Stop Shooting At F 1.8

If you're relying on using shallow depth of field then it's probably time you stopped, and here's why baby.
Be the first to hear about my new book! www.maxkent.co...
_____________________________________________________________
Grab your gear or courses from Moment partner.shopmo...
______________________________________________________________
The film I use most of the time - geni.us/TgkbJ
My video camera - geni.us/590CHy
My video lens - geni.us/A8amM3j
My tripod (it’s great) - geni.us/Xkixa8
The safest camera bag I use - geni.us/5bhN0
My ND Filter (for video/slow shutter photography) - geni.us/jRfyfO
The kinda strap I’d suggest - geni.us/u7PxGS
My main lens for shooting film - geni.us/VHlw
My Film Camera - geni.us/bopi3b
My mic - geni.us/0CwBa2L
My external hard drive - geni.us/BR7Jp
**Some of the above are paid Amazon links that will direct you to my associate account through Amazon.com. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. **
_______________________________________________________________
Thank you all for the time you take to watch my videos!
Max

[@maxkent]

This really ruffled some peoples feathers. Oh well, if your feathers aren't reffuled then maybe you should sign up to my email list to be the first to hear about my European photobook www.maxkent.co.uk/ (It'll pop up after a few seconds). Nice one

[@ickebins6948]

I shoot at 1.4, glad I did not make the mistake to go up to 1.8. Thanks mate.

[@jakkatoe]

*laughs in 1.2*

[@maxkent]

Those are some bougee numbers

[@IvenChaqueco]

😂

[@ShutterKnack]

Shooting at 1.2 all the time is a mark of a noob.

[@1kwords]

​@@ShutterKnack You don't say...

[@induction7895]

1.2 noob here. If I wanted deep dof, I would have stuck with my phone.

[@jyrkijyrki9392]

Right, i only use f0.95 now.

[@ricardoquintero6157]

I laughed so hard hahahahhaahaha

[@GezaBalint-st8st]

lol! : )

[@cinematic_monkey]

Yep. Those do and don't videos are just pure nonsense. For instance huge part of large format photography is just about this super shallow depth of field.

[@Leicashootr]

Follow your heart and own vision

[@yashwinning]

As an F1.2 shooter this is deeply offensive and borders on hate speech. You'll be hearing from my lawyer

[@CZOV]

lol i am a firm believer in the f2 so i will be his defence.

[@yashwinning]

@@CZOV you better lawyer up too then bucko, F1.2 is the only way and i will NOT tolerate any slander

[@alexlford]

😂

[@nevvanclarke9225]

​@@yashwinningbokeh is so men....

[@loboptlu]

@@yashwinning for me it means simply that he is incompetent , all depends on the lens and no really competent professional would force others what and what not to do. Or as my photography teacher with more awards than i could count in the 80s said , only thing you need to know is the interaction between asa , focal and shutterspeed. Take the books about how to make good photos and throw em away , make the pictures as you feel , following rules only means you copy someone else , there is no art or skill in that. Does not mean you cant take tips or tricks if you are blocked somewhere , but try first yourself.

[@TheFarCentre]

Avoiding f1.8 is all fun and games until it gets dark and your subject is moving. It’s not just about shallow depth of field. It’s about letting in more light when there isn’t enough.

[@Ranstone]

Good point! His original point's are great too though.

[@peterbecker7157]

But then it's like he said, a conscious decision!

[@jimjimgl3]

Been full-time commercial photographer since 2000. Wide open has its place and closed down has its place. Neither right or wrong. What I have noticed in commercial jobs is that nearly all my clients ask for focus all the way thru the image. This was not the norm in early 2000s when you could use fairly open aperture. I think images on smaller devices sometimes look a bit flat when using wide open lens, hence the demand for complete focus.

[@analogmusings9888]

omg an actually helpful comment.

[@AndrewVanBeekOttawa]

Yep, the first sign of a semi-experienced photographer is speaking in absolutes.

[@smicrv]

Here's on YT everything's black or white bus in photography it's not, there's a specific set of settings for every scenario, also work in the industry and boy oh boy Ytrs just want to be "THAT" opinion that applies to all.

[@englematic]

laughs in micro four thirds. My f1.8 is another man's f3.6

[@VGScreens]

Going from m43 to ff feels like everybody is doing it wrong, so many reasonable sized overlooked lenses when you know you're happy at f3.6 lol.

