(d7000, 16-35vr)
PHOTO-A-DAY: September 2012
(793 posts) (77 voices)-
Posted 8 months ago #
-
msmoto: The near headlight (eye) of the red car since that is your subject? Interesting photo, I love that era in car design when aerodynamics was first being discovered and lines were being smoothed out such as when the Cobra was transformed into the Cobra Daytona Coupe. It is before wind tunnels were used and people were doing it by eye. The lines created by eye created the beauty in my opinion.
Juergen: I think you are correct to not blur out the background in that photo because the background adds interest and character. For that photo you want context. Blurring the background into beautiful bokeh colors and shapes is great when you want the viewer to focus 100% on the subject's face without much context. No one disagrees with those basics. The small issue comes when you look at both eyes and one is out of focus. Sometimes you cannot do anything about that because you must shoot with the light you have. That is true for most of msmotos candid protraits; there just was not much light in the engine bay of her motor home to work with. Sometimes you can have the model turn more towards the camera so both eyes fall into the same plane of focus such as SquamishPhoto's first two portrait shots he posted this month which were shot with the same lens at the same f-stop as his most recent posted portrait. Sometimes you can change to f4 to get more depth of field and still keep the bokeh if your background is far enough away. My "eye focus" comment is illustrated by comparing the first two portraits Squamishphoto posted this month with the last one he posted. Look at the eyes. Same f-stop, same lens, different eyes. I feel the first two have more impact because those sharp eyes draw you in more. Others may disagree, look for yourself and come to your own conclusion. Learning from observing photos posted on PAD should be one of the reasons we look at PAD, right?
costalcon: I like it; one of the few times I like mixing color with black and white. Most of the time the effect seems to "tricky" and "artifical" to me.
Posted 8 months ago # -
msmoto: I think this is a trick question ha. Ok I'll go with the right eye guy with the pink shirt. Heehee.
Posted 8 months ago # -
Interesting discussion about how to properly focus portraits. I don't do a lot of portraits, but I too rather sacrifice the sharpness of the far eye for getting a nice blurred background.
Anyways, my picture for today: some sunflowers in our garden trying to get the last rays of sun before autumn comes.
D700 - 135 mm f/2 @ f/4.5
Posted 8 months ago # -
Correlli: I don't think you have to choose between background blur and sharp far eye when you are setting up a portrait shot rather than shooting a spur of the moment candid in a setting you cannot control. The amount of blur in the background is a function of how far that background is away from the point of focus as well as the f-stop used. Have the model take a few steps towards the camera, back up the same number of steps, stop down one f-stop to increase the sharpness of the far eye and wouldn't you have an equal amount of blur in the backgroud plus the added benefit of a sharper far eye? I think so . . . . . Anyway, it is something to think about when setting up natural light portraits. Try both while you are at it and see which you like best later.
Posted 8 months ago # -
@donaldejose-
thank you for sharing that wonderful story about the Blue Angels.. in fact .. your story was better than my photo! Also, thank you for bringing up the "both eyes in focus" subject. I never thought about it before but you now know.. I'm looking for it in everyones photo!
Aloha- Imua HawaiiPosted 8 months ago # -
Thanks Henry_G for the comment on the yacht shot a couple of pages ago.
I took great interest in the portrait photo conversation because it's actually what I consider one of my favorite types of photography along with landscape and a bit of architecture. As a guy who grew up admiring how female portraits are posed and photographed I have always seen certain styles more artistic and I daresay more sensual or seductive than others. So much depends on the shooters style and what the subject wants. If they both meet down the middle then the result is just what each party desired. Along the lines of msmoto's comment I think certain female poses just say more than a mere "Hi, how are you?" For that kind of pose a bit of artistic latitude will certainly work, including the type of pose that sparked this conversation. Other poses may imply something more straightforward and might not involve the soft out of focus eye. If all of our styles were the same, or if nobody ever broke the rules, then all of this could get pretty mundane.
@Pierre3, cute puppy, cute photo!
Posted 8 months ago # -
Aloha: I have been to all the Hawaian Islands and think if I came again I would spend more time on Molokai, doing nothing on empty beaches and hiking to the Mooula waterfalls. I would like to photograph the rugged north shore but would need to rent a boat to do that and the surf seemed really rough on the north shore when I was there, making landing on beaches dangerous.
