OK, this time I'm asking (no REALLY)

Bilsen

Believe it or not, at the tail end of the "dark Fairy shoot w Cyndi, while completing the set with her under a bridge, I VERY consciously was playing with very precise DOF between Cyndi and the bridge structure elements. (OMG Bilsen actually listens???
:jawdrop


Anyway, this time I'm actually asking what y'all think of the mix of sharp and blurry in these images.

Here is the setup. In the rest of these she will be on the concrete footing and I will be on the other side of the bridge trying not to fall on my ass.


2. and now to the experiments


3.


4.


5.


6.


7.

jonh68

Well, this will sound ironic from me, but you have an interesting background so I like the sharp image in 1. Maybe get rid of the plants and vegetation at her feet to totally take out any hints of nature. The blown highlights on the railing in the others are a bit distracting like in 2 but maybe could be toned down in PP.

I like the blue outfit with the red backgrounds. There's always a however and this time I don't think the outfit matches the setting or at least going with natural lighting. When you mention fairy theme, my mind goes to fantasy, and then it goes to dramatic lighting. This would have been a great setting for a fashion shoot with blue outfits or other colorful clothes. For a fantasy shoot, I like dramatic shadows and mood so that is a personal preference.

As far as DOF goes I think it works. Your DOF doesn't really come into play for the head shots or half body shots. It comes with full length shots. When you do closeups you are going to get a natural separation just due to physics. You are closer and the backgrounds in relation are farther back. When you pull back for full length shots the subject may not have moved but the distance between the subject and you increases, and this brings the backgrounds more in focus. You either have to compensate with faster aperture or move the subject farther away from the background.

Bilsen

::SMH:: It seems I am destined to be out of step with this board. Perhaps that's not so bad as long as it is consistent.

Anyway, thanks jon. I understand the concept critique and I could probably accomplish your idea in post by changing the lighting and WB. I may go back and try that out.

jonh68

We all have perceived notions of what looks good on how we would do something. In the end it's about having fun and enjoying the process.

I like this location and hope you do something with it in the future. I wish I had something that colorful and industrial around here.

Bilsen

jonh68 wrote: »

We all have perceived notions of what looks good on how we would do something. In the end it's about having fun and enjoying the process.

I like this location and hope you do something with it in the future. I wish I had something that colorful and industrial around here.

Just so happens:
http://bilsen.zenfolio.com/dominicangrunge

D3Sshooter

I will be short, it works for me. The reason is simple it creates depth in a picture and secondly it decouples the model from the background and makes here pop-out. So mission accomplished.

Bilsen

Thanks D3. I think I may cool off the WB and bring it all down for the effect jon is discussing but, on the whole, I like this set.

puzzledpaul

Interesting location with lots of potential ... but personally, I find the 'lightsaber thro' the head' effect in all but 1 pretty offputting ... sorry ...

pp

jmphotocraft

I like 1. However at first I was also off-put by the member behind her head, my brain couldn't figure out its orientation for a few seconds. But coming back to the image a day later I'm digging it. I think it works because even thought the bg is sharp, you've excluded most of it so it is still pretty abstract. The rest of them I think the bg is blurred just enough. We can still tell what it is, but it's not sharp. Good. However I don't like the big metal piece in the foreground on the bottom right. It's taking up too much space, IMO. It's ok in 5.

Bilsen

Understood Paul. That is exactly the type of response I was requesting.

JMP , again, exactly what I was asking. My thought process in including it was (1) increase depth in the image and (2) as I said, play with very precise DOF between FG, Cyndi and BKG. At least for me, this was harder than it looks. (NO that's NOT AN EXCUSE - lol - it is what I was thinking at the time.) For good or ill, EVERY element of these images was intentional.

divamum

jonh68 wrote: »

Well, this will sound ironic from me, but you have an interesting background so I like the sharp image in 1. Maybe get rid of the plants and vegetation at her feet to totally take out any hints of nature. The blown highlights on the railing in the others are a bit distracting like in 2 but maybe could be toned down in PP.

I like the blue outfit with the red backgrounds. There's always a however and this time I don't think the outfit matches the setting or at least going with natural lighting. When you mention fairy theme, my mind goes to fantasy, and then it goes to dramatic lighting. This would have been a great setting for a fashion shoot with blue outfits or other colorful clothes. For a fantasy shoot, I like dramatic shadows and mood so that is a personal preference.

As far as DOF goes I think it works. Your DOF doesn't really come into play for the head shots or half body shots. It comes with full length shots. When you do closeups you are going to get a natural separation just due to physics. You are closer and the backgrounds in relation are farther back. When you pull back for full length shots the subject may not have moved but the distance between the subject and you increases, and this brings the backgrounds more in focus. You either have to compensate with faster aperture or move the subject farther away from the background.

Bilsen

Yep.

I appreciate all the comments but, honestly, they appear to confirm that I am just artistically out of step here. That's OK, I've been there most if my life in many areas,

jonh68

Bilsen wrote: »

Yep.