[@Zizos]

I've only had the 12-35 f2.8. f1.8 or 1.2 could be nice. Maybe a few primes could fill that "want".

[@englematic]

@Zizos I mainly shoot with primes, it's really fun to work with a fixed focal length IMO. And they are so much faster than the zooms.

[@Zizos]

@@englematic The zoom was the first lens I got and I stuck with it. Did you get manual primes or electronic?

[@englematic]

@Zizos I have autofocus lenses. Most of my primes are Panasonic, since I have a Panasonic body, so I can take advantage of the dfd AF tech. Really like the 15mm f1.7 and the 25mm f1.7 for street and events.

[@pederbergstrand6203]

The irony of this being shot with a shallow depth of field

[@omermagen824]

Did not expect to be told not to shoot at max aperture by someone named Max.

[@FeedScrn]

You are right... I used f/5 and it was wonderful for portraits. // One thing I would like to add, is f/1.8 f/1.4 is good many times for low light conditions. Sometimes the only thing that will give you a nice shot during those conditions - is cranking the aperture to allow enough light to enter in.

[@MrDwyaneWadeFlash3]

wrong, learn to use flash

[@FeedScrn]

@@MrDwyaneWadeFlash3 - True. Flash is good inside. For outside night shots, even sometimes for sunsets, you need more.

[@urgamecshk]

How do I flash something 20ft away from me? ​@@MrDwyaneWadeFlash3

[@juancruzlehmann2959]

@@MrDwyaneWadeFlash3 lol, flash is a tool, but isn't the same as the real light. For Club photography I mostly shoot at 1.8 in order to capture the real light. Ambient changes when flash comes in. Its a good tool, but it isn't for all cases.

[@derekroberts5931]

@@juancruzlehmann2959 so say a f1.4 versus an f3.5, which allows more light in, or is ,"Wider." I don't know videography terminology. I just assume the lower the f stop, in this case, say f1.4, is allowing more bokeh.

[@Herfinnur]

The photographer James Popsys got me to almost completely stop using a wide aperture for photo and video. What made it click for me was when he showed how he always turned down the “clarity” slider in the edit. I realised that what I disliked was the unnatural level of sharpness and micro contrast

[@quamb]

dialing clarity a few notches down is a godsend for digital sensors

[@richards6065]

Thank you for making this. All art has its creators that don’t think outside the box as often as they should. It’s good to be versatile.

[@Yoko.Kurama]

I always wonder why people go to cool locations just to obliterate the background. I like seeing the person and setting

[@FTRek]

Although if the setting is busy you won't get background separation and the person will blend in. That's not good either. Even shallow depths of fields show enough of the background to figure out what you seeing.

[@Leprutz]

Exactly my point. It's happening in movies, with duch amazing backgrounds and nothing is visible. Just horrible.

[@TheGotoGeek]

@@LeprutzThe 5D began the destruction of cinematography, and Red drove the knife in. It’s as if large sensors and low noise floors made everyone forget how to light. Gregg Toland must be spinning. I shudder to think what Citizen Kane would look like shot by a typical cinematographer today.

[@khanscombe619]

All brilliant ideas. At the end of the day, it's all about your style. Or as a creative tool to do something most lens can't, Why we buy a f1.2 or 1.4.

[@hobbyonlyphotography]

As a complete novice with film photography, I appreciate your video. Some really good nuggets for me to think about next time I go out and take photographs.

[@bruce-le-smith]

layers of light is a very good concept to learn. it is possible to jump straight to the more positive advice. art is art, just because one of us isnt into f2 at the moment doesnt mean that others of us (both creators and a variety of audiences) cant be into that at the moment

[@maxkent]

That’s it Bruce, it’s a tool and if you know why you’re using it then it’s great! If you rely on it too much and you don’t really know why, that can be a problem 🌞

[@SMGJohn]

I can shoot in F1.8 using a m4/3 camera and get the toneh of a full frame lens at F3,6. But have vastly more light entering, which is beneficial for low light. Even at F1 your m4/3 sensor will have toneh of full frame F2.

[@scamp_media]

This is bang on. I think an element of chasing the more wide open aperture come from video and working with low light.

