| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/28/2009 12:02:42 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Fine...
Could we at least agree that alphabetizing the order of techniques has nothing to do with the images message or quality?
Could we agree that the images would look the same with a jumbled order of techniques listed and that it would be No More difficult for the viewer to decipher what was going on in frame, listed in any order?
Could we agree that alphabetizing the order of techniques is arbitrary and serves no purpose?
Could we agree that the photographers would have taken the exact same images using the same techniques and the Challenge outcome/end result might be visually better without that rule in place(assuming a few great images are being penalized for a rule that serves no purpose)?
Could we agree that doing things without good reason or relevance to an outcome of the task at hand, doesn't make sense? For example, alphabetizing Chili ingredients or breakfast foods (bacon, cheese, eggs, ham and orange juice) before preparing them.
I know...I know all great chefs and artists...Picasso, Escoffier alphabetized before creating their masterpieces but they're different (sarcasm).
Personally, I'd rather people be spending their precious few viewing seconds on something more worthy than alphabetization. For the record, I did follow the rule but never for the life of me, thought people would actually give a flying crap about it and factor in something so silly into complex visual realm with bigger, more important fish to fry. |
Steve, I'm not for one second saying that the guidelines aren't silly, my objection is that if out of 140 entrants, if five entrants are whining and refused to follow them, why should anyone have to make allowances for them just because they may happen to think they don't have to abide the same guidelines that we all did?
I'm not arguing that the guidelines are inane.......doesn't the administration have the right to get their fun with silly guidelines every now and then?
Ya gotta figure that it isn't always about us, either.
Point is.....it isn't a democracy, the guidelines are in place, and if anyone thought they were intolerable, this was just one of 150+ challenges for the 2009 year that could have been passed by.....I do it all the time, don't you?
Consequently......my sympathy level for someone getting slapped 'cause they didn't follow the guidelines isn't real high......and my tolerance level for them calling me a Nazi after following the silly guidelines myself is just about zilch!.....8>)
|
|
|
|
10/28/2009 12:03:01 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I'm starting to get really tired of people who refuse to stay within the general description of the challenge calling those that bust them on it Nazis.
You don't want to conform, fine; you want to express your artistic self, fine; but if you knowingly and willingly flout the description, then live with what you get and quit calling the people who bust you on it names!!!!
You have the parameters......do with it what you want, but accept the responsibility for it, and if you screw around and get hammered, take it like a grownup and quit your whining! |
Somehow I'm not surprised that I'm in 100% agreement with Jeb on this.
You were given an assignment - which included the alphabetization.
You chose to take it.
If you chose to blatantly ignore part of the given assignment (regardless of how inane it seemed to you), you're going to have to take the downfall that comes from it. Again - you made that CHOICE, knowing the rules.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2009 12:03:54 PM · #53 |
What if the techniques were put in parentheses? :P I'm always, usually a fan of following the instructions but penalizing for non-alphabetical order seems a little over the top. I think the value of listing the techniques in the title is that it helps me understand whether the photog understands the techniques. Of course, just listing the techniques doesn't guarantee the knowledge, or even correct application of the "rules".
Thanks for the nice comment Ja-9.
Steve, if you could round up my score by one-billionth of a point that would be helpful. I'm trying to catch Robert! |
|
|
|
10/28/2009 12:06:15 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I'm not arguing that the guidelines are inane.......doesn't the administration have the right to get their fun with silly guidelines every now and then?
Ya gotta figure that it isn't always about us, either.
Point is.....it isn't a democracy, the guidelines are in place, and if anyone thought they were intolerable, this was just one of 150+ challenges for the 2009 year that could have been passed by.....I do it all the time, don't you?
Consequently......my sympathy level for someone getting slapped 'cause they didn't follow the guidelines isn't real high......and my tolerance level for them calling me a Nazi after following the silly guidelines myself is just about zilch!.....8>) |
Yeah - all this too. Agreed.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2009 12:16:24 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by mpeters:
Of course, just listing the techniques doesn't guarantee the knowledge, or even correct application of the "rules". |
That's where I'm running into my biggest issues.
I have no technical photography training whatsoever, so to a certain extent I have to rely on the photog's choices to help me decide how good a job he/she did on the image.
I saw a couple of images that upon review I would have listed a technique they didn't and a couple where, as far as I know, they were wrong. (Anyone else here struggling with the Deep/Shallow DOF, Bokeh/Shallow DOF conundrums?)
