Passionate...

Angelo · March 28, 2005

...about his music.

Comments / critiques enthusiastically encouraged.

.

JimFuglestad · March 28, 2005

Hi Angelo,

For a bright sunny day this exposure is excellent, I think. I can definitely sense his passion for his singing. The composition is good, but something seems a little off-kilter to me, but I can't put my finger on it. Maybe it's the higher angle, or possible the cropping off of the guitar, don't know... Very nice street shot. I generally prefer street shots in b&w, but this one works better in color.

Thanks for sharing,

Jim

JimFuglestad · March 28, 2005

Just saw the 2nd two...
Missed the next two when i first looked at it... Like the first one best. I like the general compositions of the second and third ones, but the backgrounds are a bit distracting, so the first remains my fave.

Jim

Angelo wrote:

...about his music.

Comments / critiques enthusiastically encouraged.

.

.

Khaos · March 28, 2005

I like the first one a lot, but I agree, I wish you saw all of the guitar.

rutt · March 28, 2005

The composition of the trumpet player works for me. I want less DOF in the middle shot. The background is very distracting and doesn't add anything.

wxwax · March 28, 2005

The first guy is really interesting. Check out his beat-up guitar - there's a visual story there. I'd have been tempted to use a portrait orientation, narrow depth of field, put him slight to one side, maybe... that would let us see the geetar and more of him. He feels kinda cut off. Did he ever open his eyes? The eyes have it, always.

The second guy's cool, except that his face is in the shadows so much I can't really see him.

Nice compo and bokeh in the third one, nice image, best of of the three IMHO. Maybe a wee bit darker? Shooting in midday sun is tough. Sure would like to see his expression, tho.

JMHO

Angelo · March 28, 2005

Thanks guys. I appreciate the feedback. I won't bore you with explanations for the shots because I agree with all your comments. I'll try harder next time.

I wish I understood DOF better. Sometimes I get it just right, sometimes not but it's never planned, always accidental.

ginger_55 · March 28, 2005

Angelo, this is not scientific at all. My mind has enough problems without complicated math while shooting.

I use AV priority, but it doesn't matter as long as you can control the aperture.
The lower the number, the less depth of field you are going to get, the higher the number, the most depth of field you are going to get.

If I am shooting pretty fast and I think, gee he is interesting, but the background is yucky, I bring the number of the aperture as low as possible while maintaining a shutter speed where I can still handhold. If I did that, then I see a shot where I want as much as possible in focus, I know I have to get that aperture up, so I do. I take it to 16 or 22. If the shutter speed is not too slow at that point, I should get my depth of field.

I think most people here imply that they look at all these numbers and figure them out. I only look at the aperture, then I shoot. I listen to the shutter, if it is going at a rapid enough rate, I take a few photos, but I look at them pretty soon and also then check the shutter speed.

I usually prefer a faster shutter speed which you get with the lower numbers on the aperture, so I shoot around f8, f5.6. But for instance when I took the shot I have in a thread for the challenge, the one of the man with the newspapers, I knew I needed to get him and the papers in focus, so I put it on a high number right away. Probably f22. That was one of the first shots, I was very nervous. I need to shoot to get over my nerves. So I set the aperture and shot.

Also I was somewhat prepared when I got out of the car. The ISO was set, etc. I just needed to adjust the aperture to get all the papers in focus.

Just remember, a high number on the f stop makes more things in focus, a low number on the f stop makes less things in focus.

ginger

(I never noticed something as over sharpened, I don't understand that. I have looked at that dog, and I don't know what you all are seeing. I do understand the directions as to what to do. Maybe I would see it then. I am afraid if left to my own eyesight I would over sharpen.)

Angelo · March 28, 2005

ginger_55 wrote:

Angelo, this is not scientific at all. My mind has enough problems without complicated math while shooting.

I use AV priority, but it doesn't matter as long as you can control the aperture.
The lower the number, the less depth of field you are going to get, the higher the number, the most depth of field you are going to get.

If I am shooting pretty fast and I think, gee he is interesting, but the background is yucky, I bring the number of the aperture as low as possible while maintaining a shutter speed where I can still handhold. If I did that, then I see a shot where I want as much as possible in focus, I know I have to get that aperture up, so I do. I take it to 16 or 22. If the shutter speed is not too slow at that point, I should get my depth of field.

I think most people here imply that they look at all these numbers and figure them out. I only look at the aperture, then I shoot. I listen to the shutter, if it is going at a rapid enough rate, I take a few photos, but I look at them pretty soon and also then check the shutter speed.

I usually prefer a faster shutter speed which you get with the lower numbers on the aperture, so I shoot around f8, f5.6. But for instance when I took the shot I have in a thread for the challenge, the one of the man with the newspapers, I knew I needed to get him and the papers in focus, so I put it on a high number right away. Probably f22. That was one of the first shots, I was very nervous. I need to shoot to get over my nerves. So I set the aperture and shot.

Also I was somewhat prepared when I got out of the car. The ISO was set, etc. I just needed to adjust the aperture to get all the papers in focus.

Just remember, a high number on the f stop makes more things in focus, a low number on the f stop makes less things in focus.

ginger

(I never noticed something as over sharpened, I don't understand that. I have looked at that dog, and I don't know what you all are seeing. I do understand the directions as to what to do. Maybe I would see it then. I am afraid if left to my own eyesight I would over sharpen.)

Thanks Ginger. I'll practice more of your suggestions and as I get more comfortable with the camera I'm sure it will get easier.

ginger_55 · March 28, 2005

Thanks for the thanks.

Don't think about it as complicated.

It is really just moving the aperture up or down.

After awhile you get more of a feel for how far to move it, but that is what it is.
Up=more, down=less

If you have different lenses. Wide angle lenses and telephotos work the same that way. The difference being that wide angle lenses have much more DOF than telephotos. And that is the way it is.

g