I like the degree of DOF that has occurred here, Chuck – the softness doesn’t
hurt my eyes; and although I agree with you about the principle of framing with
regard to limbs, I would accept this one as is.
And the expression on the girl’s face is great.
Chris
On 29 Jun 2014, at 13:53, Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> But I do have different ideas about the sidewalk cafe shot and not with
> respect to white balance. Two things hit me between the eyes when I first
> looked at the image. I think the DOF is too shallow. The guys in the
> background should be soft but not so soft as to strain my eyes. I've
> estimated that this shot was taken at about 20-25 feet. With a 90mm at f/4
> there's not much depth there. For a street photo where one has to move
> fairly quickly I would likely have used f/5.6 or even f/8. Yes, I know, I'm
> not the Leica shooter trying to shoot everything wide open. Anyhow, if the
> shot is important enough, it's not hard to adjust the depth of field from
> sharper to blurrier. But going the other way is tough.
>
> My second point is something that was drilled into me years ago. The woman's
> shoe is not entirely within the frame. I would likely have discarded this
> frame (as I have many others) based solely on that point. My personal rule
> is that, if the foot (hand, etc) is in the frame, it must be complete. If
> not, an alternate crop at ankle or calf or knee level might be better. This
> one is close enough to being complete that I would even consider extending
> the frame and painting in the rest of the shoe and sidewalk. A bit extreme
> perhaps but that's the way I was taught about taking pictures of people.
> Sometimes tough on me since I continue to make that same framing "mistake"
> over and over.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|