On 4/20/2014 2:28 PM, Tina Manley wrote:
> Shooting fast in changing conditions. I like shallow depth of field and
> usually shoot wide open.
Yes, I know. One price is shots that miss. Work fine for many folks. For me,
that's a dumpster shot, I would never be
happy viewing it.
> Which do you like better? The one with lots of depth of field or the
> shallow one:
>
> http://www.pbase.com/tinamanley/image/155307907
>
> http://www.pbase.com/tinamanley/image/155307962
Not at all a good comparison. Closer focus brings shallower DOF. The background
would not be nearly as much in focus in
the first situation at f5.6.
And ... I'm not at all averse to blurring my own backgrounds in post. :-)
> I guess it's a matter of taste, but I'll take sharp fingernails and less
> sharp nose over sharp everything any day.
>
> I like Rangefinders shot wide open. That's just me.
Yup, I understand, it's worth the risk for those that pay off. Had you nailed
the face, I'd love the shot. As it is, I'd
just flip past it in a web gallery, walk past it in a print gallery. (BTW, it
can probably be corrected for focus for at
least web and book sized reproduction.)
I don't know the balance between folks with my tastes and those with yours, but
it's something to consider if you get
into books or prints.
I probably should have put it differently, but as I gaze at the many images you
post, I'm interested in the differences,
for my taste, between the many really wonderful images and the blah or just
missed it images. So sometimes I comment on
why some just don't work for me.
I always hope it may be helpful.
Moose D'Opinion
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|