| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/18/2003 03:57:33 PM · #1 |
An open question : no right or wrong answers.
Does this picture have
a/ too shallow a DoF ?
b/ exactly the appropriate DoF ?
c/ too much of an in focus region ?
I _wanted_ to highlight the ends of the stamen and not much else - but do you like it like this or want to see more ? Can you explain why ?
 |
|
|
|
04/18/2003 04:09:47 PM · #2 |
| It's perfect :) anymore and it distracts the viewer from the little bee and the stamens. |
|
|
|
04/18/2003 04:13:46 PM · #3 |
| I can't see how this can any better. The depth of field is jut right. |
|
|
|
04/18/2003 04:45:50 PM · #4 |
the DOF is just fine because it's about the bee and where it's doing it's thing.
What about this? Same question. (This is an outtake from Flora that I'm not going to use, btw. The bg building is the Jefferson Memorial).
Message edited by author 2003-04-18 16:48:28.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2003 04:46:17 PM · #5 |
|
|
|
04/18/2003 04:50:23 PM · #6 |
Fine, because your emphasis is on the flower :-)
if your emphasis is on the building, then the building would be in focus, that's how i see it.
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
the DOF is just fine because it's about the bee and where it's doing it's thing.
What about this? Same question. (This is an outtake from Flora that I'm not going to use, btw. The bg building is the Jefferson Memorial).
|
|
|
|
|
04/18/2003 04:51:50 PM · #7 |
I think had the bee not been in focus, it wouldnt have worked as well as it does here. In my opinion the bee is the main subject and the flower merely the background. Having the stamen in focus gives some added depth to the shot. The DOF youve chosen tells me what the subject is in this pic. I think especially when you use a bug or such in a plant macro, it needs to be the subject. You wouldnt pose a person next to a plant and make them out of focus. I guess in my mind, there is a heirarchy as to what should be the subject when shooting macros. An out of focus bee and perfectly focused flower just doesnt work for me. Great shot G, I think you nailed it.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2003 04:56:35 PM · #8 |
This is a recent example of a deliberate shallow DOF shot to make it appear more dream like. Ive kept the head and fist on the same plain and used them as the focus point. DOF is just a another great creative tool that can be exploited to set a mood or emphisize your subject. :)
|
|
|
|
04/18/2003 04:58:56 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
What about this? Same question. (This is an outtake from Flora that I'm not going to use, btw. The bg building is the Jefferson Memorial).
|
I like the way the building is out of focus but still distinct. If it was more blurry so that it was just a white blob, this would not work as well as it does with at least an identifiable structure.
This is similar in my opinion - the structure is identifiable enough to not need to be really sharp - though I've had comments complaining about
the 'blurry building'
Message edited by author 2003-04-18 16:59:12. |
|
|
|
04/18/2003 05:05:58 PM · #10 |
this is an interesting example because in some ways it's not as 'cut and dried' as the others. Those had some fairly clear fg/bg delineations in the content. This is using a shallow dof on the subject itself to 'interpret' it in a certain way and make a regular action figure more interesting in some way. That's probably even harder for people to wrap their minds around, esp with regard to clear 'rules' as to when and how much.
Originally posted by scab-lab:
This is a recent example of a deliberate shallow DOF shot to make it appear more dream like. Ive kept the head and fist on the same plain and used them as the focus point. DOF is just a another great creative tool that can be exploited to set a mood or emphisize your subject. :) |
|
|
|
|
04/18/2003 05:06:38 PM · #11 |
| Scan-lab, what lens did you use for this one? |
|
|
|
04/18/2003 05:07:55 PM · #12 |
when i showed the secretary the pic i posted below she complained that the memorial was OOF. So maybe we have to be resigned to accept that this is an 'acquired taste', and tthat only others that have a similar visual vocabulary will be likely to dig it too.
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
What about this? Same question. (This is an outtake from Flora that I'm not going to use, btw. The bg building is the Jefferson Memorial).
|
I like the way the building is out of focus but still distinct. If it was more blurry so that it was just a white blob, this would not work as well as it does with at least an identifiable structure.
