03-13-2016, 03:03 PM
I get both of your perspectives. I agree totally with what Rene said, but I think I know what you are also getting at Rotten. I guess it is just the terminology being used thatis getting a bit muddled. I think we can break this down. I see it like this.
A photo is a photo
A painting is a painting
Our eyes are our eyes.
They are all essentially representations of a 3D space and perspective.
The factors that give that feeling of depth in each may be slightly different depending on which "medium" is being used
For photos (and any monocular camera lens) DOF is a thing, and we recognise it as one way of enhancing depth and focus. It's not the only way. Lots of photos show depth without using DOF.
For paintings/illustrations, detail focus and contrast are more important as Rene suggested and one can simulate DOF, but it is just an emulation of how a monocular camera lens might see things. So painting something to appear the way a photo might capture it.
For our own eyes, binocular discrepancies account for the diverging superposition of two images from both eyes to create that "blurry" out of focus effect on anything we aren't looking at directly. In some instance this can definitely "appear" to be DOF, but it's not "technically" the same. If you shut one eye, then it would be pretty much the same as DOF in a camera as vision becomes monocular.
I personally wouldn't use the terminology of DOF as being essential to perspective theory for paintings. Though I do agree with your general idea Rotten, that skillful use of focus and amounts of contrast will go a long way towards suggesting a 3D space, which is pretty much exactly what Rene is saying :)
I would also say that there are certain elements to suggesting depth that will change depending on which medium we are talking about.
A photo is a photo
A painting is a painting
Our eyes are our eyes.
They are all essentially representations of a 3D space and perspective.
The factors that give that feeling of depth in each may be slightly different depending on which "medium" is being used
For photos (and any monocular camera lens) DOF is a thing, and we recognise it as one way of enhancing depth and focus. It's not the only way. Lots of photos show depth without using DOF.
For paintings/illustrations, detail focus and contrast are more important as Rene suggested and one can simulate DOF, but it is just an emulation of how a monocular camera lens might see things. So painting something to appear the way a photo might capture it.
For our own eyes, binocular discrepancies account for the diverging superposition of two images from both eyes to create that "blurry" out of focus effect on anything we aren't looking at directly. In some instance this can definitely "appear" to be DOF, but it's not "technically" the same. If you shut one eye, then it would be pretty much the same as DOF in a camera as vision becomes monocular.
I personally wouldn't use the terminology of DOF as being essential to perspective theory for paintings. Though I do agree with your general idea Rotten, that skillful use of focus and amounts of contrast will go a long way towards suggesting a 3D space, which is pretty much exactly what Rene is saying :)
I would also say that there are certain elements to suggesting depth that will change depending on which medium we are talking about.