I appreciate all the comments but, honestly, they appear to confirm that I am just artistically out of step here. That's OK, I've been there most if my life in many areas,

I think if you want to experiment with DOF, the manner in which you did with this set doesn't help you. You are going to get naturally blurred backgrounds because you were shooting in close which pushes the backgrounds back.

Where most of us comment about the backgrounds is when you shoot full length. This is where you need to concentrate if you are going to be experimenting in DOF. If you shoot a full length body shot at 200 mm and f4 that is going to melt away backgrounds provided there is a few feet of separation from the background better than shooting at 50 1.4 and the background is inches away. There is more to DOF than just shooting wide open.

puzzledpaul

jonh68 wrote: »

Where most of us comment about the backgrounds is when you shoot full length. This is where you need to concentrate if you are going to be experimenting in DOF. If you shoot a full length body shot at 200 mm and f4 that is going to melt away backgrounds provided there is a few feet of separation from the background better than shooting at 50 1.4 and the background is inches away. There is more to DOF than just shooting wide open.

Not the least of which is the vast difference in angle of view between the 2 focal lengths mentioned ... nearly 4x ... so choosing a suitable area of background to actually be in frame with a 200 is invariably going to be easier, because there's far less of it in the frame anyway.

pp

divamum

I appreciate all the comments but, honestly, they appear to confirm that I am just artistically out of step here.

Curious: if you feel it's just here that folks pick up on technicals where are the other places you're getting feedback where these kinds of comments aren't made? Curious.

And I STILL argue that it's not "just here" where background control (note I don't say blurred) is noticed (although perhpaps it is discussed more here).

My strong agreement with John was as much for his comments on fantasy styling as other points he made.

Steve, again, I think the reason people keep trying to make this point I because they see how good your other elements are. Posing is crazy good a lot of the time. You have an army of subjects. Use of light is getting better and better. But when all that is ignored because the background dominates - whether because not that interesting, too bright, too sharp, or otherwise - it pulls the shot down from excellent pro-quality work to amateur. And you're better than that..

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

divamum

PS technique is not taste.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

Bilsen

Hi Diva,

Let me start by saying yet again that I do not feel "picked on". I've expressed my appreciation to my regulars here so often that I'm beginning to bore myself.

I was actually chuckling at the idea that in this set, dedicated to experimenting with bokeh as a direct result of you all, the set up image with the sharp background was favored. My finely tuned sense of irony (especially when applied to myself) was simply tickled. My comment about being "out of step" was in no way a "poor me" reaction, it was just a giggle.

I do get critiques on one other site that I frequent and, the interesting part is, it is often very different from that here. That is the exact reason I usually post on both sites. Very often something well received here gets trashed on the other site and vice versa. At times, an image gets torched on both sites but usually on different aspects (ie: poses, or lighting or whatever). For example, there are two pros on the other site who despise this pose (that I like a lot) and kill it every time I post one:



To put it in terms attributed to John Locke, I take the thesis (here), the antithesis (there) and attempt to arrive at a synthesis (improved images).

Anyway, I will admit to occasional frustration (what the hell else can I do?) but that is extremely rare. Much more likely that you all get frustrated with me (what is wrong with this idiot?).

I am not masochistic enough to keep posting here just so I can take a beating, nor am I narcissistic enough to think I know it all now. So the only inference that can be drawn is that I enjoy the critique, I enjoy the back and forth when I disagree, I enjoy looking at the work of those seriously accomplished photographers here and I learn things from all of it. Perhaps I should do a retrospective post ca. 2010 so that you guys cantruly see how much difference you have made. I look at that stuff now and it's actually embarrassing.

So never doubt that I enjoy 95% of my interplay on this site. Of course, YMMV and that aligns you squarely with almost everyone in my life STARTING with my wife.

jmphotocraft

Ha, I like that pose. IMO it's out of the ordinary in a good way. It makes me think of a flame.

What more can you do? For starters you could finally take our advice and get a new or new-to-you lens. I'm thinking 135L. Or if you're really on strict budget, 85/1.8 or 100/2. Go ahead, you're worth it. This is a serious endeavor for you, stop fooling around with compromise tools.

For the record I like image 5 better than 1 in the OP. :P

Speaking of fairies and fantasy shoots, I'm reminded of this album cover for OceanLab:



I doubt I'll ever have that much artistic talent. People like this are the real pros.

Bilsen

NICE poster JM. That is serious pro work however they did it.

As for different lenses, go take another look at my Jena-Ukraine thread where you'll see my 85mm 1.8 at work.

Dooginfif20

My only nits with these are your WB and exposures are all over the place. The shots just leaving me wanting to see more 3/4 or full length shots of her and the structure

Qarik

d3sshooter wrote: »

i will be short, it works for me. The reason is simple it creates depth in a picture and secondly it decouples the model from the background and makes here pop-out. So mission accomplished.

+1