This is most definitely a learning challenge for me, and what I hope we can do is keep this thread rolling, or start another after the challenge, because, .......I have questions!!!!!
|
|
|
|
10/28/2009 12:28:00 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Consequently......my sympathy level for someone getting slapped 'cause they didn't follow the guidelines isn't real high......and my tolerance level for them calling me a Nazi after following the silly guidelines myself is just about zilch!.....8>) |
Well, we are thinking animals and I do believe in following rules. I follow them ALL the time but one would hope that as thinking beings we could understand flexibility and park some of the bullshit on occasion, as we do all the time, as thinking human beings. We do have that ability. There are important rules to follow.
If I were standing at a traffic light in the middle of the dessert and the light was red (against me) and there were no cars in sight, for miles I would probably cross the street. Rules are rules...correct? What would you do?
Everyone of us uses judgement and degree with every single vote...
Jac-9 said "I only judged on the quality of the picture...a few didn't even have the right technicals...I didn't even count against that...asked questions but didn't count against that..."
I would say not identifying the "right technicals" as listed is EXACTLY what you should be focusing on and voting against, if the photog failed in that regard. That's the whole enchilada and the only thing that really matters here. Given a toss up between voting on good techs and alphabetizing in terms of importance, IMO is a no brainer...IF you want the best image(s) on the front page at the end.
BTW, for me this isn't about any images (specifically) or a simple silly, rule but peoples inability, to be flexible and apply better judgment to a situation. In general, to get twisted by something that shouldn't be there in the first place, is strange to me. Please don't interpret this, as me...picking and choosing rules to ignore willy-nilly but reasoning out something arbitrary for a good reason. I understand rules... I don't need a lesson in that.
If it were an important rule...I would agree with you whole-heartedly. The Nazi thing is just and expression that's been used here for ages before you or me came along to this joint BUT this does reek of "blind-obedience". Just do what you're told...DON"T ask questions...don't think!
Today, I drank milk that was one day past the expiration date and yesterday, going up the escalator, I took my hand off the handrail. I'm crazy, that way...
Message edited by author 2009-10-28 12:38:47. |
|
|
|
10/28/2009 12:34:58 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by kashi:
My comments received show that I completely mangled one of the techniques - what can I say ? I'm not a pro, I'm trying and learning.
Thankfully, my score is still respectable.
I'm thinking that people are not just handing out 1's and 2's for one of three techniques not being 'correct' or obvious, etc. |
Learning is what this is all about.... glad your score is holding up.
So if I handled all three techniques okay, titled the image properly, and am still getting 1/2 votes (along with some high scores but that's irrelevant to this question)... then what's going on?
Obviously the same thing that goes on in every challenge....
I really don't think most dpc voters will demote an image too much just based on the proper/improper use of the three techniques (in this case). In general, they are looking for overall image quality (do I like it or not?).
I, personally, am choosing to abstain from voting on the images that didn't follow the rules for their title but which clearly represent three of the techniques. This may be a cop-out but I don't feel right about giving out 1/2 votes when someone obviously put effort into their photography.
And as for alphabetizing... yes, I did that and I will notice if someone else didn't, but I would never vote lower for something so irrelevant (even knowing it was a rule).
Message edited by author 2009-10-28 12:42:02. |
|
|
|
10/28/2009 12:52:04 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Consequently......my sympathy level for someone getting slapped 'cause they didn't follow the guidelines isn't real high......and my tolerance level for them calling me a Nazi after following the silly guidelines myself is just about zilch!.....8>) |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
If I were standing at a traffic light in the middle of the dessert and the light was red (against me) and there were no cars in sight, for miles I would probably cross the street. Rules are rules...correct? What would you do? |
Hey, if it's clear in the oncoming lane, I'll turn against the red in the left turn lane.......but I'll pay the ticket if I get busted without squawking.
Originally posted by pawdrix:
BTW, for me this isn't about any images (specifically) or a simple silly, rule but peoples inability, to be flexible and apply better judgment to a situation. In general, to get twisted by something that shouldn't be there in the first place, is strange to me. Please don't interpret this, as me...picking and choosing rules to ignore willy-nilly but reasoning out something arbitrary for a good reason. I understand rules... I don't need a lesson in that. |
And I certainly understand that.......I just don't waste a lot of time trying to second guess the challenge descriptions. So what if it's arbitrary? The only time that causes any distress is in league play, and again......you do that to yourself. You *always* have the option to sit this one out if you think the parameters are goofy.
