Bit more DOF, bit more light, bit better?
Dudley Hanks
Portrait 2:
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Portrait2-bw-small.jpg (bw,
quick loading)
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Portrait2-bw.jpg (bw, full
size)
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Portrait2-colour-small.jpg
(colour, quick loading)
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Portrait2-colour.jpg
(colour, full size)
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Portrait2.cr2 (original RAW)
Shredding:
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Shredding-bw-small (bw,
quick loading)
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Shredding-bw.jpg (bw, full
size)
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Shredding-colour-small.jpg
(colour, quick loading)
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Shredding-colour.jpg
(colour, full size)
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Shredding.cr2 (original RAW)
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/Shredding-bw-small.jpg (bw,
> quick loading)
"Dudley Hanks" <photos....@dudley-hanks.com> wrote in message
news:dTSyl.19825$PH1.5083@edtnps82...
Bob Williams
There was a popular Photo Studio in my ex home town, whose specialty
was producing Portraits in "Soft Focus"
My wife loved the effect and I thought the portraits looked like they
were taken with a "Baby Brownie". So this Soft Focus/Shallow DOF issue
is strictly a personal preference thing. Perhaps this is the effect you
are trying to achieve, and I am totally comfortable with that.
But I, personally, like to get as sharp a picture as my lens/sensor will
permit. Otherwise why pay $500-800+ for a fine DSLR and then get
out-of-focus pictures. I don't understand the rationale.
If you decide you want soft focus, Photoshop can get it for you in a
heartbeat and you can control how soft you want the image to be.
You don't need Full PS to do this, either.
PS Elements will do it just as well for 1/10 the price.
Bob Williams
Ron Hunter
DOF so that the whole face is sharp.
Second picture is improperly focused on the guitar, rather than the
face, unless you MEANT to showcase only a part of a guitar. Watch that
focus spot, or use a multi-spot focus selection.
Some people really like 'soft focus' pictures, I'm NOT one of them.
Ron Hunter
always soften it, but you can't easily get a soft focus picture to look
sharp.
Dudley Hanks
"Ron Hunter" <rphu...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:9c6dnYtULJ2dB1HU...@giganews.com...
That would be great if I could use Photoshop, but it is not compatible with
my speech program, so I cannot use it.
Sighted photographers can use Photoshop; blind ones can't.
Besides, I find it interesting that many shooters complain mega-pixel
cameras are getting softer, and that they want to get sharper pics. Then
insist that portraits should be pin sharp out of the camera only to be
softened in Photoshop. If cams do great soft focus shots, why not build on
the strength of the camera?
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
Thanks, Ron, appreciate the feedback.
If the focus was on the forehead, I'm assuming the eyes were in focus, and
the nose is a bit soft. This sounds like I'm getting close to the effect
I'm after.
It doesn't matter so much for this shot, but, for people with larger noses,
I find it helpful to bring the focus to the eyes, if possible.
The guitar shot didn't quite work out the way I wanted it to. I wanted to
get his hand in the shot, somewhat blurred from action, with the guitar in
sharp focus. Unfortunately, I couldn't catch his hand where I wanted it.
Had I caught the hand, the effect would have been to catch the viewer's eye
with the hard lines and sharp colour distinctions of the instrument, and
then draw it away to the hand and bring it up to the face, eventually, where
one would be left thinking about the musician's deep concentration.
The overall effect should have been to make a statement about how the human
creative process can coax beauty out of the hardness of the physical world.
I'm getting closer, but still have a ways to go.
Once again, Ron, thanks for describing your impressions.
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
"Bob Williams" <mytbob...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:NH%yl.173509$xK6....@newsfe12.iad...
You said it, yourself, "There was a popular photo studio ..."
If people want soft focus, why not give it to them?
As noted elsewhere, Photoshop is not an option for me.
Besides, why spend a considerable amount of time coaxing a soft image out of
a hard one with software, if you have the ability to do it in a fraction of
a second when you take the shot?
Take Care,
Dudley
Ron Hunter
that would be a show stopper for me.
