Some Street Candids

[MohaimenK]

I don't do much of it but since I was there gave it a try.

1.

2. Not sure which one I like more so I will post both

3.

4. and my homeboy was just chillin w/ his nuts

5. And some of you might have seen this on my other thread but for those who didn't

 

[Ron Evers]

Mo, in #1, I think the focus fell a little short of the mans back. I also think in that shot you could do with a bit more DoF. Your Exif data is blocked so I cannot tell what your aperture was.

 

[gsgary]

Not doing much for me, you need to get in closer

 

[MohaimenK]

Ron I think it's the sweater itself. Here's 100% crop. Also it was shot at 2.8 at 200MM but remember it's not always the aperture that gives the DOF, it's also the subect/background ratio. Which in this case the subject was too small to give a shallow DOF.

 

[MohaimenK]

Not doing much for me, you need to get in closer

Soon Hoping to get that 2x TC soon.

 

[doziergraphic]

lots of clutter in the background of most of them detracts from subjects.

maybe this helps? makes him look 'lonelier' than with the fair going on behind him --

# 3 is better than 2 because the subject is more prominant.

not much going on in 4 or 5, but fun to get out and try, 90% of it is putting yourself in front of the right shot! Just gotta find the spot and frame it!

 

[gsgary]

Not doing much for me, you need to get in closer

Soon Hoping to get that 2x TC soon.

No get in close with a wide angle lens, the best street shots were taken at 28mm, Garry Winnogrand

Or get in even closer

 

[Ron Evers]

Ron I think it's the sweater itself. Here's 100% crop. Also it was shot at 2.8 at 200MM but remember it's not always the aperture that gives the DOF, it's also the subect/background ratio. Which in this case the subject was too small to give a shallow DOF.

Yep, the focus is good on the sweater. However, I do not understand your last sentience. No mater what, you have a shallow DoF.

 

[doziergraphic]

That second video is great

 

[Jcampbelll]

Squirrel candid. :lmao:

 

[MohaimenK]

Ron I think it's the sweater itself. Here's 100% crop. Also it was shot at 2.8 at 200MM but remember it's not always the aperture that gives the DOF, it's also the subect/background ratio. Which in this case the subject was too small to give a shallow DOF.

Yep, the focus is good on the sweater. However, I do not understand your last sentience. No mater what, you have a shallow DoF.

Basically this. The subject was smaller, meaning he was further away from my camera. So the DOF is not as shallow even at 2.8. Where if he was closer to my camera, it'd make him a larger object, making the image with a shallow DOF.

Here are two images. Notice the starbucks cup. Both shot at 2.8

vs

 

[JClishe]

Ron I think it's the sweater itself. Here's 100% crop. Also it was shot at 2.8 at 200MM but remember it's not always the aperture that gives the DOF, it's also the subect/background ratio. Which in this case the subject was too small to give a shallow DOF.

Yep, the focus is good on the sweater. However, I do not understand your last sentience. No mater what, you have a shallow DoF.

Basically this. The subject was smaller, meaning he was further away from my camera. So the DOF is not as shallow even at 2.8. Where if he was closer to my camera, it'd make him a larger object, making the image with a shallow DOF.

Here are two images. Notice the starbucks cup. Both shot at 2.8

vs

Technically you are correct, in that the closer you are to your subject, the greater that DoF falls off behind your subject. But I've never heard it described the way you are describing it, with subjects being "larger" or "smaller". I think your way of describing this is a bit confusing in that it seems to imply that DoF is somehow related to the size of the subject you're focusing on, which it certainly doesn't.

 

[JClishe]

Ron I think it's the sweater itself. Here's 100% crop. Also it was shot at 2.8 at 200MM but remember it's not always the aperture that gives the DOF, it's also the subect/background ratio. Which in this case the subject was too small to give a shallow DOF.

Yep, the focus is good on the sweater. However, I do not understand your last sentience. No mater what, you have a shallow DoF.

Basically this. The subject was smaller, meaning he was further away from my camera. So the DOF is not as shallow even at 2.8. Where if he was closer to my camera, it'd make him a larger object, making the image with a shallow DOF.

Here are two images. Notice the starbucks cup. Both shot at 2.8

vs

BTW, how do you like that 16-35? I've been eyeing that myself.

 

[MohaimenK]

Technically you are correct, in that the closer you are to your subject, the greater that DoF falls off behind your subject. But I've never heard it described the way you are describing it, with subjects being "larger" or "smaller". I think your way of describing this is a bit confusing in that it seems to imply that DoF is somehow related to the size of the subject you're focusing on, which it certainly doesn't.

distance = size :mrgreen:
think about it this way, if you're closer to the subject it's larger, if you're away from the subject it's smaller. So subject to background ratio is important to achieve shallow DOF.

As for the 16-35. I LOVE IT! It was a good $1500 spent IMO. I think it'll come in more handy for landscape photographers but it does some nice tricks for weddings also.
But to be honest, if you have a 50D it won't mean much. Because you're still using it on a cropped sensor vs I'm using it with a FF.