[@octamariam]

Highly recommend everyone to refer to videos that actually educate you on what exactly a lower vs. higher aperture does for your photos, so that you are aware of their technical and aesthetic strengths. Though cinematography can be a great reference sometimes, it is not the same as photography. This is a basic overview at best. Don’t be fooled into thinking that lower apertures are nonsense. Yes shoot at 1.2. Are your photos blurry? That means you’re doing wrong, hun. And as street photographers would say, ‘F8 and be there.’ Absolutely know how to use both. It will make you a better photographer, I promise. Using one over the other, however, will not.

[@therealjimmy5411]

Everyone seems to miss that shooting wide open isn't always for "creamy backgrounds" but as a communication tool to direct the viewer to the intended subject.

[@lupsik1]

The author of the video says it about 18 seconds in and repeats it at about 40s, separation of subject from background. I don't think many people are missing this fact.

[@duchesspecson1379]

framing, leading lines, color. there’s really a lot of elements we can use to direct a viewer to the subject. I think that’s the point of the video

[@willherondale6367]

This is the equivalent of shouting "LOOOK HERE!!", whereas using guiding lines, tonal contrast, light and other techniques is much subtler

[@skorpoolr]

I agree! I’ve been shooting on my 18-135 3.5-5.6 on my 70D instead of my 50 1.8 and it made me realize this, DOF does not make a good image, and if you’re constantly relying on it you need to reconsider your shots; I’ve had a similar thing for a few months with long focal lengths, I would only shoot 80+ mm FF equivalent lenses, until I picked up a Sigma 30mm 1.4 (48mm FF equivalent) and I realized what I was missing out on, not only with the extra sharpness(I mean seriously, it’s sharper than the 1.8 at 1.4 than the 1.8 is at 2.2) but how great car interior shots can look! It’s not my favorite for the full vehicle shots I’ve done, but maybe with sporty cars it would look good.

[@lepyti]

I shoot in darker places/inside most of the time, so I usually use a wide aperture. But im using an apsc camera, so the amount of background separation is less than on full frame. There is a use for both low and high aperture 👍

[@soupslicer136]

also apsc has a crop factor of focal length and we forget the F number is calculated by focal length divided by aperture diameter, so when a crop sensor multiplies the focal length by 1.5 it also does so to the F number, this is almost always a bit more than a full stop, F/5.6 for example in an apsc sensor looks like F/8 (5.6x1.5= 8.4, or the longer way: F/5.6 in a 50mm lens is an ~8.93mm aperture, with a 1.5 crop it's a 75mm lens, with the same 8.93mm aperture diameter it's F/8.4)

[@lepyti]

@@soupslicer136 yea, this is what I meant lol. Just simplified it a bit :D

[@Giovanni-Giorgio]

Exactly. Not to forget wide aperture on wideangle lenses is a must. It's way easier to create background seperation with a telelens. And with the autofocus systems nowadays i do not hesitate to use f1.2/1.4/1.8 etc.

[@ArtemDimitrov]

you are absolutely right, man. I spent years chasing wide aperture lenses and then realize all the stuff you are talking about

[@user-bv7lc4yi6e]

This is the hard truth many people are not ready to hear. Using shallow dof as a crutch, consciously or not, limits you as a photographer. Some outgrow it, others don't, but when you do, you realize how much more difficult removing that crutch can make things, but the payoff is worthwhile.

[@bentravis99]

Great video! I agree and notice that most people also use fast apertures to allow them to be lazy about their background choice.

[@ElBoyoElectronico]

Same here! I used to be very fixated on getting a blurry background, while I now pay way more attention to other things. It’s all about the process. Learning how light works and getting better at it with every shot is key.

[@jockslifeatliftvideoproduc8528]

It's so easy to fall into the wide open trap. Even I still shoot wide open majority of the time. What can I say, the shallow depth of field just looks so nice and its fun watching the DoF move as you frame up. However, I think story is key to photography and often that means context. I often think of a video I watched years ago from a KZbinr, I think his name is Manny, doing outdoor speedlight photography and he was at a beach and was showing how to balance daylight with the highspeed flash allowing him to shooter faster shutters, thus open up his aperture. He showed 2 examples, one at a standard 1/200 shutter meaning he had to stop down to f5.6 I think, and then the option he considered the "best" which was highspeed sync allowing him to be at his f1.8 or whatever it was. Thing was the f5.6 was so much better because the model was standing at the beach with the ocean behind here and a yacht was in the water framed in one of the 3rds, at F5.6 she was separated from the background but you could still make out what was around her and placed her in her environment and it told a story (a barebones one, but a story nonetheless) At f1.8 the yacht was completely blurred and you couldn't really tell where she was. All I could think is why bother doing environmental portraiture if you're going to blur it to the point that you can't see where they are, just shoot it in a studio at that point. Was such an innocuous video but was such an eye opener for me, especially because that wasn't even the point of the video it was just my own intuition that came to this conclusion.

