With today’s cameras you see more and more wildlife images that are made with “total depth of field”.  In other words every part of the bird or mammal is in focus.  The sensors on many newer cameras are becoming almost detail perfect.  Noise control is become so good that extremely high ISOs are possible. This facilitates a lot of DOF and allows the photographer to frequently cover all of the animal with focus.  I have made my share of “total DOF” shots when I could. I of course could not achieve that on a regular basis with my older camera bodies. The question is….do we need that total focus on every wild animal we photograph, or is it sometimes more compelling to “shoot for the eyes”, or face or head?   Are wildlife images with a shallow DOF becoming unacceptable?  Depth of field and point of focus are two of the most important decisions a photographer makes. We readily accept shallow DOF on subjects like flowers or grasses. We regard that as a valid artistic decision. What about wildlife?

Below you find three Red Fox photos made with my 500mm lens.  It was impossible with that lens, to cover the animal with full focus.  Even with the newer cameras it could not have been done in the first two images because of the angle of the fox and how close it was to me.  If the fox would have been more parallel to the camera, like in the final shot, it would have been possible, but I truly liked the images in my viewfinder when I saw them at wide open aperture.  I made the decision to shoot at f4.

I certainly hope that images like this won’t become obsolete, because the face and eyes are a great compositional tool, and sometimes leaving the body soft makes for a more powerful image.

The third image is a bit different.  I was still shooting at f4 but a switch to about f8 would have been better.  I got the body sharp and missed the head a little bit. It rarely works with the point of focus being in that order.  It is acceptable (barely) in this shot because the head is almost hidden.  You also tend to look at this picture differently from the first two. It is natural to take in the entire image all at once.  You stay backed off a bit.  The head and face are not examined and stared at.  It does however still bother me.  That is likely because it is my image and I know the soft face and head are there.

I think the most fun you can have in photography is when you are left to make those “creative choices” that separate each of us from the other.  I would hate to see the time when only one way of seeing things is tolerable.