03-12-2016, 01:53 AM
edit/re-reading your post, are you actually agreeing with my point? I'm confused by your terminology then since 'depth of field' to me means camera-like out of focus areas. If you mean lower contrast/ less detail in out of focus areas, we're in agreement.
Look at how Sargent controls focus here. Is the background blurry and out of focus? No. There are clear cut shapes there that contribute to the overall design of the painting. How is focus achieved? By the overall shape/value design and lowering detail & contrast in areas that are not of importance, see the grass in the foreground (which with a camera-like depth of field effect would be about as detailed as the figures) and the green areas in the background (which are reduced to flat shapes rather than out of focus blobs as a camera would produce).
I'm not saying that depth of field/ bokeh is a complete no-no, it can work just fine depending on the image, but it's not how we see reality (at normal distances), as evidenced by just opening your eyes and appraising what you see in fromnt of you. It's how a camera sees the world.
(03-11-2016, 11:30 AM)RottenPocket Wrote: For illustration, there needs to be that depth of field.Look at old masters, look at people like Sargent or Zorn. I challenge you to find a single painting that shows a camera-like depth of field effect in any of their paintings. If depth of field as a camera produces it were as important as you claim it to be, and so natural to human vision, why does it only show up in painting after photography has taken over and people start copying photographs/mimicking photographic look?
Look at how Sargent controls focus here. Is the background blurry and out of focus? No. There are clear cut shapes there that contribute to the overall design of the painting. How is focus achieved? By the overall shape/value design and lowering detail & contrast in areas that are not of importance, see the grass in the foreground (which with a camera-like depth of field effect would be about as detailed as the figures) and the green areas in the background (which are reduced to flat shapes rather than out of focus blobs as a camera would produce).
I'm not saying that depth of field/ bokeh is a complete no-no, it can work just fine depending on the image, but it's not how we see reality (at normal distances), as evidenced by just opening your eyes and appraising what you see in fromnt of you. It's how a camera sees the world.
Portfolio: www.rene-aigner.de
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/reneaignerillustration
dA: http://reneaigner.deviantart.com/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/reneaignerillustration
dA: http://reneaigner.deviantart.com/