[@ChristianAndrew1.4]

1.8 is pure gangsta, so is 1.2 . But , then again so is f11 if shot right. Bounce around the ap ring and bring that art to life.

[@JonnyBarrett]

Nice video this. Will be saying "Layrs o liiyt" to myself today.

[@kingghidorah8106]

"Ok." [Shoots in f1.4] 🗿

[@ianforber]

I agree. The fashion for depth of field swings back and forth but, ultimately it’s about the genre you shoot and how you like your pictures to look. Shooting narrow DoF is no more a characteristic of new photographers than shooting everything at f11. Manufacturers do need to keep selling us new lenses though so they need to promote enormous lenses with apertures of f1.4 or wider!

[@KNURKonesur]

I don't mind an enormous lens with f/1.4 but basically every modern f/1.4 is gives ugly bokeh so I don't bother with them and stick to vintage glass which is cheap :D

[@daytopotatoh1331]

Brilliant. Thank you for making this video. I needed to hear this and I agree with it. It makes sense

[@joseerazevedo]

Another way to create depth is distance to subject. On close portraits, you can shoot at f 8 and still have the background defocused. But most important is DOF is a tool and it must fit your image/visualization of that scene. Sometimes it asks for a shallow DOF, sometimes not. Thanks for the video and showing the work of Robbie Lawrence!

[@Magneira]

Let's not forget that the focal length changes the depth of field (also the sensor size). With my 28mm I can get a lot in focus with the lens more open, now with my 50mm, even in 5.6, sometimes I can't get everything in focus. For example, if I shoot a group shot with the 28mm at f.2.8, I get everyone in focus, even if there is someone more in front than the other, now with the 50mm I need at least F4 or F5.6 to get all faces in focus.

[@diegobluc]

Most people shooting at wide open apertures like f1.8 are just creating blurry images. Background separation of the subject works well when you need it, but most photos just looks like a blurry image. I'm glad to see more and more people talking about this because most of the time, the background helps to tell a story, when its all blurry you really need the subject to be golden.

[@PavelGramatikov]

I have paid for f1.2, I shoot at f1.2 :D

[@maxkent]

If you’re splashing the cash you might aswell Pavel 😅

[@letni9506]

But don't you only get one eye in focus and blur out the rest of the face using Tony 1.2🤣

[@PavelGramatikov]

@@letni9506 True, true. I said it more as a joke.

[@Bathingwookie]

@@letni9506no. You’ll be surprised at how great 1.2 looks when you get a bride walking down the aisle in a shit lit church!

[@jan.tichavsky]

​@@letni9506You can do full body portraits or even shoot larger subjects and you still get nice background separation at f/1.2.

[@lou.yorke.x]

It's ironic that we use a "shallow" depth of field to create "depth".

[@manuelepasqualini1429]

I have never been a fan of shooting wide open using apertures lower than f 4. I absolutely love having as many things in focus as possible in my photos. I love the idea of taking images with plenty of layers and details. I don't care at all about the sought after bokeh effect. I only shoot wide open when it is getting dark and I need more light in my photos.

[@mcgrathfilms]

Agreed. As someone who was trained by professional film photographers I can tell you with confidence that the sweet spot of any lens is 2-3 stops closed from its maximum aperture. So if you own a F1.8 lens, then it will perform best at F4-5.6. Vintage lenses particularly, usually perform poorly wide open. Because they were never designed to be shot wide open.

[@petrpohnan875]

Yes, I did exactly the same. Stopped shooting at f/1.8 and started to shoot at f/1.4 with Sigma primes 40mm and 105mm on both fullframe and medium format 44x33mm.

