does this work?

[greygoose]

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t264/gs_greygoose/july%202007/IMG_3875.jpg



f/ 1.8
iso 100
1/2000

50mm 1.8

or should i have done something else? (settings etc)

[greygoose]

with the lens i have, what could i have done differently...if at all?



http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t264/gs_greygoose/july%202007/IMG_4041-E.jpg


1/500
f/ 4.0
iso 100

50mm 1.8

[cdmonkey]

they dont work for me I'm afraid, It took my eyes a while to reach the tape on the first one, and the second one need again needs the tape to be more obvious.

I like where you were coming from but I dont think these acheived it.

[Robert_Lay]

In Brian Peterson's book, Understanding Exposure, he makes a big issue of choice of lens aperture in order to emphasize the difference between the exposure that meets the technical requirements and the exposure that also satisfies the aesthetic requirements.

In my opinion, the above are examples of how not to use depth of field. It's difficult for me to imaging a situation in which the viewer would prefer to have such a shallow depth of field. It is simply too difficult to accept that much out of focus material.

Does it work? I would say that you should ask yourself whether or not it would be used on the front page if you were a news photographer.

Having said all that, the exposure and color balance are excellent, insofar as getting a good balance between highlights and shadow detail.

[RedHot]

I agree. #1 is unpleasant to look at and the text on the tape is partially covered. And #2 has a very uninteresting foreground subject. Far too shallow a DOF. To refer to Bryan Peterson, he would probably consider this to be a "story telling" picture that should have a very small appeture used to get everything in focus. Shallow DOF is most time reserved for people/pets/portraits.

[greygoose]

understandable.
back to the field i go.
thanks for all the info