which camera did you use? i used to have a phone that was prone to doing that whole narrow depth of field thing with the cheesy blurred background. or did someone with an SLR do it with narrow aperture or something? i'm not trying to be nosey, it just is a style that has been overdone in recent years. worse than just stills, a lot of movies have started using narrow depth of field and it weakens the sense of realism, and they do it to lower costs because a convincing back-story world behind the actors is more expensive. i saw a good youtube video a few months back discussing how this trend with narrow depth of field shots in movies reduces the sense of realism, of the things you can look at that aren't directly in the story.

Replies (1)

it's my personal, aesthetics opinion, that narrow depth of field (sharp focus on a subject, blur on everything much outside of the region around the subject) belongs only in macro photographs. it just got so overdone! look at any desktop background collection on any operating system these days. way overdone. wide aperture long focus with detailed backgrounds is moving back into fashion. and people are abandoning stock photo libraries and hollywood is not just losing money making woke movies they are losing it making movies that are 2 dimensional cartoons without any world around them.