Middle aged man

[Orsonneke1]

a9iii with FE 50/1.4 GM

 

[BAK]

Depth of field is too shallow. Lens is sharp, but not deep enough.

Interesting to see exactly how shallow f 1.4 is.

Thanks for the lesson.

BAK

 

[DuckShots]

Hands make the man.

 

[DuckShots]

Not my view.

 

[Richard D Jacobs]

Half of his face is out of focus.
this I have noticed this photographer posts almost all of his images with the aperture wide open and the subjects are frequently out of focus.

when I had question about this technique, he says he’s more interested in the background blur, and that this was his style of photography.

I think most photographers use a wide aperture to blur the background, but are also trying to get their subject in sharp focus.

if the photographer is happy with his photographs, I guess all that’s all that counts.

Richard

 

[DuckShots]

I try not to use the word most, because I don't have a true count and have not spoken with enough to know enough to comment. But I use the soft focus, which I don't call OOF. Sharp focus has its place, but not everyplace. Being creative makes the day more than being academic. And just because I have the equipment, I dont have to use it.

HCB, for one did not strive for sharp focus. And look at the "Migrant Mother".

 

[saltydough]

Half of his face is out of focus.
this I have noticed this photographer posts almost all of his images with the aperture wide open and the subjects are frequently out of focus.

when I had question about this technique, he says he’s more interested in the background blur, and that this was his style of photography.

I think most photographers use a wide aperture to blur the background, but are also trying to get their subject in sharp focus.

if the photographer is happy with his photographs, I guess all that’s all that counts.

Richard

I do not see a problem with the ears and part of the hair out of focus.

And even if the background is blur, it can still suffer from being cluttered. In my opinion, shooting wide open will not negate the importance of any other elements such as choosing an appropriate background; in short, it doesn't hide anything.

 

[Orsonneke1]

Half of his face is out of focus.
this I have noticed this photographer posts almost all of his images with the aperture wide open and the subjects are frequently out of focus.

when I had question about this technique, he says he’s more interested in the background blur, and that this was his style of photography.

I think most photographers use a wide aperture to blur the background, but are also trying to get their subject in sharp focus.

if the photographer is happy with his photographs, I guess all that’s all that counts.

Richard

I do not see a problem with the ears and part of the hair out of focus.

And even if the background is blur, it can still suffer from being cluttered. In my opinion, shooting wide open will not negate the importance of any other elements such as choosing an appropriate background; in short, it doesn't hide anything.

Exactly my thought!

 

[Richard D Jacobs]

HRB in his early years was trained as an artist and concentrated primarily on surrealistic style painting, as a child , he was an amazing street photographer and later in life resumed his painting career.

it seems to be on this form too many people have a fixation with the background blur at the expense of getting their subject in sharp focUS.

When photographing an older woman, we obviously don’t wanna have too sharp to focus if there are lines on the person’s face, but for a male lines, ad character to his face..

Just my opinion.



Richard

 

[saltydough]

The beauty of the forum is that you get many different opinions as there is always some subjectivity.

Many things are trade off. You got to be honest and ask yourself if shooting that way, is that really good, and eventually adjust to what you think is best for yourself. Other opinions while different from you are well intentioned. Most of the time, I even keep my comments to myself as other forumers may not have ask for critiques and I strongly suspect a large number here is much much more experienced than I am.

There was a picture of mine where the focus was on the curly front bangs and both eyes were not in focus. But how many times that work? Just once. Most of the time, getting both eyes in focus is critical, which is almost as true like getting the horizon straight. Of course, there can be dutch angles, but again how many times will having a slanted horizon works, most of the time it doesn't, at least in my opinion.

I didn't see your other pictures to judge if they are OOF, but many other points I do agree with Jacob. Going with f/1.4 has such a narrow DOF that you run the risk of not getting both eyes in focus, and that is especially true if your subject is fast moving at close distance.

Stopping down a little will help; getting rest of the face in focus while not a must can also add to the details. And if your background is interesting and had details that add to the story, you can even stop down further. You can experiment with that. Maybe start with f2 to f2.8 (which still give plenty of subject separation)? Anyway, the widest usually is not the sweet point of a lens.

As for the background, IMHO, I find it cluttered. Perhaps changing an angle to get the shades just next to the head outline to be all light or all dark (preferred) works? Or to find another place where there is not so many distracting elements behind? Just some suggestion for you. My 2cents.

 

[GonnaSnap]

Out of focus in what way? How are you viewing the image to determine this? The reason I ask is that, in many cases, even when something is technically OOF it's still fine for the viewer. Not everything has to be tack sharp. Pixel peeping isn't usually how photos are viewed.

 

[DuckShots]

I love the lines on older women. And I reside in your camp with respect to focus.

 

[saltydough]

I can understand why some will prefer back to back sharpness for face or even the entire body. While art is a personal expression, I’m still a little more inclined towards getting in focus actually.



I had some pictures of my kids. I manage to catch the expression but the eyes not in focus. Are they keepers? Absolutely. Did I make a mistake of not getting the eyes in focus, and would I prefer them in focus? Still a yes.



just my own views

 

[Richard D Jacobs]

Gonna Snap look at his ears.

RJ

 

[DuckShots]

You views are your views. But art doesn't recognize views, except if you are a buyer/collector, art history teacher or effete connoisseur. We don't like or dislike any art. We look at it, develop a visual vocabulary, make it and display it. Don't think twice, its alright.

I suppose that telling whether you like something or prefer something is relevant to someone. But as one of my greatest photo instructors, Jay Maisel, said, "I don't give a ____ whether you like it or not, I don't have time to know you well enough to understand why you like what you do. I asked you what you saw and why you took the picture."





Halloween Treat

 

[Mako2011]

. But as one of my greatest photo instructors, Jay Maisel, said, "I don't give a ____ whether you like it or not, I don't have time to know you well enough to understand why you like what you do. I asked you what you saw and why you took the picture."

An interesting take on art. That said, that view might keep ones art/photography from progressing in a positive way. Might serve to keep one "stuck" so to speak. I see it here sometimes with a few folks. Still a fine shot but ...same old same old. And that's OK

For some pro artists/photographers, might also be a poor business model as well. Might work just fine for others. Depends how well it sells?

--
My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

 

[GonnaSnap]

Gonna Snap look at his ears.

RJ

While they are technically OOF, it works as a style. I'm much more upset when the nose is out of focus. To me, that's extremely stylistic and should only be done with a specific outcome in mind. OOF noses in portraits are distracting and make me angry *lol* I understand some known photographers do this, but it's not a style that I generally gravitate towards as a viewer.