This is similar in my opinion - the structure is identifiable enough to not need to be really sharp - though I've had comments complaining about
the 'blurry building'
|
|
|
|
|
04/18/2003 05:10:48 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by dadas115:
Scan-lab, what lens did you use for this one? |
Tamron 90mm F2.8 macro lens.
Message edited by author 2003-04-18 17:11:03.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2003 05:12:47 PM · #14 |
Unfortunately a lot of people don't seem to get it. What do you folks think about this one for DOF?
//forums.consumerreview.com/crforum?14@98.APJuaFfWtvc.441090@.efc1da4
Greg |
|
|
|
04/18/2003 05:20:39 PM · #15 |
NICE and soft :) i like it.
Originally posted by dadas115:
Unfortunately a lot of people don't seem to get it. What do you folks think about this one for DOF?
//forums.consumerreview.com/crforum?14@98.APJuaFfWtvc.441090@.efc1da4
Greg |
|
|
|
|
04/18/2003 05:24:41 PM · #16 |
Scan-lab, I really like your picture and I am also wondering how you like the 90mm macro. I have read lots of nice things about it, care to give your opinion?
Greg |
|
|
|
04/18/2003 05:25:31 PM · #17 |
nice pic. maybe a hair deeper. hmm is the focus plane on the eye or nose? i cant tell at this magnification but i'd look at that. alot of times having the eye(s) sharp can make the pic seem sharp even with the rest out of the focus field.
Originally posted by dadas115:
Unfortunately a lot of people don't seem to get it. What do you folks think about this one for DOF?
//forums.consumerreview.com/crforum?14@98.APJuaFfWtvc.441090@.efc1da4
Greg |
|
|
|
|
04/18/2003 05:27:34 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by dadas115:
Scan-lab, I really like your picture and I am also wondering how you like the 90mm macro. I have read lots of nice things about it, care to give your opinion?
Greg |
I love it, it sometimes like to "hunt" in low light, but Ive adjusted to that. My gallery link has tons of examples shot with that lens. Theyll do a better job explaining how much I like and use the lens than I can say in words. :)
|
|
|
|
04/18/2003 05:29:44 PM · #19 |
how about this one?
Not a macro, just 50 mm at F1.8 |
|
|
|
04/18/2003 05:31:55 PM · #20 |
Tony,
That one looks very similar to some of the ones I got at the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center last weekend! Great shot!
Greg |
|
|
|
04/18/2003 05:32:55 PM · #21 |
I really like that one Pag :)
|
|
|
|
04/18/2003 05:34:27 PM · #22 |
LOL, it's taken there :)
Originally posted by dadas115:
Tony,
That one looks very similar to some of the ones I got at the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center last weekend! Great shot!
Greg |
|
|
|
|
04/18/2003 05:40:12 PM · #23 |
| Scab-Lab, just wanted to say that your Dark Knight image just blows me away. What a fantastic shot! |
|
|
|
04/18/2003 05:57:50 PM · #24 |
Gordon - perfect DOF in that first shot - I like seeing just stamens and bee/wasp in focus. Composition just right too.
Kollin - I like the DOF very much in your shot of the Jefferson Memorial - my only criticism is in the lighting - given that the flowers are the things in focus I think they should have more lighting on them - as it is they are a little too much in shadow compared with the bright white of the Memorial. Just my opinion anyway. But I like the way the DOF throws the Memorial way out of focus.
Scab - I think the DOF and lighting in your Batman shot are superb.
Gordon - I like your memorial building shot too - especially the gate star in the foreground - but composition doesn't quite work for me - I think it's the way that curving metal element is cropped but basically it's a balance thing - composition doesn't feel balanced right to me.
Paganini - I love that shot - it's wonderful! I'd like it even more if the second flower at the very bottom right had been deadheaded out of the shot first, leaving just the other one.
Again, all this is purely my personal opinion which is that of a total amateur whose opinion ain't worth very much.
Message edited by author 2003-04-18 17:58:18.
|
|
|
|
04/18/2003 07:55:00 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by paganini:
how about this one?
Not a macro, just 50 mm at F1.8 |
I like it, mainly because all of the oof stuff leads you towards the small in focus flower. |
|
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: 05/06/2025 07:53:27 AM EDT.
