Suit yourself. My eyes tell me the focus is off. But, If you like it,
that's all that matters.
Chuck Norcutt
On 12/14/2014 3:08 PM, Tina Manley wrote:
If this is not sharp, then sharpness is a bourgeois concept!
http://www.pbase.com/tinamanley/image/158530973
I can count the pores on his nose. The zipper on his jacket and the fuzz
on his cap are sharp and they are further apart than the nose and eyes.
I guess it doesn't really matter because I really like the look in his eyes
that's the reason for the photo.
Tina
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Chuck Norcutt <
chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I missed this one when it first came around. I'm afraid I have to side
with Moose on this one since, your protestations to the contrary, visually
the shepherd's nose doesn't strike me as sharp even in the small web image.
I decided to double check myself and your comments about aperture. After
sizing up the image I decided that the height that's covered is
approximately 18". You used a 90mm lens on a full frame camera which means
that the camera was 3.75 feet from the subject if the image covers 18" on
the long side. You say you shot the image at f/9.5. Even using a very
modest resolution value of 30 lines/mm (CoC = 0.033mm) the total depth of
field for those parameters is only 3.6" and almost evenly distributed
between the near and far focus points. Your statement that the depth of
field is plenty to cover the eyes and nose is true, if, and only if, you
nailed the focus somewhere between the eyes and tip of the nose. If your
true focus point was the eyes (and you actually achieved that) the tip of
the nose would have to be not more than 1.8" ahead of the eyes to remain in
focus. I don't know about Leica but Canon doesn't guarantee that autofocus
is any more accurate than somewhere within the depth of field... a
reasonable position since, by definition, anything within the depth of
field is in focus.
The point that I'm trying to make is that your aperture settings and depth
of field notions likely don't always work. The depth of field on this
image (which is not stringent) is so restricted that it requires perfect
focus from both you and the camera. Even if the camera nails perfect focus
at f/2 the parameters are so tight even at f/9.5 that if you even waver
1/4" you're going to miss the focus. And I agree with Moose... in this
case you have missed the focua... and a lot of others you've shown here as
well. f/9.5 is not a small aperture yielding a large depth of field when
you're very close to the subject at 90mm.
Chuck Norcutt
On 12/5/2014 7:26 AM, Tina Manley wrote:
I disagree. I have examined these photos at 100% and they are sharp. The
aperture on the farmer and shepherd is 9,5 - plenty of depth of field for
the eyes and nose to be sharp and they are.
Tina
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 12:19 AM, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I find all of these portraits frustrating to look at.
They are stunningly good shots of wonderful subjects, caught mostly in
engaging eye contact and interesting expressions.
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Manley/Andean_Portraits.htm>
But OTOH, they are technically so much less than they could/should be.
Done right, they're the stuff of National Geographic covers, NY gallery
shows. Even the backgrounds of three are perfect! (and the other
correctable)
The very shallow DoF on the Shepherd has managed to leave his cheeks in
wonderful focus, his eyes and nose out of focus. I know, you do this a
lot,
and say you like it. I still feel that the general portraiture rule is
valid. If the eyes are obviously visible, and particularly if they are
looking at the camera, they should be in focus.
You've argued before that some other thing is the real focus of the
image.
With Shepherd and Farmer, there isn't anything else - it's all about the
face. They are people, we are people, and people relate to each other
through the eyes.
Shepherd has such a sweet face, add clear eyes with a little sparkle, and
I just melt, almost can't tear my eyes away.
Personally, I don't like big, blurry noses sticking out toward me, but I
suspect that may be less universal than the eyes.
Then, the Farmer's chin is what's in focus.
OK, the knitter's knitting is interesting, but Knitter I is the same as
the others, plane of focus between eyes and nose, with neither in focus.
I
know you love shallow DoF. Might there not be subjects where it isn't the
best thing to do?
Well, I don't know what happened to Knitter II. Some kind of flare? In
any
case, there's a powerful portrait beneath that veil. I made his knitting
more in focus, too.
As always, I hope this is not just critical, but 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/
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|