Posted 8 months ago # -
-
I was gonna say that it looked like Peter Fonda! Thats awesome, Bland. :]
Get any photos of Dennis Hopper on a chopper before he kicked it? ;]
Posted 8 months ago # -
-
donaldejose said:
Correlli: I don't think you have to choose between background blur and sharp far eye when you are setting up a portrait shot rather than shooting a spur of the moment candid in a setting you cannot control. The amount of blur in the background is a function of how far that background is away from the point of focus as well as the f-stop used. Have the model take a few steps towards the camera, back up the same number of steps, stop down one f-stop to increase the sharpness of the far eye and wouldn't you have an equal amount of blur in the backgroud plus the added benefit of a sharper far eye? I think so . . . . . Anyway, it is something to think about when setting up natural light portraits. Try both while you are at it and see which you like best later.I don't think that you're appreciating how subject to camera distance effects DOF and I also don't think that you're appreciating the character and size change to the background bokeh that occurs when you stop down. At headshot/waist up portrait distance its not as easy as you seem to believe to get a tilted face to have both eyes in focus. It takes a lot more than f4 to get you there and at that point you're over defining your background and shrinking the size of the circles present in the bokeh as well as changing their shape. The ZF.2 100mm f2 has a characteristic "cat eye" bokeh that is gone by f2.8, at which point it becomes circular and then less so as you stop it down. More expensive lenses will maintain a more pleasing shape to these out-of-focus areas as you stop down, but when one examines the change it may not be to their liking as the details, contrasts and bokeh all change dramatically.
D800 • ZF.2 100mm f2 @ f2.2 • 1/160 • ISO 250
Posted 8 months ago # -
SquamishPhoto: Now I think that last one is a great one! Tell us about the reflector you are using to fill the face.
You are right, bokeh will change as you stop down and I don't know how much it will change between f2.5 and f4 with the ZF lens you are using. Just have to try it and see. Maybe you are correct that f4 destroys too much pleasing bokeh even though the background is further behind the subject so you don't have the option of using f4 to sharpen that rear eye. I will get a Nikon 105 f2 DC lens and see if its pleasing bokeh is destoryed at f4. I don't know the answer to that one. I have been after my model for days now and cannot seem to get time with her when the light outside is good enough to shoot. Will have to be next month now before I can produce something. To be continued . . . . . .
Posted 8 months ago # -
Just a note... love the "cat eye" bokah...it mimics the eye shape in your model, Mike.
For me, as one who started way before we heard of AF, it is easier to shoot portraits with a manual focus lens and actually "see" the effect of rotating the focus ring. When shooting the Hassleblad, and with both my old "F" bodies, I used a full ground glass screen so as to allow focusing all over the screen. Just easier...even in the days of the "split image" rangefinder, I always took these out so I could actually see what was going on. I almost think it gives a more connected feeling with the model, but this is highly subjective.
Posted 8 months ago # -
hammers71 said:
did it fall over???Nay, I had the 70-200 partially rotated in the tripod mount. That building's in better shape than any of the other ones in that park. And looking at a new map they've put up there, there are some other ruins in parts of the park I haven't been to yet! Nothing as big as the farmhouse / guesthouse? / barn / ice house / stables, but still more ruins to explore!
@Squamish where the heck do you get all these people and places anyways? I'm gradually exhausting locations in New Jersey to shoot! (I wrote this as "running out of New Jersey to shoot" but then I figured there have been times I've literally run out of the state with my camera... across a bridge or something, I dunno)
Posted 8 months ago # -
D4 50 1.4G 1/640 ISO 100 @ f/6.3
Posted 8 months ago # -
jonnyapple said:
I'm glad people break rules in their photography...
Rules??
I had no idea there were rules.
Please post the link to the rule book on Amazon. I would like to read the reviews.
My last PAD pic for this month:
Nikon F100, 28-70mm f/2.8 @ 28mm, Ilford Delta 400, scanned then touched up in LR4
I'm not sure if the near eye was in focus...
Posted 8 months ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
