a photographer. The human eye has a very poor lens and evolution discarded optical imaging in antiquity and chose a scanning system instead. Scanning systems like a Scanning Electron Microscope have infinite DoF; human vision cannot detect DoF in reality. So how any photographer imagines that they are getting great shots with most of the image out of focus is beyond me. DoF is a great tool for softening parts of an image; not trying to obliterate it. Even Bokeh is part of an image and can ruin composition, and usually does in most photos I see from even well known photographers. Go and look at top pros, like Bailley, Leibovitz and Rankin, at work with large format; their work mostly has more DoF than even most MFT users. Anything on a face that is out of focus is seen by our brain as an ugly deformation and wouldnt be tolerated in a top fashion shoot; think on that when working at f1.2. Top snappers open DoF and control lighting and backgrounds to maintain sharpness. Take a look at my banner photo, it was taken on a Leica 23mm Summilux at f3.2 and is mostly pin sharp front to back and objects are well resolved in space without shallow DoF. Excellent low element glass primes drip microtones (a lens property missing from most professional fast lenses unless you sell your car and pay serious money) and can resolve space by use of tonal graduation not DoF. This was a technique developed by modern painters a century ago defining space by tonal variation rather than structure. So the bottom line is buy good glass and use the apurture ring, they put it there for a reason, if you dont know what for then you arent a photographer yet – winks