Originally posted by pawdrix:
If it were an important rule...I would agree with you whole-heartedly. The Nazi thing is just and expression that's been used here for ages before you or me came along to this joint BUT this does reek of "blind-obedience". Just do what you're told...DON"T ask questions...don't think! |
Been there, done that.....have been on lists/forums/boards for years.....but it's always been an issue.....someone who doesn't like getting popped for doing what he/she shouldn't decides to call out the one who busted them as a Nazi. It's not right.....it's not the term so much as the intent. If you screw up and get tagged for it, take your medicine.
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Today, I drank milk that was one day past the expiration date and yesterday, going up the escalator, I took my hand off the handrail. I'm crazy, that way... |
But Officer! I was only going one way!.....8>)
ETA: Just for the record, I didn't even notice whether or not the techniques were alphabetical or not, but I did tag a couple images for a -1 point if they didn't bother to list any.
Message edited by author 2009-10-28 12:54:51.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2009 01:08:03 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by mpeters:
Of course, just listing the techniques doesn't guarantee the knowledge, or even correct application of the "rules". |
That's where I'm running into my biggest issues.
I have no technical photography training whatsoever, so to a certain extent I have to rely on the photog's choices to help me decide how good a job he/she did on the image.
I saw a couple of images that upon review I would have listed a technique they didn't and a couple where, as far as I know, they were wrong. (Anyone else here struggling with the Deep/Shallow DOF, Bokeh/Shallow DOF conundrums?)
This is most definitely a learning challenge for me, and what I hope we can do is keep this thread rolling, or start another after the challenge, because, .......I have questions!!!!! |
I have really enjoyed this challenge, it has really helped me come closer to figuring out the differences between Deep/Shallow DOF and the varying degrees between. Also a better handle on Low Key...which I really like...I am still really struggling with RoT...to me that is truly a hard one to say...yes/no to...overall this has been an excellent challenge and by listing the elements (yes - in Alpha makes us think a bit more lol- just draw a target on my head...) the we were targeting as the photographer...for me it is a test to see if I 1) can say the alphabet 2) take a picture using at least 3 techniques "LISTED" 3) that I can actually accurately ID the techniques. |
|
|
|
10/28/2009 01:11:01 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Consequently......my sympathy level for someone getting slapped 'cause they didn't follow the guidelines isn't real high......and my tolerance level for them calling me a Nazi after following the silly guidelines myself is just about zilch!.....8>) |
Well, we are thinking animals and I do believe in following rules. I follow them ALL the time but one would hope that as thinking beings we could understand flexibility and park some of the bullshit on occasion, as we do all the time, as thinking human beings. We do have that ability. There are important rules to follow.
If I were standing at a traffic light in the middle of the dessert and the light was red (against me) and there were no cars in sight, for miles I would probably cross the street. Rules are rules...correct? What would you do?
Everyone of us uses judgement and degree with every single vote...
Jac-9 said "I only judged on the quality of the picture...a few didn't even have the right technicals...I didn't even count against that...asked questions but didn't count against that..."
I would say not identifying the "right technicals" as listed is EXACTLY what you should be focusing on and voting against, if the photog failed in that regard. That's the whole enchilada and the only thing that really matters here. Given a toss up between voting on good techs and alphabetizing in terms of importance, IMO is a no brainer...IF you want the best image(s) on the front page at the end.
BTW, for me this isn't about any images (specifically) or a simple silly, rule but peoples inability, to be flexible and apply better judgment to a situation. In general, to get twisted by something that shouldn't be there in the first place, is strange to me. Please don't interpret this, as me...picking and choosing rules to ignore willy-nilly but reasoning out something arbitrary for a good reason. I understand rules... I don't need a lesson in that.
If it were an important rule...I would agree with you whole-heartedly. The Nazi thing is just and expression that's been used here for ages before you or me came along to this joint BUT this does reek of "blind-obedience". Just do what you're told...DON"T ask questions...don't think!
Today, I drank milk that was one day past the expiration date and yesterday, going up the escalator, I took my hand off the handrail. I'm crazy, that way... |
Okay I thought you were arguing that we should ignore technicals listed in the title. I could careless about alphabetizing and haven't even paid attention to it during voting. The idea of alphabetizing was the least unimportant thing in the challenge. I did it (at least I think I did) to avoid having people vote my photo down because of it, but I don't think I even bothered looking to see if anyone else did it on their entry. I'm just looking for three techniques to be listed.
