Street photography and photojournalism
In photojournalism, it has been debated over and over again whether the narrow depth of field is alright when documenting reality. In street photography, the argument could be the same, although different genres of street photography easily can argue for and against this opinion.
Is the shallow depth of field hiding things that should be clearly visible? Is it just an expression? I can easily argue for the view that things are always let out just by framing differently, so isn’t that the same thing?
Let’s keep the focus solely on the DOF this time. Let’s break down DOF.
Here’s a breakdown of the issue:
What is the “film look”?
The “film look” is a combination of several aesthetic qualities that evoke the visual style of traditional cinema. Something that has always been in close relationship with photography, walking side by side.
These often include:
Colour grading (e.g., cinematic tones, contrast, saturation).
Lighting (naturalistic or stylised).
Lens characteristics (including depth of field).
Shallow DOF in cinema
Shallow depth of field is one tool among many. It’s often used to isolate subjects from the background and create intimacy or focus on the subject, adding a dreamy or stylised look.
However, many acclaimed films use deep focus (large DOF) to keep multiple planes in sharp detail. Examples include:
A favourite of mine of all time, Citizen Kane (Gregg Toland’s deep focus cinematography) – Children of Men (Emmanuel Lubezki’s immersive long takes) – Roma (also by Lubezki, with wide shots and deep focus).
Why shallow DOF is popular in photography and video today
Technical accessibility: Modern cameras and fast lenses make it easy to achieve shallow DOF.
Aesthetic appeal: It can look “cinematic” or “professional” to many viewers.
Social media influence: Portraits and product shots often favour blurred backgrounds.
Street photographer, myself included, like the look because it’s easy to make it look dreamy and cool, if you just nail focus. I do turn my eye more and more to the wider depth of field, simply because I like the inclusion of more elements in my photos.
It’s not a choice between one or the other, but using the right technique for the situation when possible.
Is the film look a myth?
Not a myth, but an oversimplification, maybe.
Shallow DOF is one stylistic choice, not a requirement for cinematic imagery. The idea that it’s essential to the film’s look is more of a trend or marketing narrative, especially in the context of gear promotion.
Films That Use Deep Focus Effectively
I will mention a few films using the technique of deep focus here. The first one mentioned is a favourite of mine.
Citizen Kane (1941) – Cinematographer Gregg Toland used deep focus throughout the film, having the effect of allowing multiple layers of action to be visible at once, enhancing narrative complexity.
There´s a famous scene where a child plays in the snow outside while adults discuss his future inside—both foreground and background are in sharp focus. There are several scenes with accurately arranged characters, making them very interesting to look at. Converting this to street photography, where nothing is arranged, is, of course, a challenge. But when it succeeds, it stands out.
Picture examples: https://theasc.com/articles/realism-for-citizen-kane
I feel the same thing about Chinatown (1974) http://www.glamamor.com/2012/02/cinema-style-file-style-is-star-in.html by Cinematographer John A. Alonzo, where he uses wide shots, deep focus, combined with close-ups. The way he builds up scenes reminds me of Citizen Kane and another old movie, The Third Man. Easily related to street photographers, can build up a scene of people and objects using a wide depth of field.
