Shallow DoF Travel Portraits = Bad?

File: 78320019.jpg (2MB, 3089x2048px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3089x2048px

>>2737360
well you need to choose what you want your subject to be, whether you want a portrait or a landscape photo. Very difficult to have both in a good photo. Your friends just want a typical shitty holiday photo where they are tiny people at the bottom of the pic in typical shitty poses probably hugging each other with a shitty landmark in the back. That's why I don't take my DSLRs for holidays, take some instax or a 10 bucks film point and shoot instead, pic related

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	QSS-32_33
Camera Software	QSS-32_33 5.01.003 2008.01.15
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3089
Image Height	2048

>>2737360
>the subjects are complaining that the background is blurred and nobody can tell where they are
Well that should give you a clue. If you want to take a portrait in a certain environment it makes sense that the environment should be recognisable. Just because it is a portrait it doesn't mean that everything but the nose and eyes must be out of focus.

Employ a little common sense and remember that the importance of bokeh has been elevated by blogs in order to make you feel inadequate about your lens collection.

Shallow DoF is played out. Its all about f/36 these days.

>>2737434
>f/36
>he doesn't shoot f/64 through a lens of cut diamonds onto a silver gelatin plate blessed by the tears of Christ

why don't you go live in a garbage can

seriously, i like my mf @ f22

>>2737437
>he doesn't shoot f/64 through a lens of cut diamonds onto a silver gelatin plate blessed by the tears of Christ
If you're short on cash you could always just set the shutter speed to 3 years. That should get enough light in.