Shock and Awe

Metered on the face and underexposed 1.5 stops, just like Carl Root

suggested. :-) Thoughts?

Looks OK to me.

 

Usually the advice is to meter the brightest spot . . . . sometimes several spots to see if the contrast range is too great. There must be some good articles on exposure on this site and elsewhere.

Come on, Carl, you told everyone who viewed your latest photos to rate the image (no matter what the number) so that more people end up seeing it, and you don't rate mine? Tsk tsk tsk....

 

;-) Come on, give me a rating. BTW, I tried to make the contrast here as close as possible to what I saw. Against the bright background, his face looked somewhat darker than it usually is, and I really liked the effect.

 

By the way, a lot of people comment but don't rate, and vice versa... I think in large part this is because if one is inclined to give a comment, it is tedious to then click yet ANOTHER page to rate it, especially when one has already given his advice (and so sees little merit in assigning it a meaningles number). Don't you think commenters will be more inclined to rate if there is a rating pulldown menu ON the "add comment" page? I'll suggest this in the main forums...

Not fair . . You emailed me and asked for a critique. :-)

 

(You see . . . there's no such thing as an unbiased rate anymore. . . . if there ever was one.)

Thought I'd 'contribute a critque' to see how this new page works and to test the interface.

 

I like the side light and resulting detail in the face. The expression works well, and the composition idea is OK, but for me the background is a distraction in that I can't figure out if the branches are real, what the triangle is, and especially what that bright spot is all about.

 

So in a sense, we're back to where we were with your other image. . . . the background. Look forward to some more like these two. . . .with neutral backgrounds.

Well, Carl, this is what I started with... just my dad, sitting inside, in front of a curtain, having a discussion. So no, the branches are not "real," and the triangle is where the curtain folds in (if you're talking about the upper right).

 

What would you have done with this shot?

 

I like what you did with it. The best answer is that I would have changed my position or his until I got a background I liked. I also would have shot wide open. (didn't notice if you included aperture in your tech info.)

Backgrounds... when I'm concentrating on faces, I tend to forget them. I will strive to remember. FYI, the technical info of this shot is: 1/50 sec., F/5.6, ISO 400, and I actually underexposed 2/3rds. I think I was at 55mm (times 1.6).

 

At that focal length, that's as wide open as it gets. Widest my lens has is 3.5 at 18mm, but I'd have had to get a lot closer for that, and it would have ruined his expression.

 

I'm still a little confused over bokeh. I know a longer focal length makes the background blurrier, and I know that a wider aperature makes it blurrier, but where is the effect strongest: 18 mm at f/3.5, or 55 mm at f/5.6? And how does shutter speed play into all this? I know a faster shutter speed gets a blurrier background, but I just assumed that was because the shorter the exposure the more light I need, so the wider the aperature is -- thus it's APERATURE and not shutter speed that determines bokeh.

 

I think it's time to buy that "Understanding Exposure" book. :-)

I'd buy an f1.8 50mm lens.

Yep, that's on the list of next purchases. That, and the 70-300 IS.