[@whyFINAL]

This is the reason why i am happy with my Sony 20-70g f4. What a bang for buck lens :)

[@RamTengri]

Same. Pairs extremely well with my zv-e1 for travel. My A7riii only comes out for professional shoots now😅

[@jamesmlodynia8757]

I would say that what separates a good photographer from a beginner is the ability to read and use light to create meaningful photos and when to use shallow depth of field and when to include the background and environment to give context and tell a more complete story, when I started shooting events, i started paying more attention to lightning and how it would influence my photos, when you are photographing weddings understanding lightning is very important, one other skill required is how to pose people that come in all shapes and sizes and skintones. Before I photographed events I photographed landscape wildlife and other subjects in different lighting and weather conditions but event photography pushed me like no other, working for other people and producing photos fot some one other than my self, was the hardest thing i have done as a photographer. Their is no room for errors.

[@Schneeeulenwetter]

i have my grandpa's old camera (from 1930s/40s) and I always use f 11 for middle things (it goes up til f16) I can't really see if it is sharp. I just have to hope for the best. my dad kinda said one get's an eye for it. really interesting and I think he's kinda right.

[@matta7647]

Awesome video. I’ve been avoiding 1.8 (or lower if possible) for sometime, but mostly for what I knew about sharpness. I’m a little obsessed with sharpness, and reading lots of reviews with stats show how at say f2.8, there’s virtually no difference in sharpness between an f1.8 lens and an equivalent f1.4 lens. Save money on lenses too!! Rule of thumb I know there are exceptions.

[@DVinstapics]

Basically there is a time and place for extremely wide apertures, if you bought an f1.2 or 1.4 lens you shouldn't be focusing only on using that. That's why aperture is not fixed, use your lenses to the fullest, change things up a bit

[@gmaxstudios]

My 0.95 scoffs at you, my friend!!! 😬

[@kietzi]

which lens is it?

[@stevewturnbull]

You don't create depth you create shallow depth of field.

[@overnightdelivery]

Four Thirds sensor is the perfect balance between size, depth of field and image quality. Also f1.8 is perfect on MFT since it's f3.6 DOF on FF. 🙂 f1.2 is nice for the shallow DOF look too.

[@ianhand5006]

F8 and be there!

[@samohyesss]

This is why I love Micro Four Third system. You allow the same light but the aperture is doubled. Which means a MFT F2 will capture FullFrame F2 light but the depth of field will look like FullFrame F4.

[@patrickdolan.]

Aperture Isn't doubled. F2 will be f2 regardless the sensor size

[@JGcd001]

This is why the 24-105mm f4 sony G lens is a masterpiece, but i do like f1.4 just for certain low light conditions.

[@JonS]

Now where did I put that pin hole?

[@chriscard6544]

Very interesting. I used to use hyperfocal at f/11 28mm in the 90's

[@maxkent]

Nice Chris 🙏

[@michaelajoseph6856]

So true! At the beginning I was shooting wide but now I see differently. Thank you for the video and for suggesting having a look at Robbie Lawrence.

[@MrHaydnSir]

i’ve moved more to f/2.8 for filming and often photographs and when shooting film, i’m more focused on having a good shutter speed for handheld, and a smaller aperture doesn’t bother me, if anything i’ve began slowing down my shutter speed to increase my aperture

[@Leicashootr]

Start shooting at f/0.95🤤 (Noctilux 50), diffraction is the least important part of the process 😀the content is❗️

[@TheChicoRios]

Great Video! Good food for thought for reflecting about usage of 1.8

[@PinotNoir_]

i shoot at 5.6, since kit lens is all i got😂

[@AkilWari]

Completely agree. 1.2 all the way baby!

[@philly3015]

It all depends on the situation you're shooting and the look you want

[@horatiueduard]

I think it's more important to know when to use the lens wide open and when to close it down. I don't see anything wrong with taking pictures at the widest aperture if there's a reason for it. If all of us started going for f8 all the time, in 20 years you'll see videos with 'stop taking photos at f8, they suck'. A photo can suck at any aperture anyway.

[@axplade2899]

You know I kinda laughed when people questioned me why do I stop down the aperature so much. Shallow depth of field doesn't always look good. Plus it's too hard to focus with it.

[@jamescaldwell5]

I love shooting full frame 50mm f1. I think as iPhone pictures increase in quality, it’s pushing other photographers, like myself to try and use methods that separate our photos from the smart phones. I’m noticing it a lot more background bokeh on tv and in movies these days too.

