My son, narrow DOF

[jcdeboever]

Nice shot

Thanks

The narrow dof isn't bad for portraits necessarily, if you're trying to single out the eyes as often done in romantic shots by candlelight.

The hand would work very well with f/16 or even f/22. I wouldn't use a higher ISO to achieve that, use a tripod & use a longer shutter speed.

I personally have to say that having an out of focus spot that big hanging out there by itself is distracting. If you put his hand more in front, as on a table or on the back of a tall chair, out of focus could work.

Thanks for the explanation. I was experimenting and had fun.

I am so struggling to produce an image that is of quality. I love people and want to portrait them as such. 0I am borderline ready to give up because I haven't the skill.

Of quality compared to what? Give up? Stop with the self loathing already.

Don't create to compare to others.

Create for yourself.

I was being a little sarcastic, it never does show up well in a text, I keep forgetting that. I was giving up on trying to accomplish something that wasn't obtainable. A lensbaby probably would have been the tool. Thanks for your concern jake, your a good dude.

You nailed the eyes. Jake's got a point about the self-deprecation...you're better than you say you are. You can shoot.

Thanks bud. I seen something but couldn't do it with what I had.

JC, you cannot duplicate what a camera with tilts and swings can do with a camera that does not have tilts and swings. Personally, I would have liked to see everything in focus. The hand, for my tastes, is too prominent to be relegated as an unimportant element. For me a bit more detail in the arm and hand and viola ... a classic portrait. I understand being hard on yourself. Self critiquing is how we get better. But you're trying to duplicate a Vermeer with a six inch paint brush.

If this was a painting, would the hand been soft?

I'm not saying for you not to be different ... but sometimes it is absolutely fine to be timeless rather than trying to blaze a path with the wrong equipment.

Well said, you know me all to well. I got your text, spot on. Good point about the painting. Hey but I had fun and spending time with my son. Man we had some good laughs last night. He is an even bigger goof ball than me. I gave him a camera last year, he gave it back yesterday, never used it. He said, "I'll leave the stupid photo stuff to you and focus on all those art supplies you gave me." I said, "that's cool, more money for you to buy kmart shirts with."

The only thing that bugs me is the chin. I like the thin DOF and the composition. I don't care if the hand is in focus or not, because the purpose is clearly to look at his eyes.

Thanks. I appreciate it. See the second image I posted. This was before I got lost in the art of being a camera geek

I like the image, and I like the composition; I don't mind the OOF hand, but I would consider burning it in a bit to reduce it's attention-grabbing ability. I'm not as fussed though on the OOF chin however. This is a strictly personal thing, and there's no right or wrong.

Thanks, that is encouraging. I have too many creative idea's running around in my pea brain. Lots of rusty tractors in there too.

You had a plan and went with it. It succeeded at some level. You nailed the eyes. Yes, the chin is OOF. It's a "look" that many people like, that lensy look, that shallow DOF look. While it's not a great shot, it's also not an awful shot either, but somewhere in between I guess. It has some good qualities to it.

Thanks. Hey it was fun. Maybe I'll make a lens. I bought some really old, funky tin or brass glass that need attention. I have some ideas as for a mount.

That's really nice. Captures the personality and done in B&W gives it an atmosphere or mood, whatever you want to call it. Nice.

I don't usually care for something close to the camera being out of focus unless it's framing the subject or somehow it works for the photo. So I'd like it better with less shallow depth of field, but it's not necessarily a deal breaker so to speak. I like John's idea of making it a little less noticeable, that's probably why I don't particularly care for OOF being done in the foreground, closer to the viewer.

But you're learning and experimenting, which is good. And you haven't been at this all that long, I've been a photographer for yeeears... keep at it. This is pretty darn good.

Thanks dear. I chalked up to a fun learning experience.

 

[smoke665]

@jcdeboever i think the old adage "you can't see the forest for the trees", could apply to your work. This second image is ART. It exudes all the qualities of a young man his age, something you can both be proud of.

 

[jcdeboever]

@jcdeboever i think the old adage "you can't see the forest for the trees", could apply to your work. This second image is ART. It exudes all the qualities of a young man his age, something you can both be proud of.

Thanks bud.

 

[loonatic45414]

If this is a digital camera, you can shoot all different ways and see the results right away. I'd think you could learn what works quickly. I shoot film with manual cameras. That's a whole different level of complexity.

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk

 

[jcdeboever]

If this is a digital camera, you can shoot all different ways and see the results right away. I'd think you could learn what works quickly. I shoot film with manual cameras. That's a whole different level of complexity.

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk

I fired off three frames with film. 1 with my Nikon F and the 50mm 1.4 pre AI. Second one with Airesflex medium format. Third with Pentax SP1000 and 55mm 1.8. All shots, including digital were shot with a Nikon SB15 flash via a 20ft PC sync cable, and a reflected umbrella.