As for blind photographers.... How would they know?
Ron Hunter
I am just not fond of soft focus, although I know many people think it
is 'artistic'. I think it is just bad photography. Not much of an
impressionist....
Dudley Hanks
To each his own...
Concert photography is one area where the soft focus is really an issue.
Nothing worse than using half an inch DOF on a heavy metal rock shot, at
least when faces are involved.
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
How would they know what?
If you are talking about how they would know whether or not a shot is soft
or crisp, experience and sighted feedback would be the key. I don't pull
out a 50mm lens and shoot at f/1.8 expecting a crisp, sharply focus image --
except maybe if I'm shooting a scene that is only half an inch deep. With
portraits, that lens and aperture combo is used with the intention of
achieving a soft focus portrait in the Romantic tradition.
If you are talking about a camera's general characteristics, then camera
reviews would be the source, as well as comments from known shooters who
have used the box in question. But, such reviews and comments need to be
taken with a grain of salt, since a lot depends on what lens is being used
on the camera, and how the shots are framed as to whether or not a soft
image will be obtained.
If you are talking about how blind shooters will know whether Photoshop is
working, just close your eyes and sit in front of your computer and load
Photoshop. Then, try to do something. That's the scene when I try to work
with it.
No audible feedback -- zilch. So, I can do nothing with it.
Take Care,
Dudley
Ron Hunter
sighted person to help with that step. How do you know when a subject
is in focus unless you use auto-focus? I can't imagine trying to
overcome the difficulties of doing photography when you can't see either
the subject, camera, or results directly. You certainly didn't choose
an easy 'row to hoe'.
Neil Ellwood
That sounds as though you are talking about out of focus rather than soft
focus.
Soft focus has a sharp core to the image with a subtle light blending
effect around the image. The effect is best taken with a proper soft
focus lens although a soft focus filter can be useful, I used to have a
kodak filter with a Retina IIc in the sixties, it was mainly plain glass
with concentric circles ground and polished in the face of the filter
giving the greatest effect at large apertures and lessening with smaller
one until around f16 when the effect had disappeared.
--
Neil
reverse ra and delete l
Linux user 335851
Dudley Hanks
"Neil Ellwood" <cral.el...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:8rSdnRETQbh6aFDU...@bt.com...
One of the problems with critiquing soft-focus shots over the internet, is
that the effect of the pic on a monitor about 18 inches from the face isn't
the same as the final print viewed after framing and hanging, at least 5 or
10 times farther away.
Certainly, the out-of-focus nose may appear a bit strange when zoomed in on
and overly obvious, but I doubt any viewer will notice it on the final
print -- unless, of course, they get up close and personal with the print
and examine it more minutely than was intended by the photographer.
Let's not forget that the viewing distance probably plays a larger role than
the actual focus of the lens.
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
Actually, I only get sighted assistance setting my camera untill I get a
feel for my camera's menu system. Then, I count clicks (or beeps) to set
things where I want them.
Regarding framing and focusing, I seldom use sighted assistance. Instead, I
either just point and click (as in the shot of "Mich on the Bus," or do the
best I can interpreting the blurred blotches that appear on the LCD or in
the viewfinder, as in my portrait shots.
For me to frame / focus a shot, myself, a number of factors have to be just
right. The light intensity of the scene can't be too bright or too dim (dim
works better than bright), and the subject has to contrast with the
surroundings. To focus, I just turn the focus ring until I get the most
contrastted image I can achieve. When the contrast level is maximized, the
shot is in focus. When the blob is where I want it, it's framed.
It bears repeating that it isn't actually as difficult as most sighted folks
imagine. I've had years of sighted and semi-sighted shooting to fall back
on, so, as my eye doctor says, I've got pretty good skills when it comes to
interpreting blurs. Keep in mind that it takes way more skill just getting
to a shoot for a blind person, than it does to take the picture.
Of course, I don't want to minimize the challenge. The aggravation level
can, indeed, get pretty high at times. But, I love the art and can't
imagine giving it up.
Take Care,
Dudley