Feedback on image, please

[m.c.fitz]

<p>This picture was taken with a Rolleiflex 3.5 TLR, on out of date TriX. Metered at 200 asa, normal development time in Xtol, dilution 1+1.<br>

I didn't take notes of aperture or time, but it was probably wide open, and I was as close as I could get, so likely at 90cm.<br>

Being that close, and with a shallow depth of field, the front of the stump is off the plane of focus, as is the background, of course.<br>

Do you find the foreground blurring adds to or distracts from the image?<br>

I will be printing this up on fiber paper, eventually, but would appreciate some feedback. <br>

Thank you in advance for any replies.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[subbarayan_prasanna]

<p>No picture ?</p>

[ken_jeanette1]

<p>M.C., I find the front blur distracting. My mind wants to see the entire cut surface sharp, and the other areas in blur. </p>

[ron_moss]

<p>Nice shot m.c.<br>

For me this is a tough one,<br>

normally i like to see sharper focus on the main part of the subject but in this shot given the background has the the same tones and textures, i think with more DOF it may not have enough separation and become a little busy with all the vertical lines and not stand out from the BG as it does now.<br>

perhaps a little more focus on the front edge of the cut and let the back go out of focus into the background ? just my take</p>

 

[john_bear]

<p>Sorry, but I too don't like the blurring. I'd like it to be pin sharp.</p>

[rick_schuster]

<p>Beautiful image, but I agree that the out-of-focus front detracts from it. My eye is drawn to the front edge of the cut part, right where it's out of focus. I love the undulating grain down below the cut, but I want to see that smooth part in front in sharp focus. Less back focus would be good.</p>

[John Seaman]

<p>The brightness of the blurry foreground doesn't help. Perhaps you would get a better result if you moved the camera to the right to get the stump more face on - and the pattern in the stump looks a little more interesting from this direction. Also focus on the front edge or about a third of the way in, rather than the back as existing.</p>

[m.c.fitz]

<p>Thank you all very much, the replies and reasons given are very helpful.<br>

When I look at the image on my screen, the fall off doesn't bother me if I look at it straight on, but moving slightly to the side changes the way it looks and doesn't seem right. As an image I like it, but I want the front part to separate neatly from the background so that it pops, which it isn't doing here, because, as has been said, the foreground blur is distracting.<br>

So back I shall go to the gardens, with fresh, rather than out of date TriX in the Rollei, and perhaps a tripod, for smaller aperture and slower shutter speeds, and keeping in mind the comments given here.<br>

I love trees and stumps: they don't change quickly, rarely move off, and don't scream "no photos! no photos!" if you point a camera at them. Their patience is wonderful.<br>

Thank you all again.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Yes, the focus distribution is not ideal. I'd pass on this one and try again.</p>

[SCL]

<p>I agree with most others...the main part isn't razor sharp, or I would forgive the OOF area. I'm guessing that shutter speed was slow and being a handheld shot there was miniscule camera shake type blur. Go back with a tripod and nail the sharpness and exposure (you might bracket a few shots). It could be a dramatic shot.</p>

[walter_degroot]

<p>one thingn Ialways read or atleast browse is classic manual cameras,<br>

( as well as film, developing, and Kodak)<br>

maqybe I am a sopert of luddite. I do have and usedigital cameras and use computers a lot.<br>

but a long time ago a person was quoted as saying " the bad frives the good out"<br>

this was even in posters quoting the seller.<br>

( I am coming to the point)<br>

breakable plasric replaced metal and sometimes even somnthing cheaper.<br>

Kodfak- the great yellow fatheer is almost dead.<br>

newer digital cameras , in the hands of the public will last<br>

- well the images will only ;last a short while--</p>

<p>I know people used to toss those litt;le dark things. ( nmegatives) and put finmgerprints and crumpled slides.<br>

but evenb in argus c-3 days and Kodachrome asa 10. images were of high quality.<br>

Much of this has been lost.<br>

and the resultant images. many of them " chimped" are son numerous as the good ones that survive will soon be lost.<br>

I get some scrapped computers and we find music aND LOTS OF SAVED IMAGES OF FAMILY EVENTS.<br>

did the originaql owner save these images? did they have the skill and ability to do so?<br>

I think NOT.<br>

so what is the advantage of a digicam.<br>

ease or operation. but when it faiils it cannot be economically fixed and is replaced.<br>

My brother-in-law, not a terch guru, has omne anwswer. he saves the sd casrds and buys more. nmever re-using the<br>

the cards.<br>

Fols scoff at my intreast in film based casmeras. but years from now most if not all my images will still exist.<br>

long after most digital images are lost forever.<br>

trus is is a pain to fdevelop and print film.<br>

walmart WAS my go-to place, but word is they do not rteturn negatives.<br>

and the drug stores are reputed to be sloppy.<br>

specialty labe tend to be expensive ( do I read this as high profit?)<br>

all in all it is not a happy picture.<br>

--- again I apologize for typos as my vision os quite bad---</p>

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>The falloff is fine, but the nearest point to the viewer needs to be sharp, otherwise it becomes a distraction. Nice stump though!</p>

[bwbob]

<p>Put camera on a tripod. Set aperture at F11. Set shutter speed according to your meter reading for F11. Focus on the tree stump and you should have a fine image. </p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>I've always felt the amount of the image that is in focus is a matter of personal preference unless you're making photos for a paying client (then it's their way). My own preference, at least for this subject, would be pin sharp. However, if I am faced with a situation where I cannot have the whole subject sharp, I'd rather have the background out of focus than the foreground. Bottom line, if you like the image I'd say print it. But if not, plenty of experimentation might be in order.</p>

[Julio Fernandez]

<p>The interesting point of attention here is the dark stump. All of it should be in focus IMHO.</p>

<p>Composition needs intention and the intention must be clear in the results. If you want to show the dark stump with the cool OOF lighter tones and lines, by all means go for it.</p>