He is COMPLETELY right in saying that people should be penalizing if the wrong technicals are used. If someone says they are using Shallow DOF and they obviously are using Deep DOF, they SHOULDN'T be given DNMC, but a point or two should be knocked off for not researching that technique before using it. A comment should be left to explain why they didn't use that technique, so they can learn from it. By not voting on the AESTHETIC QUALITY of COMBINING THE TECHNIQUES LISTED (notice all the words in bold not just a couple) then it is simply a free study. |
|
|
|
10/28/2009 03:55:00 PM · #61 |
My initial comment was relating to this image being an ROT comp. I think it is BUT on a ROT scale from 1-10 I'd give a weak, 2 in that department. That's a low score but I still think it can be called ROT however bad a representation it is of the technique. How's that?
I called that part of the discussion or people judging it NOT to be ROT "pedantic". It is ROT IMO...but still, very weak. My next point was since we were dealing with 3 techniques to be slightly more lenient than usual... SLIGHTLY! since there's a lot more to digest in this Challenge and to allow for subtlety IF it works.
People do have tendency to slam techniques out to make them obvious and clear to the average viewer and thus produce junky images...placing the carriage, firmly before the horse. A tilt for example, doesn't need to be a freakin earthquake, although that's what a lot of folks do to appease viewers that don't wan to take a few seconds to digest an image.
If you don't see or recognize the technique mentioned or a shred of it's presence, NAIL'em in the butt for it. There are a few images in this Challenge, that missed as is with every Challenge. Maybe they shoehorned a shot in because it was lying around...I don't know but honestly, this ain't rocket science. Soft Focus is Soft Focus and Deep DOF isn't Shallow DOF.
As for alphabetizing....lololololol!
Message edited by author 2009-10-28 16:28:45. |
|
|
|
10/28/2009 04:37:54 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
My initial comment was relating to this image being an ROT comp. I think it is BUT on a ROT scale from 1-10 I'd give a weak, 2 in that department. That's a low score but I still think it can be called ROT however bad a representation it is of the technique. |
Lemme ask you......could this be Centered *AND* ROT?
Can those two be used simultaneously and effectively in your opinion?
|
|
|
|
10/28/2009 05:09:36 PM · #63 |
Well the bug is the Rock Star of the image, as I see it and the flower, while powerful is the backdrop...if we agree?
The bug is not centered and well enough off-center, to be in the ROT realm. In other words, the essence of the ROT, IS in play to my eye. Again, it's a weak example of the ROT vibe but enough so, to pass muster. The flower is off-center but not ROT.
Yes, you can certainly do both techniques in the same frame BUT I might yield to the main subject when calling the shot. In this case the fly pretty much rules the image, if I had to choose. I would also call it a bug shot before I'd call it a flower shot. Or maybe it's a flower shot with a huge bug distraction, smack on top...lolololol.
I think that particular shot doesn't work well on any level and just because it's this or that (ROT or Centered), doesn't mean it suits the subject(s) well or the best way they could have been portrayed. Even if it were entered in a Centered ROT Challenge, I wouldn't give it more than a 4. At the risk of sounding harsh, both choices here, were done ineffectively, imo. No offense.
That's how I'da dunnit...
Message edited by author 2009-10-28 18:06:27. |
|
|
|
10/28/2009 08:24:13 PM · #64 |
what's dinging my score is that, the way i used one of my techniques (can't say which so i don't give myself away) is usually related to a different type of image than the one i used it in. sooo, i have voters looking at it and saying "oh, that's not --- so its not --", which is irritating the crap out of me because it IS used correctly. i don't know everything but i know that and it's infuriating not to be able to point that out.
ARRGGHHHH
learn the definitions of the techniques before you ding someone a point because you think they've used it wrong. it's clear that enough people aren't positive about how to use the techniques by looking at the titles in this challenge (the whole DOF/ROT/Centered Comp./etc thing) and they are probably voting in ignorance as well.
disclaimer: i don't think i know everything but i did read the definitions of the techniques i wasn't sure about, as well as researching images online that exemplified those techniques. it took about an hour. |
|
|
|
10/28/2009 08:31:35 PM · #65 |
I wonder how many people didn't even see the whole alphabetical nonsense... I didn't... In fact, I was so thrilled to see this as a challenge, I just went on my merry way and didn't bother to read into it.. I'm sure I'm getting slammed because of it, no one has specifically said so in their comments, but it matters none to me..
