Skip to main content

With depth of field, more is not always better

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


In the comments, HBG_Dave makes a salient observation:

I’ve always wondered why I like your photographs even though my personal theme has always been maximum sharp focus (not that I get it very often) and I tend to consider any blurring as a flaw. I think it must be because your compositions use the range of focal resolutions to draw the eye into the focal target.

That's about right. Consider the following:


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


This bee image is one of my least sharp photographs. The focal plane is razor-thin and large parts of the frame are obscured through the haze of an unintentional foreground flower. Yet blurring works in the image's favor. Extraneous objects in this visually complex environment, when blurred, aren't competing with our subject. Provided that the narrow sliver of focus falls in just the right plane, the in- and out-of-focus elements combine to draw our eye toward the melding of bee and flower.

Alex Wild is Curator of Entomology at the University of Texas at Austin, where he studies the evolutionary history of ants. In 2003 he founded a photography business as an aesthetic complement to his scientific work, and his natural history photographs appear in numerous museums, books and media outlets.

More by Alex Wild