>>4497601Showing you my photos and videos will contribute nothing to my point. I fell for the shallow dof meme in the past, perhaps I'm overcorrecting now, it doesn't really matter. In early cinema from the 1890s to 1910s shallow depth of field was impossible. Slow film, slow lenses around f/4-f/8, weak lighting forced everything into sharp deep focus. No choice, no creamy blur to mask bad framing. Lumiere, Melies, everyone staged in depth or used tricks like forced perspective in Princess Nicotine because they couldn't soften backgrounds.
Shallow DoF only became easy later with faster stocks and lights, but stayed rare until the 2008 5D Mk II let every amateur blast f/1.4 and pretend it was cinematic. Now it's the laziest crutch going: can't compose, can't block, just drown the mess in bokeh and call it filmic. Right now it mostly acts like a crutch for people too incompetent to guide the eye properly. It's a technique that should be used sparingly with specific intention behind it, like step printing or extreme angle shots.
Anamorphics did the same. Born as a 1950s trick to fight TV with wide squeezed frames, their flares, oval bokeh and stretched shallow look turned into today's overpriced fetish. Beginners chase both as shortcuts instead of learning real craft.
