Derrel
Mr. Rain Cloud
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2009
- Messages
- 48,225
- Reaction score
- 18,941
- Location
- USA
- Website
- www.pbase.com
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
Why isn't the whole thing as blurry as the sign underneath then?Even though this was shot at 1/125 with a 24mm lens, the lack of sharpness in this photo looks like camera shake to me. Here's one of many articles out there that might help you control camera shake: 5 Tips on How to Hold Your Camera
Somewhere in my 3,800 on-line photos, I have a home-made diagram I drew, showing the way the depth of field plane is actually "distributed" when the camera is angle steeply downward on a close-up shot, as is the case here...the best focus in this shot appears to me to be right along the very top of the teeth; the majority of the depth of field in this shot appears to simply *miss the target" and the physical location of the target!!!! The vast majority of the depth of field zone falls on empty space!!!
The camera is angled steeply downward...the very tops of the teeth are in focus...we can see the floor as the background...with a fixed-back camera and a little bit of missed focus placement and a downward angled camera...BOOM! most of the shot looks OOF...
That's my estimation of what happened....as TCampbell mentioned, if the camera is a Canon in one-shot focus mode, if the focus was acquired and locked, and the photog moved a bit...well...the focus is going to be "off". I think if the camera back had been squared-up with the jawbone, then the limited depth of field zone would have been placed more in an appropriate place for the actual subject, instead of being "wasted" on empty space, due to the camera's angled orientation in relation to the subject plane.