darren_cokin Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Is the short depth of field seen here distracting, or pleasing? Shot with D100, with 24-120mm VR (at 120), mounted on kenko extension tubes. Handheld, f/20, 1/160 seconds, ISO 200. Light from SB-50DX, tilted down. Levels adjusted, and small number of pinpoint reflections edited out.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johninjapan2000 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 I wouldn't say it's distracting. The eye is clearly the "target". Many portraits are enhanced (they look sort of '3D') by creative use of DOF. It's still weird, though. :-) In a pretty-eye kind of way. :-) John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 The only thing that comes to my mind when I see th posted shot is- Flash. No, DOF factor is invisible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hannu Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 I can't help of not thinking about Bunuel with a shot like that, but tha't my problem I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hannu Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 (can't help of thinking, that is. one negative too many) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2yellowdogs Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 I'd have to agree with Vivek. First impression here is flash. It's such an extreme close-up and so much of what's in the frame is on the same plane (or the lens is stopped down enough) that very little out-of-focus area is apparent. </p> In general, I like the effect of selective focus areas when they're exactly that - <i>selected</i>. Frequently what many people end up with when shooting with a high maximum aperture lens wide open is something that they didn't really intend (a shoulder in focus, the rest blurred). As long as what you're doing is the way you wanted it when you shot it, the effect is rarely distracting and usually quite pleasing.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2yellowdogs Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 One more.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darren_cokin Posted January 31, 2006 Author Share Posted January 31, 2006 Vivek, A dedicated macro flash unit wouldn't really have helped the situation any, would it have? It's the close proximity that's the problem I think. Maybe a real macro lens, with a longer working distance, would let me light more creatively. Any suggestions? Here's one of my GF's eye, where the problem is even worse. In this case, the flash was off camera, with a cord. But I was using the 50mm f1.8 lens, so I had even less working distance with the kenko tubes than with the 24-120 VR. f/11, 1/160 second, ISO 200.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2yellowdogs Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Maybe it would help to know the intended use here. Will you be doing a lot of macro shots of eyes? Are you an ophthalmologist? I liked the shot of your girlfriend's eye better. I think the off-camera flash was better and the out-of-focus area to the right looked good. Are you trying to show more out of focus area than you had in this picture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Dan, If I remember correctly, Darren is a rocket scientist (or an engineer)- no kidding. Darren, Diffused lighting- that is the only thing I can think of. This did not use flash and it was window lighting.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Here is a crop from a fill flash (I will post the full shot in the next post- it is 154kb but will not appear in line) of the next shot.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Entire frame. D70, the pop was used as a fill.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 I have a nice example of the diffuse lighting but I dont want to risk being strangled by my wife. Here(not very reflecting surfaces), you will see some examples: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=454215 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darren_cokin Posted January 31, 2006 Author Share Posted January 31, 2006 I have the Sto-fen diffuser for my flash, but that close, it doesn't make much of a difference.<br><br> Next time my GF has the patience to let me try this again, I might try bouncing the light off a big piece of white foam core, rather than pointing the flash directly. (I don't really feel like investing in a softbox at this time.) If I use the 24-120VR+Kenko combination, I might have enough working distance for that to work. (A short working distance is a problem just since the camera itself shadows the light source.) I could also just try it during the daytime I guess!<br><br> I will try again, simply because I have a new toy to play with now. With my GF being more cooperative than the dog, I had the camera mounted on a tripod for that session, rather than handheld. But then, in order to get proper focus, I kept needing to tell her to lean forward or back just a bit. To alleviate that, I've just invested in a Novoflex focusing rack, that can move the camera back and forth when it's on the tripod. And it will also let me position the lens nodal point over the tripod pivot point, eliminating parallax from my panoramas. And by swinging the camera 90 degrees to the rack (that capability is one reason to favor their MiniConnect quick release system instead of Arca-Swiss style plates), I could also use this thing to take perfectly aligned stereo pairs for 3D photography, something I also experiment with on occasion. It'll be a handy little thing to have I think!<br><br> Re: Dan, no, I'm not an ophthalmologist. Vivek remembered correctly.<br><br> As an aside, I'm very pleased that now the top google search for my name is no longer an embarrassing usenet post from my college days, but a thread from this very forum:<br> <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00C7fb&tag=">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00C7fb&tag=</a><br><br> You've all googled yourselves, haven't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Yeh, I've Googled myself. Kinda tickles. If you enter the word "perpendicularity" as a search term I'm usually in the top five. My 15 minutes of fame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now