[@csc-photo]

Nikon's 135 1.8 Plena disagrees 🙂 Kidding aside, you raise some very good points here. I agree it's important to know what aperture to use, and when. I see so many new photographers getting overly preoccupied with "style", trendy presets, and just shooting everything exactly the same in general.

[@ryanbowiephotography]

There’s a little truth in every joke, that lens is ridiculous and I wish I could afford it 😭

[@tonykeltsflorida]

You have to read your scene first. With a lot of practice you can look at a scene and already know what settings you will use to make your photo.

[@juanigsrz]

It'll be funny when you come back to it in a few years and rewatch your video

[@invujerry]

I step my 1.4 down to 1.8 and it's fine 90% of the time. Any street photography I do is usually set to shutter priority at 1/80 or higher and I figure out what to do with the aperture later.

[@davidfirth1]

Yup. Say those unpopular things. So many people seem to fall down the rabbit hole of low light means open up the aperture, when there's a bit of a decision point in there somewhere regarding upping the ISO and/or adding light to keep from compromising what you're trying to do. Or that not every background needs to be blurred into oblivion; there's value in avoiding having nostrils in focus but not the eyes - forget about ears or hair. If wide open is someone's style preference, do your thing. But, it isn't the only way to work, and isn't even the best way as often as folks say "creamy blurry background" in YT videos.

[@RohannvanRensburg]

I completely understand the sentiment of the video and there is some great advice in here. Re: the video and some comments, however: What I often don't get in these debates is the lack of mentioning a "why". Almost every example here is a street shot, or an environmental portrait...a genre that, 95% of the time, is defined by "environments". Of course shooting this with a 1.4 or 1.8 defeats the purpose in many cases. More importantly though, the "why": why do you want to shoot at 1.8? Why would you not want to shoot at 1.8? Find reasons for both. Being _intentional_ is the most important element of art, since art is communication. There *are* reasons to shoot wide open -- low light, messy/distracting backgrounds, creating a sense of intense intimacy or focus in a photo -- but doing so because bOkEh is a fairly disinteresting artistic motivation.

[@DCMedien]

I mean.. It's better to have a wide apature lens and closing it down than have the need for a wide apature and don't have it. Shooting weddings indoors with f1.8 gives me the need for an Iso above 1600 many times. I don't want to know the Iso I had to use with an f4 lens

[@ShadesOClarity]

F8 and be there. Unless it's portrait time or you really need separation. I don't go below 2.8.

[@migueldz]

San Sebastián and Cantabria spotted. Nice video !

[@maxkent]

🔥

[@Traditiononamission]

It depends on what you’re shooting. When shooting sports, a shallow depth of field (f3.5 or f4) can really help give the subject separation, since it is very difficult to actually control the background if you can at all. Just an example. Also, for close headshots I usually use a longer portrait lens at f2.8… absolutely trying to obliterate the background because it’s not an environmental portrait.

[@aaronb381]

Layers of light? Can you do a whole video on it?

[@andrewharrington7435]

Your eyes don't see at the equivalent of f/1.8. Normally the depth of field is equivalent to f/18 at full frame. In bright light it goes to about f/50. In the dark (or when you see someone attractive) about f/6. I think that the super wide apertures are trying to replicate the loss of resolution at the edges you get when the eye is wide open and the mental process where we automatically isolate people. I think F/1.8 needs to be an artistic choice, not the default.

[@KingFiercer_zip]

Exactly, super shallow dof reminds me the same effect as when you're focusing on a single object with your eyes, unable to notice everything around

[@robmcd]

@@KingFiercer_zipthat’s why it’s perfect for the portraits of the ones you love

[@robmcd]

I’m very tempted to get the Fuji 16-50 2.8-4.8 to stop me from shooting open all the time.

[@DSG-farts-connoisseur]

you mean that shit kit lens on APS-C eh? if so, don't even bother

[@CY3ER]

You can get great separation from a subject to background at higher f stops than 1.8. I've gotten good separation at f 3.5 on my nikon kit lens. The bokeh isn't as strong, but it still does the job.

