Too Soft?

FuryofNature · Oct 7, 2005

I took this photo last night in some very low lighting. I converted in from color in Photoshop. I know that its soft focused, and I'm wondering how you feel about that. I think I like it because it adds maybe a little mystery to her. I'm not sure. Is the soft focus working?

_KA

SlySniper · Oct 7, 2005

I like it!

I agree it adds a little mystery!

Great Shot!

jadin · Oct 7, 2005

It's not that it's soft-focued, it's that you moved slightly while taking the photo. A minor difference it might seem, but one big enough to adversely affect the photo.

FuryofNature · Oct 7, 2005

I moved or she moved, I'm sure. Does it still work, though?

jadin · Oct 7, 2005

For me it doesn't. I would scrap the photo if it were mine.

JonMikal · Oct 7, 2005

jadin said:
For me it doesn't. I would scrap the photo if it were mine.

i agree. i like what you're going after, but this one's not easy on my eyes.

FuryofNature · Oct 7, 2005

Is this one better? I like this too. It's more focused.

bamp1982 · Oct 7, 2005

I like the first one more than this one. Because the face's condition show more peace when her beezer near the microphone.

clarinetJWD · Oct 10, 2005

I do like the second one more. THe first would work for me, like has been said already, if the focus was due to actual soft focus, and not movement. The second one really just does a lot more for me. Nice one.

FuryofNature · Oct 10, 2005

I think what I really need is a better lens. I'm using the one that came with the Camera (canon digital rebal). So that's holdng me back some. I think for the most part I've made the best of it and found ways to make it work for me. In these super lowlight situations though, I can only make it work so well. I got a few good shots from that night.

http://photobucket.com/albums/a314/ConcreteBlock/Tangiers%20Faux%20Acoustic%20Set/

The link takes you to a page with all of the photos from that night on it. There are only 10 but perhaps it will show a better Idea of what came out that night. Pehaps you can spot the problems, and help me fix them.

Thanks guys.
_KA

Rob · Oct 12, 2005

IMHO the second one is better than the first one, although the composition in the first one is quite interesting - a tighter crop is more appropriate I reckon.

You're nearly there with the first one, but the ghosting spoils it. It might be rescuable with some photoshopping to even out the blurred and unblurred.

As for the rest of the set, I'd say you need a nice prime lens for these occasions!

Rob

jadin · Oct 12, 2005

You might want to try a program like focus magic to fix it.

FuryofNature · Oct 12, 2005

robhesketh said:
IMHO the second one is better than the first one, although the composition in the first one is quite interesting - a tighter crop is more appropriate I reckon.

You're nearly there with the first one, but the ghosting spoils it. It might be rescuable with some photoshopping to even out the blurred and unblurred.

As for the rest of the set, I'd say you need a nice prime lens for these occasions!

Rob

I agree about the lens thing. I just can't afford it yet. I don't know which one to buy when I can afford it. I'm making do for now.

kilifila66 · Oct 12, 2005

I have to say I really like the soft focus. This picture is reiminiscent of some Joan Baez y Janis Joplin photos from the early 70s. If I find an example I will post it but I think you have really captured something nice here. I do agree that your second post is stronger than the first, only because the first is slightly out of focus. But you did a great job isolating the subject with virtually no clutter in the photo.

eydryan · Oct 14, 2005

of course no one can look at the first for more than 5 mins before getting a migraine

and therefore second is naturally better. (oh, and by the way, you moved

) but if you show us the second, which is kinda the same, show it to us exactly the same crop and all, because like this it's a totally different type of portrait.