Discussion in 'Landscape & Cityscape' started by karissa, Jul 4, 2007.
Thoughts and comments are always welcome.
Of which one do you guess I might like its colour best?
But upon clicking on the thumbnail I get a pic larger than my screen and have to stroll both ways to see the whole, which is no joy. What I see is that you selected only ONE leaf to be in focus, and my impression is that it is a bit too shallow a DOF, but it is hard to tell at both sizes, thumbnail or at 2106x1269px.
The last two can be viewed more easily, since they are both 1000x693px in size and I like them both, though your play with very, very shallow DOF requires some getting-used-to, if you see what I mean?
But if you look at my poppy-thread here you will see that also I have played with very wide-open apertures and shallow DOFs of late !!
some times photos are as much about the out of focus areas though . . .
No problem with that, but it does require some "getting-used-to" in some ... and, like I was saying, given the size of the first two I cannot really judge them well. I do THINK the one-leaf-in-focus-only aspect of the first might be really interesting and a joy to look at! (Mostly so with this colour as overall colour of the photo )
it does, have you guys seen the article in rangefinder with that guy who shoots with a modified polaroid land camera, shoots digital, film, instant film, and has a tweaked lens to mess with the bokeh. its pretty cool, and might be worth looking at to see what i meant. and the color is good in these!
Haven't seen that ... "in rangefinder"? Is it a magazine? A site? Another forum?
And would you care to look at the photos under the aspect to which I also am trying to direct karissa with the help of that link given in one of my replies? That would be so nice!
hmmm, i think i will check out that link . . . and yes, rangefinder is a magazine, its free, in the states at least. (i have all my mail forworded to a po box that chevron ships to thailand for me, so i can still read YAY!) google rangefinder magazine and look into it, i think you would both enjoy the magazine, and more specifically that article.
Sorry about the size stuff. I don't have the ability to fix that at work today. The DOF is shorter than I would like however I don't have much control over it. Or at least, I don't think I do. I don't have a true macro lens. If you would like to send me one for free I'd love it. However, for now I'm cheating by using close up filters. They can be a real pain in the behind but are a LOT cheaper than trying to go out and buy a good macro lens. I don't know what the DOF options are like on a true macro lens but for the close up filters, let me just say, picture can look like you got the right spot in focus until you get it home only to find out you were a hair off.
I was also likely shooting with the aperture wide open. Hmm.. I'll have to tinker with those filters again sometime and see how much difference aperture really makes on them.
I did take a look at your thread LaFoto. I'll have to make my comments there or I'll be hijacking my own thread. lol
My style does tend to be different. I agree that sometimes the out of focus areas are what really make a picture. My question is, do you see that being the case? If so, does it work?
Separate names with a comma.