Partner took this shot for me

[waloshin2015]

I set up the lighting and the camera settings, but they took this shot for me as I have a hard time setting up my camera on my tripod and getting focus right.

Sigma 105mm f2.8 OSM Macro shoot through umbrella was used. That macro is quite sharp especially at 100%.

 

[Max Iso]

I set up the lighting and the camera settings, but they took this shot for me as I have a hard time setting up my camera on my tripod and getting focus right.

Sigma 105mm f2.8 OSM Macro shoot through umbrella was used. That macro is quite sharp especially at 100%.

It is very sharp, i wonder if you will get the usual sharp portrait chatter. I think sharpness is fine but i would say it's overexposed a good stop, maybe more. That sensor is fantastic, maybe drop exposure and boost shadows a bit to keep the right side lit.

My other criticisms are subjective, i don't like the angle but maybe it's just me. Im partial to non-eye contact shots as im usually into candids but looking down like that it's hard to get a sense of anything. But again maybe it's just me.

On another note, do you lift? Them Traps :-D

--
"Teach me how to sacrifice
I'm told that I don't know a thing
But maybe with some time alone
We'll both learn what it means
I feel as though I owe you more
Than just these words of gratitude you read
So before it ends, my friend
I'll teach you how to, bleed...." -

 

[waloshin2015]

Thanks. I will re-edit the photo tomorrow to lighten the right side. It is such an amazing sensor I love what you can accomplish with the raw files.

I do not lift at the gym but my day job has me lifting lots everyday. Though I should hit the gym.

 

[waloshin2015]

There better I did the original edit on my mac and now I have looked at the photograph on my desktop and have made appropriate adjustments. I found the original to be way too red.

 

[tedolf]

DOF is too shallow.

TEdolph

 

[Mike Pollock]

Hello Tedolf,

If you would be so kind:

It seems that shallow depth of field portraits are very common. One, perhaps both eyes are in focus, then everything melts away leaving the ears etc ,mostly out of focus.

When, if ever, is this acceptable?

I searched Google but found no answer.

Thanks

 

[tedolf]

Hello Tedolf,

If you would be so kind:

It seems that shallow depth of field portraits are very common.

Today that is true.

For most of photographic history not true.

One, perhaps both eyes are in focus, then everything melts away leaving the ears etc ,mostly out of focus.

When, if ever, is this acceptable?

Any photographic technique is acceptable when it supports the artistic theme of the work. Whenever any artistic technique, photographic or otherwise defeats or is in conflict with the theme of the work it is not acceptable. Just making the ears out of focus because you can is not thematically justified.

Often today, very shallow DOF is used by lazy photographers to blur out a background rather than use the background to support the subject; or it is simply done because fast lenses have become cheap (relative to the past) and shallow DOF is within the reach of most photographers.

I searched Google but found no answer.

That is my best effort.

E.g. whenever it is a gimmick.

Thanks

tedolph

 

[Mike Pollock]

Teldof,

Thanks for the reply, much appreciated.

Rgds