On 3/8/2011 1:04 AM, Dawid Loubser wrote:
> You are weird, yes, but Moose will agree with you :-)
Not entirely, although I do indeed appreciate being considered weird, and Chuck
is good company to be lumped with in
weirdness. :-)
> I like images which greatly emphasise one aspect of the subject,
> with the rest disappearing into a gentle blur. We've been through
> this before on this list many times, but it's a style I like to
> use a lot.
I understand your delight in this kind of image. I do appreciate the style.
Where it suits the subject and is properly
executed, I find it can make images I quite like. On the other hand, the
percentage of such images that meet those
criteria to my taste is much smaller than for yours.
I recall you posting this image before. As then, I think the concept is quite
good. It's one of the relatively small
proportion of this style that works for me. It strikes me as an image that
would work better as a framed print hanging
on a wall than on a screen. I also like the framing/composition. Although there
is a lot of 'blank' space on the right,
cropping on the right to 8x10 proportions messes up the composition for me. I'd
print it 8x12 on 11x14 paper and mat to
an even border.
On the other hand, you have chosen a particularly difficult style to pull off
perfectly from a technical standpoint.
Very shallow plane of focus with frequently, as here, moving subjects. To my
eye, the plane here is a couple of inches
too far toward the camera. I think it should be at her eyelashes, shaded toward
her nose, as the "one aspect of the
subject" to be emphasized. Instead, it's on the hair hanging in front of her
cheek, which doesn't strike me as such a
key element. The eye is clearly focused, engaged in the process of making
bubbles, which is what makes the image work.
While the hair, well, it's just hanging around.
So, a well seen and framed composition, just a step from great. It's possible
to recover pretty well in post, though. By
blurring the hair and a mix on the face of NR, so the next steps won't make
weird grain, Focus Magic and sharpening, the
plane of focus moves to eye, cheek and nose.
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Loubser/Flower_Bubble_Girl.htm>
I know you probably can't do this, at least the sharpening part, in the wet
darkroom, but I wanted an illustration of
what I'm talking about. The effect is a bit coarse on the eyelashes, due to
working with such a small image, but would
be quite smooth working on a large one. In any case, I hope it is clear enough
to illustrate my point.
> For the record, the 90 Macro *can* do all-in-focus shots too:
> http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs51/f/2009/313/0/f/Bridges_to_the_Market_by_philosomatographer.jpg
Nice documentary shot, I suppose, to remember where one was and what it looked
like, or as a test shot for whole frame
focus/sharpness, but not appealing to me, due to the lack of a focal point.
There's stuff going on, busy with people
moving and all sorts of static subjects, but my eye just roams around
uncertainly. Doesn't seem to me to have anything
to say.
Critically Focused Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
