>>3578639Depth of field changed as much with fashion, as it had to do with technical advancements.
Phones in everyday photography were making and popularizing deep dof as regular and ordinary. They've small sensors, so it's practically a requirement. So what was out of ordinary is shallow depth of field, and it gained traction. At the beginning of photography and in golden age of Hollywood, the situation was reversed, you had early film tech and poor lighting situations that required the use of large film formats, and shallow depth in every situation, from film to commercial and casual photography, shallow depth was the only way. Later, the trend moved into deeper depths of field, and was in fact very fashionable for a while, being pioneered by James Wong Howe, it came to be associated with David Lean, and Hitchcock. At least up into the age of television of early 60's and late 50's that again made deep depth of field appear casual from being everywhere from cheap 16mm films, and tv shows. At that time Hollywood needed to distance itself and innovate, it was the era of very wide cinematic aspects ratios and aspherical lenses. For a long time since, that shallower and wider depths were associated with film, and boxier and deeper depths were with television.
I believe that we'll again move into deeper depths, with tv again becoming more powerful, you see them moving film tech into it, and with phones gaining artificial dof, you will slowly start seeing depth creep back into prominence.
I'm generalising, you have exceptions in ever period. Wes Anderson will stick with deeper depth no matter what, likewise action flicks will stay with high dofs and lens flares.
