Ana - Latina Beauty

[Trever1t]

A couple from our July session that I just got around to processing.

1)


2

 

[The_Traveler]

tooooo smoooth for my taste

 

[timor]

Pretty pictures, well, it's a pretty girl to, no question. I think in the #2 the focal length was too short to throw the background in "obscurity". It is too rich in visible detail. IMO.
Tell me, in all her pictures her left hand is always in that position ? Or the goal was to show the bracelets ? In #1 it looks natural, less so in #2.

 

[Trever1t]

tooooo smoooth for my taste

Very little smoothing going on there...at all.

 

[Trever1t]

Pretty pictures, well, it's a pretty girl to, no question. I think in the #2 the focal length was too short to throw the background in "obscurity". It is too rich in visible detail. IMO.
Tell me, in all her pictures her left hand is always in that position ? Or the goal was to show the bracelets ? In #1 it looks natural, less so in #2.

I wasn't trying to obsure the background, do you think that would look better? Shot at f2/85mm from just beyond arms reach! I try to give a sense of depth, not hide or mask the backgrounds. Is this one just too busy?

edit: exif states focal distance at 2.99...I assume meters?

[TABLE="class: resultsTable, width: 100%"]
[TR]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: textClassResults, align: left"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: textClassResults, align: left"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 1"]According to online DOF calc.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: textClassResults, align: left"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: textClassResults, align: left"][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[TABLE="class: resultsTable, width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="class: textClassResults, colspan: 2, align: left"]Depth of field [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: textClassResults"] Near limit [/TD]
[TD="class: textClassResults, align: left"]8.81 ft[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: textClassResults"] Far limit [/TD]
[TD="class: textClassResults, align: left"]9.2 ft[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: textClassResults"] Total [/TD]
[TD="class: textClassResults, align: left"]0.4 ft[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: textClassResults"] In front of subject [/TD]
[TD="class: textClassResults, align: left"]0.19 ft (49%)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: textClassResults"] Behind subject [/TD]
[TD="class: textClassResults, align: left"]0.2 ft (51%)[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[The_Traveler]

tooooo smoooth for my taste

Very little smoothing going on there...at all.

Wow

 

[timor]

I wasn't trying to obsure the background, do you think that would look better? Shot at f2/85mm from just beyond arms reach! I try to give a sense of depth, not hide or mask the backgrounds. Is this one just too busy?

edit: exif states focal distance at 2.99...I assume meters? [TABLE="class: resultsTable, width: 100%"]
[TR]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: textClassResults"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: textClassResults"][/TD]
[TD="class: textClassResults, align: left"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]

[/TR]
[TR]
[/TR]
[TR]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: textClassResults"][/TD]
[TD="class: textClassResults, align: left"][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Didn't I marked my opinion IMO ? A little softer BG would work better I think, not that your shot is flat. 85/2... cropped sensor ?

 

[Trever1t]

Oh I wasn't being snarky if that's how that came off, I was just curious to understand your pov. D700 full frame. .4' dof as indicated by chart above.

 

[Derrel]

I like the way the stone wall is rendered...it's not too OOF, but it's also not distractingly sharp either. In a way, I think the stone wall really makes her "Pop!", in a three-dimensional way. The wall has pleasing, lighter tones which contrast well against her black outfit, and it has some visually interesting shape variation, which makes it not too boring and flat. It's a good background I think. Sure, it could have been made more out of focus, but then the shot would look "different". Better? Maybe. Worse? Maybe.

 

[timor]

Oh I wasn't being snarky if that's how that came off, I was just curious to understand your pov. D700 full frame. .4' dof as indicated by chart above.

Maybe the BG is just too rich and too close. What about the arm ?

 

[Trever1t]

Curiously enough I hadn't noticed her arm being in the same position until you mentioned it. If you look on my Flickr you can see her whole set from July, some of which I had posted here back then....bikini shots.

 

[Derrel]

A couple from our July session that I just got around to processing.

Just as an interesting visual exercise, look at the image small, then click on the enlarge bar above, and see the picture bigger. Notice how at a larger on-screen size, the background appears to be more out of focus? More subtle? And when the picture is viewed small, the background appears much sharper?

 

[timor]

Derrel, that's no wonder, when the size of the print grows DoF is getting smaller as CoC are getting bigger. Size of the print matters.
Trever, nice collection on your Flickr. I like her best on two shots with another guy and the dog, her face is there relaxed and more pleasant, than when she poses alone. That's people photography, but I really like your landscapes.

 

[Trever1t]

The woman with the man and dog...it's a different woman. That one is Attia and her fiance with Zeus the dog but I thank you none the less

 

[Derrel]

Derrel, that's no wonder, when the size of the print grows DoF is getting smaller as CoC are getting bigger. Size of the print matters.

Yes, I know. That was the point I was trying to get people to see for themselves. Some say the wall is too in-focus. How does it look when seen on a smart phone? A tablet? My 30 inch cinema display?