| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/09/2005 10:33:25 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by cbeller:
[Actually, you could have pulled her further forward from the tree and it would have went more OoF, seperating her from the background. |
Agreed. As it was I shot f/2.8 or f/3.2 to blur the background. You can see the effect better when I'm at the longer end of my 70-200 (see the bottom image). When I tried getting the girls from head to toe, it of course, reduced the effect of shooting f/2.8.
Since it was on a hill, I couldn't have them move far from the tree or we lose the nature shot aspect. But I do agree with you. More distance from the tree would have helped.
|
|
|
|
10/09/2005 02:42:15 PM · #27 |
I still notice that the tree goes into or comes out of the body at odd places.. you might be able to fix that by putting more leaves into the shot where the sticks come into or out of the body and remove the leaves where they come out of her posterior in the one shot
Originally posted by dwterry:
Originally posted by cbeller:
[Actually, you could have pulled her further forward from the tree and it would have went more OoF, seperating her from the background. |
Agreed. As it was I shot f/2.8 or f/3.2 to blur the background. You can see the effect better when I'm at the longer end of my 70-200 (see the bottom image). When I tried getting the girls from head to toe, it of course, reduced the effect of shooting f/2.8.
Since it was on a hill, I couldn't have them move far from the tree or we lose the nature shot aspect. But I do agree with you. More distance from the tree would have helped. |
Message edited by author 2005-10-09 14:42:41. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/23/2025 07:12:08 PM EDT.
