robert_gough

Cristobal,

 

By DOF they mean depth of field.

Too big.

This is a very effective series and I like it. My experience with this technique (none of which is personal mind you, I have only viewed the work of friends who have done it) is that it is better suited to nature scenes and landscapes than it is to pictures of people. Note the shadows on either side of the subject's face in this photo. When they are thrown out of focus they spread the darkness over the whole lower half of the face which I find a bit distracting. However, given that you are photographing renaissance fair-goers in costume it succeeds in giving the series a mythical quality that works well. I will pass along a tip that I picked up from a friend who uses this technique; she noticed that the registration between the in-focus and out-of-focus frames was not as good as she would have liked. The same problem can be seen in this image. The staff in the subject's right hand is offset to the left in the out-of-focus frame whereas the tree about 1/4 of the way in from the right side appears to be shifted slightly to the right. My theory as to why this happens (and this can be either corroborated or corrected by those who know more about lens construction than I do) is that a fixed focal length lens varies slightly in focal length depending on the focus setting. My friend's solution was to use a zoom lens and to zoom out very slightly when making the out-of-focus image.

I like this but I think I would like it better if I could see more of the stairs on the left.

Since the moon is behind some clouds I don't think that it makes as effective a subject as it would if it were a nice, bright, un-obscured full moon hanging over the fountain. As it is the clouds tend to detract from the image and I might have concentrated on just the fountain. Also, I don't like the way the center stream of water is cut off at the top. It would be better if we could see the entire stream. Other than that it's a really nice shot. Great effort.

Nice abstract. You have a good eye.

This is my favorite of these that you have posted.

Yes, I definitely think this would be improved by reshooting it at a higher elevation. Take her to the Alps maybe ;-)

 

Seriously, I can't decide whether I agree with Sven or not. When I look at it cropped I like it, but you have got a subtle halo thing going which I'm guessing was achieved by burning in the background. Cropping might disturb that. I think I'm leaning toward crop it.... a little bit.

I don't care for the use of the graduated filter here. The sky looks too yellow.

I like the soft focus but the background is too light and busy and pulls my eye away from the subject.

Nice image but, um....is it a photograph?

 

I'm afraid that I agree with Jason on this. Unless the capture of reflected light was somehow involved in the creation of the image then it's not really a photograph. I'd say the same thing to someone who posted a scan of a drawing or a painting.

 

I've checked your portfolio and you have done some really amazing computer graphics, but that's what they are, not photographs. And this is a photography forum.

This is an interesting perspective. However I feel it would be a much stronger image if the narrow depth of field were being used to draw the viewer's eye to something ON the bench, a person, for example. Or two people in the midst of a conversation causing us to wonder what they are talking about. As it is the blurry arm in the foreground draws the viewer's attention too strongly and dominates the image. Good try though.

Comments and critique appreciated.

Mmmm....baby soup!

I think some fill flash or maybe a reflector might have made this a better shot.

I love this except for one thing: it doesn't look very sharp. If it were I'd give it 7/7.

I don't like the added color. It's too much. Focus could be a little sharper too and a polarizer would help with those reflections in your glasses. Apart from that I really like the lighting and the pose. The deep blackness of the background leads me to suspect it was Photoshopped but it is very effective and adds to the photo.

Wonderful. Beautiful sharpness and the lighting is just right.

Comments and critique would be appreciated. Thanks.

This is very well done technically but I can't really give very high marks for originality. Perhaps if you took it from a different angle ;-)

Comments and critique would be appreciated. Thanks.

I think that this would have been stronger without the foot. It somewhat spoils the abstract nature of the image.

It's a little too dark to see the texture you were going after. Also I would suggest photographing the skin at more of an angle rather than straight on.

Overall I like this folder. The concept is good and the photographs are all well executed. However, I have a couple of comments regarding things that I would have done differently (not that you should have, these are just my preferences).

 

1. It seems as though everyone who has done some digital imaging has a few images where the subject or a key element is in color and the rest of the photo is in B&W. The first time I saw this I thought that it was pretty clever and I really liked it (BTW, that was a B&W print with a flower in the middle that was hand colored). But computers have made this technique so easy that images of this sort have become ubiquitous and each time I see it now it seems less clever and more like a cheap Photoshop trick. With that said it can still be effective, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. Here I think I would have prefered monochrome.

 

2. The lingerie on the model, especially the heels, combined with the use of color give these images a cheesecake feel. Perhaps that was what you were going for and there's nothing wrong with that. I think that I would have prefered a fully nude model in order to emphasize the dichotomy between the natural and the industrial. The lingerie and the color tend to focus the viewer's attention on the model rather than on the contrast between the hard, angular nature of the factory fixtures and the soft smoothness of the model's body. As they are these images make me think of a dancer in a topless bar (in many cities these establishments are relegated to industrial zones) who took a walk during one of her breaks and forgot to get dressed first. The focus is on the model rather than on the contrast between her and her surroundings and they seem incongruous.

 

Again, I think the concept is very good and technically the photos are very well done.

 

Just my $.02.

Too far away. I looked at this photo for close to a minute before I realized there was a lizard in it.