[@hombreg1]

I photograph for a DJing school and shoot at clubs, events, parties and concerts. Under these conditions, you can't really use a flash. You dint want to daze subjects or interfere with the dark and hazy ambiance of the room. Since most of my shooting is done indoors, I get a ton of interesting artificial lighting to work with. So, I need the wide aperture in order to work with the scene as is. I get a ton of good results, though that might be because try to avoid shooting at iso 16000, due ti my older camera with a fuzzier sensor. Looking forward to upgrading to a ZF though, hopefully that'll give me a few more options rather than buttery 50mm bokeh and an almost impressionist look.

[@mekore]

f4 zooms now fills my day

[@user-fy8ed6xj8k]

Damn the algorithms are really smart these days. Ive looked up robbie Lawrence on KZbin awhile ago after seeing his photography from the paris olympics and your video got recommended on my feed. Great video tho🎉

[@Ryan_Wiseman]

I got a f/2.8 135mm Minolta lens I've been shooting on, and even the f/2.8 can be too strong at times, being near impossible to nail focus for video as a scene shifts because the throw is just massive for a 135mm. Literally the focus throw is so huge (it's like using a PL lens), I thought the lens was doing something weird with its nonexistent autofocus features on a manual focus adapter (because the slightest difference in distance change means it'll defocus if I'm not continuously pulling focus, mix that in with how fast the lens snaps back to focus when you find an object of that same distance that you can instantly get focus onto, so quickly I was convinced that was an autofocus feature lmao). There are some incredible uses with that aperture, but if I'm trying to capture video, stepping down has saved my sanity since it doesn't require me to buy a follow focus system and 15mm rail system. 1.8 is great if you have an external monitor and good focus peaking, because trying to eyeball it through a tiny LCD monitor or EVH is much slower than big monitor with good assist technology. Me likey big monitor, but if I want to go compact, that fast aperture is a bigger headache than not, especially the more telephoto your lens is.

[@TheRealStoku]

To be honest I just decide what I want to shoot. Do I want to separate from the background as much as possible cause of whatever reason? Wide aperture. Do I want to keep multiple elements in focus because they add to my photo? Close it down however much I need to get it all in. Do I need a fast lens cause I'm taking action shots? You can bet your a** I'm using a mix of apertures and my ISO to get the work done.

[@lucaspintooc]

this is a lesson i only learned recently

[@adamrowett6423]

the shot at 4:50 is unreal!

[@maxkent]

Oh yeah! This was from one of my favourite projects, Britains mad traditions!

[@dasaen]

Another way of creating depth is flipping those contrast sliders to the right. Make it so contrasty it hurts.😂

[@fpershoot]

If I shouldn't shoot at F/1.8, what's the point in buying a lens after the kit lens? Kit lenses provide f/4 and higher.

[@ChrisIngramTheEditor]

Art is subjective people. Do what you want.

[@nevvanclarke9225]

I teach photography and I don't know how many times i've told people don't shoot at one point eight or one point two....bokeh is so operated also...plus lenses are sharpest at f6 to f8

[@Ilibu]

Everyone starts with open lenses :D But it changes with the skill level.

[@seventeendegree]

There is a book called f5.6 by Bogdan Dziworski. That book opened my eyes to the beauty of 5.6. For landscapes f.8 is perfect. For portraits, everything between f.9 and f4, depending on the subjects distance and light available.

[@Yusufu-92]

Very interesting. Thanks for the share and take care of yourself.

[@alanstarkie2001]

On almost a daily basis, I test and check many very expensive 'fast' German lenses. On the whole, when shot wide-open, shots of distant subjects tend to look very disappointing to the point that the lens appears sub-standard in some way but I see it all the time. I wouldn't expect anybody would want to do landscapes at f1.1 but stop down a bit and the image pops. For close subjects, shooting wide open seems much more acceptable, in fact adding an artistic element to portraits etc. Just saying...

[@translila]

every time i look at my exif data it's surprising how many of my cityscape shots end up being f4 or f5

[@rodrigomacias]

This is why I prefer aps-c over full frame, the amount of blurryness is just obscene.

[@jimpoop]

Sometimes wide open is the way to go... sometimes f16 is the call. The only aperture i find entirely useless is f22 f32 etc

[@Deh_acc]

Great tips and great recommendation of that photographer

[@UNLKYHNTR]

I always stop down to f4 - f5.6. worked for years

[@thatavalon]

Know when and where to use all of the tools at your disposal?

[@christiandebney1989]

David Lean and Steven Spielberg are good example of people who don't use shallow DOF. The environment is half the story.