I just wonder how many people were like me, and just simply didn't see it.. Honest mistake, stupid and careless too.. Won't happen again, but I can say that I for one am not penalizing anyone for this.. :-) |
|
|
|
10/28/2009 08:51:34 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by kandykarml:
I wonder how many people didn't even see the whole alphabetical nonsense... I didn't... In fact, I was so thrilled to see this as a challenge, I just went on my merry way and didn't bother to read into it.. I'm sure I'm getting slammed because of it, no one has specifically said so in their comments, but it matters none to me..
I just wonder how many people were like me, and just simply didn't see it.. Honest mistake, stupid and careless too.. Won't happen again, but I can say that I for one am not penalizing anyone for this.. :-) |
This is exactly what happened to me and why I am little bitter about it also. I have 10 comments so far explaining the rules to me and it was an honest mistake. I don't want to go into too much detail and give away my image but once the challenge is over you can read my description and see what I am talking about if you are interested.
However, I do understand what people are saying about the description and following it to the letter though. My mistake and I have to deal with it. I just wish I didn't like my shot as much. I was trying something new and was looking forward to some good constructive criticism on it but I messed up and am getting nothing but "sorry but DNMC."
|
|
|
|
10/28/2009 09:10:32 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by sadiebird:
what's dinging my score is that, the way i used one of my techniques (can't say which so i don't give myself away) is usually related to a different type of image than the one i used it in. sooo, i have voters looking at it and saying "oh, that's not --- so its not --", which is irritating the crap out of me because it IS used correctly. i don't know everything but i know that and it's infuriating not to be able to point that out.
ARRGGHHHH
learn the definitions of the techniques before you ding someone a point because you think they've used it wrong. it's clear that enough people aren't positive about how to use the techniques by looking at the titles in this challenge (the whole DOF/ROT/Centered Comp./etc thing) and they are probably voting in ignorance as well.
disclaimer: i don't think i know everything but i did read the definitions of the techniques i wasn't sure about, as well as researching images online that exemplified those techniques. it took about an hour. |
 sadiebird if you would like...since I am done voting and commenting on this challenge, I would like to "clarify" my comment...sometimes I miss my mark...you can PM me if you like...my votes are locked at this time. If I buggered it up...I'm sorry...
Message edited by author 2009-10-28 21:11:09. |
|
|
|
10/28/2009 09:11:39 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Bokeh/Shallow DOF conundrums |
One is definitely a technique (shallow DOF) the other is a result (bokeh), although using bokeh as a major feature of the image is a technique. Clear? ;) |
|
|
|
10/28/2009 09:18:19 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Bokeh/Shallow DOF conundrums |
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
One is definitely a technique (shallow DOF) the other is a result (bokeh), although using bokeh as a major feature of the image is a technique. Clear? ;) |
Theoretically.....where I ran into problems with that is where the line is as to using both. I saw some shots that claimed both, or one or the other, and in my mind, I would have called it the other.
I didn't waste a bunch of time on any of those trying to pick the fly sh*t out of the pepper, but I was kind of surprised to see the overlap.
To me it would have made more sense to utilize three techniques that would work more harmoniously with a definitive difference between them, i.e, Bokeh, Portrait, ROT, rather than using both shallow DOF & bokeh.
But.....that's just me.
Having seen how much controversy surrounds bokeh in the bokeh specific challenges, I wasn't about to touch that one.....
|
|
|
|
10/28/2009 09:21:37 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Bokeh/Shallow DOF conundrums |
One is definitely a technique (shallow DOF) the other is a result (bokeh), although using bokeh as a major feature of the image is a technique. Clear? ;) |
yes, but I got really confused with the shallow DOF and the deep DOF....it was pointed out to me that "Deep DOF means that all or most of the picture is in focus. If the subject is in focus and and the background is out of focus that would imply shallow DOF. It has nothing to do with how far the photographer is from his subject." The reason I got this was because the subject was further out in the picture...not really close which is what I thought was shallow DOF and that deep DOF would just go on forever (in focus). |
|
|
|
10/28/2009 09:32:29 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by Ja-9:
Originally posted by sadiebird:
what's dinging my score is that, the way i used one of my techniques (can't say which so i don't give myself away) is usually related to a different type of image than the one i used it in. sooo, i have voters looking at it and saying "oh, that's not --- so its not --", which is irritating the crap out of me because it IS used correctly. i don't know everything but i know that and it's infuriating not to be able to point that out.
