Working DOF

I have no doubts that he is an exceptional photographer :) Correct you do not "HAVE" to process a raw file. But that is what it was designed for, optimal manipulation in post. Whether or not wikipedia is a good choice to prove my point or not. It has correct information and it was the first, most credible source of information. I do not need clarification on what a RAW file is, therefore I am not going to waste 20 minutes finding other sources explaining what it is :)

A photographer might sell a RAW image to a marketing/commercial group BUT IT WILL THEN BE PROCESSED FOR WEB OR PRINT. People may print "raw" images (jpegs with no processing) and it may look 'fine'. But there is absolutely no denying that it could look better and more true to life if processed. As processing adds true depth to an image.

If a photographer does not want to post process an image it is recommended they shoot in jpeg format and not raw.
 
So back to what this thread was about, I think the picture of the dog's face is beautifully done. I took this to be experimenting with DOF. I usually like to see the entire person (or pet) in focus, but I can't say I noticed right off that the nose wasn't completely sharp.

I thought someone mentioned background, and I think it's necessary to take that into consideration. Even if it's out of focus, it's still there, and can create shapes or colors that can still be visual distractions. I found the lighter chair to be somewhat distracting but not that much... we are discussing/critiquing and going to be looking at the image more closely and noticing more things.
 
I was influenced by an image from @Derrel in another thread. I have no idea how to edit imagery. I am satisfied by the response as to how to manipulate the in camera raw to appease my goal of in camera imagery. Thanks to @smoke665 and @Derrel for their direction.
 
Correction from @smoke665 and @Derrel minus distracting background. Thank you men for helping me.

DSCF7230-E.jpg
 
I was influenced by an image from @Derrel in another thread. I have no idea how to edit imagery. I am satisfied by the response as to how to manipulate the in camera raw to appease my goal of in camera imagery. Thanks to @smoke665 and @Derrel for their direction.
ahh okay you must be "jc" lol I just know you as jcdeboever in my brain :p anyway please forgive me. This being the c&c forum I thought that you would want advice on that image. Though I did comment that it looked good on my phone, as I took a larger view from my computer I saw what other did, it presented as a little soft (camera shake perhaps?). It IS a great image, and with some sharpening and contrast no one would notice the slight blur when printed at a 5x7. I'm sorry if I mistook your need for critique. Certainly "no one HAS to edit their images" that is just ridiculous, but since you don't want to do any post processing I would urge you to try to shoot in jpeg. I bet that you would be far more satisfied with your images. Raw is the way it is for maximum manipulation and control so doing nothing is really doing your image and yourself a disservice. Try jpeg for a couple days and compare your shots!
 
Last edited:
Correction from @smoke665 and @Derrel minus distracting background. Thank you men for helping me.

View attachment 197406

LoL at the "men" for helping you :p

Also whatever advice you got, has nothing to do with the focus results on the photo you took. If you are thinking that because you got the nose in focus you fixed your issue then you are wrong. The nose in in focus because it is on a similar plane of focus as the eye. Also this is an image shot from much further back and obviously the perspective is completely different (changing aperture requirements). If you ask me, your original image was a 100% stronger portrait, captivating, eye contact, smiling dog. This one is just a snapshot of a dog (who's nose is in focus...yay). Also yes, this image needs sharpening too ;)

one last thing...looking back through this post and seeing the original image was shot with a shutter of 1/20...that right there is 100% why it looks blurry. The focus was not missed or off, there is motion blur as I suspected and mentioned previously. **edit to add...I know you used flash so you would think lower shutter speed, but you have a lot of natural light coming in (iso 1000) so you will still need a decent shutter speed for this type of lighting/portrait situation.
 
