Nature

[Tzitzi]

Comments are appreciated.

 

[Josh220]

I don't like the focusing. Were they taken out of focus or was it added for affect in post processing?

If it was out of focus at time of capture, you need to work on your depth of field.

If it was added for effect, reduce the amount.

 

[Tzitzi]

I don't like the focusing. Were they taken out of focus or was it added for affect in post processing?

If it was out of focus at time of capture, you need to work on your depth of field.

If it was added for effect, reduce the amount.

Thanks for your comment.
The pics are make it with wide open aperture with 85 f1.2.
So there are not out of focus.

Have a nice day!

 

[Josh220]

I don't like the focusing. Were they taken out of focus or was it added for affect in post processing?

If it was out of focus at time of capture, you need to work on your depth of field.

If it was added for effect, reduce the amount.

Thanks for your comment.
The pics are make it with wide open aperture with 85 f1.2.
So there are not out of focus.

Have a nice day!

As I said previously, work on your depth of field. They are out of focus. You can't shoot a scene like these with an aperture setting of f/1.2 unless you WANT 90% of the shot to be out of focus. Which in this case, doesn't work on any level.

What would lead you to say that these are in focus? In what way are they in focus? I am feeling TROLL on this one, but I will go with it for now.

 

[mdw]

Hi!

These shots are not OOF!

I like the selective focus you used. It's a great way to attract attention to a special area of the area. Especially the first turned out OK.

The thing with selective focussing is that you need to know exactly what part of the image to keep in focus.
As for the last shot, for example, the foreground is too distracting for me.

 

[JamieR]

You can clearly tell the shots are in focus, i don't know what lead you to that conclusion Josh220. The OP obviously felt like he/she wanted to focus on a certain area, wether or not thats works or not is a different matter, but they are not OOF, like the above poster wrote, selective focus was used.

i don't know where the idea of a troll came from :S

 

[Josh220]

I realize that, but the massive amounts of selective focus does not work. It's too much. I made two conclusions, so I don't know why you focused on only one. I said either it's OOF or the selective focus for effect is much too intense.

You could say #2 and #4 work (somewhat) but #1 and #3 just look badly OOF, hence why I suggested reducing the effect. But if it's done in camera, then the damage is permanent.

 

[David84]

#1 and #4 are distracting with the yellow and purple flowers closest to you OOF. I know you did this on purposoe - just stating it's distracting to my eye.... interesting pics none the less... I do like #2 a bit - did you use vignetting?? #3 doesn't do much for me...just a branch with no colors....

 

[Tzitzi]

Thank you for all the comments.
The idea was to translate the images in paintings.
Have a nice week to all!

 

[musicaleCA]

Do you mean that you want to print this on canvas?

I agree with the above, that the foreground OOF areas are distracting and interfere with the subjects. I also see where Josh is coming from; it's hard to find the parts of these images that are tack sharp. And no lens (that I've heard of) is going to be sharpest at it's widest aperture anyway.

Edit: And one last thing. These images are from Flickr. Flickr's Terms of Service very clearly states that when directly linking/embedding images from Flickr in other websites, you must provide a link back to that photo's Flickr page, no exceptions.