ARRGGHHHH
learn the definitions of the techniques before you ding someone a point because you think they've used it wrong. it's clear that enough people aren't positive about how to use the techniques by looking at the titles in this challenge (the whole DOF/ROT/Centered Comp./etc thing) and they are probably voting in ignorance as well.
disclaimer: i don't think i know everything but i did read the definitions of the techniques i wasn't sure about, as well as researching images online that exemplified those techniques. it took about an hour. |
sadiebird if you would like...since I am done voting and commenting on this challenge, I would like to "clarify" my comment...sometimes I miss my mark...you can PM me if you like...my votes are locked at this time. If I buggered it up...I'm sorry... |
that's nice of you but yours was a comment that i found helpful and def. not the one i am all ticked about. :) don't worry, you didn't bugger anything up. |
|
|
|
10/28/2009 09:54:37 PM · #72 |
I'm trying to get a good grasp of of bokeh myself. My understanding is basically this... Bokeh is a special case of shallow DOF. The background isn't just out of focus, it also enhances, adds to, the main subject.
For example:
Shallow DOF utilizing the technique of Bokeh 
Simply shallow DOF 
Does this sound correct to everyone else? |
|
|
|
10/28/2009 10:01:19 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by aplomb76:
I'm trying to get a good grasp of of bokeh myself. My understanding is basically this... Bokeh is a special case of shallow DOF. The background isn't just out of focus, it also enhances, adds to, the main subject.
For example:
Shallow DOF utilizing the technique of Bokeh
Simply shallow DOF
Does this sound correct to everyone else? |
yes, man I can't reference because of the challenge...everything I want to reference can be tied to the current challenge... gnaws knuckles. let me try again...if you have a Deep DOF how can you call it Shallow DOF??? |
|
|
|
10/28/2009 10:15:36 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by Ja-9:
let me try again...if you have a Deep DOF how can you call it Shallow DOF??? |
You cannot have a photo shallow and deep DOF at the same time.
Hmmm... I think you are confusing the distance between photographer and the subject with the area that is in focus. Deep DOF means there is a very large area that is in focus (the more in focus the better). Shallow DOF means there is a very large area out of focus and only a little is in focus. Lets try this...
This photo is deep DOF.
The reason it is deep DOF is the farthest point and the closest point are in perfect focus.
This photo is shallow DOF.
The reason it is shallow DOF is the closest point (the flowers) are out of focus, the farthest point (the mountain trees) are out of focus. The subject is in focus. This means there is a very shallow area between the near and far points that is in focus.
The distance between the subject and the photographer is not important.
The subject in the first photo is close to the camera, I assume.
The subject in the second photo is not close to the camera.
Hope this helps.
Message edited by author 2009-10-28 22:16:25. |
|
|
|
10/28/2009 10:22:18 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by aplomb76:
Originally posted by Ja-9:
let me try again...if you have a Deep DOF how can you call it Shallow DOF??? |
You cannot have a photo shallow and deep DOF at the same time.
Hmmm... I think you are confusing the distance between photographer and the subject with the area that is in focus. Deep DOF means there is a very large area that is in focus (the more in focus the better). Shallow DOF means there is a very large area out of focus and only a little is in focus. Lets try this...
This photo is deep DOF.
The reason it is deep DOF is the farthest point and the closest point are in perfect focus.
This photo is shallow DOF.
The reason it is shallow DOF is the closest point (the flowers) are out of focus, the farthest point (the mountain trees) are out of focus. The subject is in focus. This means there is a very shallow area between the near and far points that is in focus.
The distance between the subject and the photographer is not important.
The subject in the first photo is close to the camera, I assume.
The subject in the second photo is not close to the camera.
Hope this helps. |
ahhhh yep again...the pictures really help alot as well...but lets say someone has a landscape picture and the foreground is in sharp focus but the background is in relative sharp focus (Bear's picture from the Deep DOF Challenge discussion) then that would be deep DOF not Shallow right...(I know this sounds very stupid to everyone else...sorry) |
|
