I like it! the feather and her makeup nicely compliment each other
Maybe I would have rotated her head CW just a tad to get her exactly level and crop a tiny strip of the right side (so far that you crop just to the point were the bottom of the nose stops going down). It seems to give her a different expression and takes away a bit of her forehead which could be a good thing? - small things really.
Thanks Ivar! I agree the slight crop gives it a different feel and i'm not sure which one i like better. I think i should do the rotation and reduce some forehead. Thanks for your input!
I agree with Ivar re. rotation; I just wish that the feather was in sharp focus as is the nose/eye and rest of the picture; a smaller stop would have brought the feather into focus and (along with the slight rotation) would have made it really excellent! The eye colour/makeup coordination is super, although (IMNSHO) the eye-highlight is a bit too big and blocks some of that beautifully coloured iris…
Jess
Thanks Wil. I think it was shot at 11 or 16. (would have to double check when I get home). I think the killer was that I'm on a crop camera and shot at 100ish mm. Appreciate your time!
Per the exif, you shot it at f16. Amazing DOF and sharpness. Any smaller aperture and I imagine gains in DOF would be offset by reduction in resolution due to diffraction.
John :
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
Per the exif, you shot it at f16. Amazing DOF and sharpness. Any smaller aperture and I imagine gains in DOF would be offset by reduction in resolution due to diffraction.
Thanks for checking as I was on my iphone and could not check. I agree we would take a hit in clarity stopping down further. I might try the concept again and go with a 60mm-ish length to get the DoF needed.
Now you're confusing me. Wouldn't you be better off with a longer lens rather than a shorter? That would allow you to back off, and I THINK get MORE rather than Less DOF. I may be AFU on this, but I think DOF has more to do with camera to subject distance and f-stop than lens focal length. I probably just set myself up some serious tutorials, but hey, I might just learn summat.
John :
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
Now you're confusing me. Wouldn't you be better off with a longer lens rather than a shorter? That would allow you to back off, and I THINK get MORE rather than Less DOF. I may be AFU on this, but I think DOF has more to do with camera to subject distance and f-stop than lens focal length. I probably just set myself up some serious tutorials, but hey, I might just learn summat.
Sorry, wasn't very clear. Here is my understading, and I too may be open to some learning . I understand it the same as you, the influence is camera to subject distance and aperature. I shot this at 111mm and the subject was at 1.2m. This gives me a DoF of about 2.7 inches. If go to 55.5mm and 0.6m I get the same 2.7 inches and the subject fills the frame the same (well not exactly but very close). If i backup and shoot at 1.5m and at 138mm, I get the same 2.7 inches. If i step it down to f/22 I get about 3.7 inches and that may be enuf for this. In this scenerio, if i use 55.5mm and instead of moving to 0.6m I only move in to 0.8m i get about 6.7 inches, but she does not fill the frame any more. Same would be true of just backing up from 1.2m to about 1.6m. However, if i backed up to 1.6m I would bump into my pool table (anyone want to buy a pool table?) So, short answer is that I needed to decrease the "focal length-to-subject distance" ratio if I wanted to keep at f/16 and increase my DoF (and not back into the pool table).
Comments
Maybe I would have rotated her head CW just a tad to get her exactly level and crop a tiny strip of the right side (so far that you crop just to the point were the bottom of the nose stops going down). It seems to give her a different expression and takes away a bit of her forehead which could be a good thing? - small things really.
www.ivarborst.nl & smugmug
- Wil
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
Thanks Wil. I think it was shot at 11 or 16. (would have to double check when I get home). I think the killer was that I'm on a crop camera and shot at 100ish mm. Appreciate your time!
Thanks!
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
Thanks for checking as I was on my iphone and could not check. I agree we would take a hit in clarity stopping down further. I might try the concept again and go with a 60mm-ish length to get the DoF needed.
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
Sorry, wasn't very clear. Here is my understading, and I too may be open to some learning
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
lol..that too