Untitled

Critiques are welcome

I really like the peaceful tranquility. The Leaf on the bench, is Great even if YOU placed it there. This Image Invites Me To Be In It!

I could sit at place like this for quite some time. Nicely done.

simple, but well shot

I really like the DOF of the bench. This is one of those photos that really makes the viewer want to be there. Great job.

DOF? you mean Depth Of Field? What depth of field? It looks as though everything is in focus to me? AM I missing something???

Sorry, I meant the angle of the bench.

"DOF? you mean Depth Of Field? What depth of field? It looks as though everything is in focus to me? AM I missing something???"

 

William, DOF does not just refer to photos that exhibit 'shallow' depth of field (ie: if only part of the park bench were in focus). This is a photo that displays 'very good' depth of field as everything is indeed in focus. Depth of field can vary depending on your chosen aperture and focus point, but it is not a term that is soley used to describe a photo where only the fore or background is in focus.

 

As for the photo...brilliant execution. The exposure, colour and composition are great. I would be proud to have taken this myself.

The guy was (mistakingly) referring to the depth of field of the bench in relation to the rest of the picture. The bench is in the same plane of focus as the rest of the picture. That's what I was pointing out. Depth Of Field usually (but not always) refers to pictures with varying focus. If it is ALL in focus it seems a bit misleading to say that the picture has DOF. I stand by what I said, and I realize the guy made a mistake

William, not to beat this to death...but DOF is defined as follows: 'Depth of field is the amount of distance between the nearest and farthest objects that appear in acceptably sharp focus in a photograph.'

 

I fail to see what is misleading if someone comments on the DOF of this photo. DOF may be limited (or shallow) using a large aperture...or it may be extended, using a small aperture.

 

I look at this photo and I think, Wow, this photo has a great(extended) depth of field, as everything is in focus.

The close proximity of the bench to the camera required the photographer to use a small aperture to keep both the foreground and the trees/mountains background in focus.

 

I wonder if the other William (William King) really was referring to the angle of the bench as he said in his 'correction', or if you just confused him with your questioning of his use of the term DOF. Either way it does not matter, but DOF is not limited to describing shallow focus photos, and W. King would have been completely correct in his use of the term DOF if that were indeed his intention.

 

 

Absolutely lovely picture! I'd love to "GO" there to "get away" from workplace drudgery as often as possible!

 

If I may chime in on the DOF discussion, it seems to me to be a case of semantics; strictly, both William K and William W are using the term incorrectly. Although it's clear to me what William K is articulating, as Clint points out, depth of field is controlled by the photographer by aperture or lens choice and can be shallow or long; its a term which characterizes the entire photo, not subjects within. To limit the term to photos with shallow depth of field is a misuse.