Last edited:
I was influenced by an image from @Derrel in another thread. I have no idea how to edit imagery. I am satisfied by the response as to how to manipulate the in camera raw to appease my goal of in camera imagery. Thanks to @smoke665 and @Derrel for their direction.
ahh okay you must be "jc" lol I just know you as jcdeboever in my brain :p anyway please forgive me. This being the c&c forum I thought that you would want advice on that image. Though I did comment that it looked good on my phone, as I took a larger view from my computer I saw what other did, it presented as a little soft (camera shake perhaps?). It IS a great image, and with some sharpening and contrast no one would notice the slight blur when printed at a 5x7. I'm sorry if I mistook your need for critique. Certainly "no one HAS to edit there images" that is just ridiculous, but since you don't want to do any post processing I would urge you to try to shoot in jpeg. I bet that you would be far more satisfied with your images. Raw is the way it is for maximum manipulation and control so doing nothing is really doing your image and yourself a disservice. Try jpeg for a couple days and compare your shots!
No worries, good info from you, I appreciate it.
 
@jcdeboever You're always welcome JC, just returning the favor. One thing that might help in the future is several weeks ago there was a big discussion on critique which actually resulted in the formation of the C&C gallery. Not sure if you were involved in that discussion, but the first post "Read This", has some valuable information information regarding posts in this thread both for the person seeking critique and those offering. Having seen it in action, it really is helpful for all.

@paigew Going off thread is not really what the C&C Gallery is about. Rather than hijack someone else's thread, perhaps a more fitting approach would to continue the discussion via a PM or to start a thread on Post vs SOOC in the Digital Discussions or Beyond Basics.
 
I think if you are going to shoot with a mezzo format camera like your Fuji GFX, that you ought to consider something like f 4.2 to be a fairly good aperture for selective focus. On older traditional film medium format 6x6 cameras F4 would be wide open with a short telephoto and with a long telephoto F 5.6 would be wide open aperture.

My brick wall portrait was done at F 2.8 - 1/3 stop, with an 85 mm lens that is known to have a sharp center and fairly soft edges and corners. If you look carefully at that shot in the extreme corners you can see that the lens performs in a very strange fashion.

Your dog portrait was done with a camera with a much larger sensor,and quite possibly at a closer distance
 
@paigew Going off thread is not really what the C&C Gallery is about. Rather than hijack someone else's thread, perhaps a more fitting approach would to continue the discussion via a PM or to start a thread on Post vs SOOC in the Digital Discussions or Beyond Basics.

What on earth makes you think I went off thread?? That is just a ridiculous statement. I commented a useful critique on the image. Every thing I typed here had to do with the image in question. It was YOU who tried to start drama with me, making righteous posts about being "too good" for editing and other completely non backed up nonsense. The only one who went off post was you with your condescending reply to me.
 
Every thing I typed here had to do with the image in question.

And that is part of the problem, the OP was looking for feedback on the process "what the depth of field could add to a portrait" and "My goal was to sculp the subject with a speedlight to create separation", not the image per say, or what could be done to edit/fix the image presented. Having reread the OP, I believe he was consistent with guideline #2 of the C&C gallery "please let us know what you were trying to achieve with your shot. Letting us know why you took the shot helps us understand your creative thought process, which will inform how someone might respond". Maybe you missed it, maybe it could have used clarification.

In any case your statement "Photos are not meant to be shared SOOC," was incorrect and in contradiction to the work of the OP and many others on the forum. Then you compounded confusion saying "You do not choose either or (good SOOC/editing) you do both. I am a firm believer you should strive to get your shot to look perfect in camera" . Apparently I'm not the only one who took issue with your comments as Vintagesnaps said "I don't understand saying you shoot SOOC and then edit/post process every image. That's not necessary; I often do NO post on a digital image. None"

As to drama or condescending you made statements that I and many others disagree with, rather then accepting it for what it was you went on to offer up an argument based on Wikipedia without apparently fully understanding or ignoring the whole process, and offering basic editing instructions without knowing or understanding the skill levels of those you were commenting on.

I have no quarrel with you other then disagreement with your statements and as stated earlier, no desire to continue this on someone else's thread. Again, if you'd like to continue on PM, or if you'd like to start another thread I'll be happy to discuss why I disagree with you, but as to comments here I really am done.
 
Moderator Notice

Please all remain respectful toward each other even when disagreeing. Critique is about sharing our perspective on creative works, both artistic and technical. People are free to put forward their viewpoint and debate/argue their case, but at no point should we get bitter if people choose not to agree with our stance. Agree to disagree and move on. Spend your energy helping rather than arguing.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top