A few portraits of my neighbors daughters

[mr.photoguy]

I sware by the 70-200 f4L ...

I took some images of my next door neighbors daughter, and her cousin..
here are a few of the images.

http://www.pbase.com/brucescott/image/42621967.jpg
1/200s f/4.0 at 94.0mm iso400
---
http://www.pbase.com/brucescott/image/42622114.jpg
1/200s f/4.0 at 140.0mm iso400
---
http://www.pbase.com/brucescott/image/42622213.jpg
1/200s f/4.0 at 200.0mm iso400
Here is an additional one that I took with my Tamron 180 macro..
1/40s f/5.6 at 180.0mm iso400
http://www.pbase.com/brucescott/image/42621968.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/brucescott/neigh
thanks for looking.

[flyfishnj]

Triplets? All matching Xs

[mr.photoguy]

Are you sure.... ?
I can see them all on my monitor.

--------
Can anyone else not see them?

[Belmondo]

Very nice. No red X's here.

#1 is really cute.

[Raj]

Nice Bruce. #1 & #3 are my favorites.

[mr.photoguy]

Thanks guys,...

I think I should have gotten at least her ear in # 2 , but wanted to see what others' opinion on this would be.

[elbirth]

nice shots... I'm not sure if I like or dislike the fact that just her right cheek is in focus in #3....

you're just helping push me closer to the 70-200mm F/4, hehe. I've been dead set on the 2.8 but the huge price difference is what's keeping me away. I'm leaning more towards the f/4 for now, though, as I'm seeing great results from it.

[mr.photoguy]

nice shots... I'm not sure if I like or dislike the fact that just her right cheek is in focus in #3....

you're just helping push me closer to the 70-200mm F/4, hehe. I've been dead set on the 2.8 but the huge price difference is what's keeping me away. I'm leaning more towards the f/4 for now, though, as I'm seeing great results from it.
the cheek being in focus, and the eye being slightly out, is my fault.
I meant for the eye to be in focus. It's not the lense, or camera's fault.
lol.

[Michaelmjc]

Nice shots, the last one is blurry and of her coat?

[LadyHawk]

I love that first one... it's a keeper for sure. Nice work!

[exposingmyself]

i like no. 1. she has really cool cat eyes.
not sure what you're trying to do with no. 4. are you trying to capture the buttons on her jacket? i'd like it if it were in focus.

[IanBMW]

Great shots.

[skade]

Really like the first one! Great shots!

[Titus213]

Really like #1. Number 3 is next but that oof on the eye and cheek is distracting. Number 1 is a beauty though. Nice work.

I keep going back to number 3. It was so close to being an excellent shot...

[ayotnoms]

#1 is an awesome photo!

[Maureen Souza]

Nice Bruce...... love # 1!!!

[MichaelE]

I liked #1 and #3. The closeness of the composition was a real plus.

[mr.photoguy]

With # 4 I was trying to get the Love patch in focus, but she was moving sooooo quickly, and I didn't have enough light, as I was in the shade. I figured it was a cute blurry type shot...

With #3. I figure I put the dot on her eye, and then recomposed, so that may be why my focus area has moved. Oh well live, and learn .. lol..
I didn't have much time for these shots, like maybe 3 seconds each.

Stevie, which is the little girl in the blue jacket is not even shy of the camera anymore. Whenever she see's me with camera she will come up to me, and keep still ..lol... she is the cutest.

All said, I am always amazed with the quality of this 500 dollar L lense, and it doesn't even have IS.

btw/ps: None of the images are cropped. They are all basically straight out the camera, aside from USM/added a little bit contrast, and some saturation. I adjusted the white balance slightly.

[mrclark321]

Very nice. #1 is my fav.

Dan

[smudge]

OOF or not, number three does it for me. Heaps of character in that face. What a lens! What focal length were they at?

[mr.photoguy]

OOF or not, number three does it for me. Heaps of character in that face. What a lens! What focal length were they at?

I will edit the original post with the exifs.

[mr.photoguy]

Here is a better image from the Tamron Macro.
http://www.pbase.com/brucescott/image/42622069.jpg
1/200s f/3.5 at 180.0mm iso400
The DOF of this lens at 3.5 can be really shallow, but I still love it.
http://www.pbase.com/brucescott/neigh

[sixshot]

#3 does it for me. great shot.

[smudge]

Number three, f.4 @ 200mm. I'm amazed at how shallow the DOP is. Is that something to do with the longer focal length. If I took that shot with the Nifty @ f4 the whole face would easily be in focus.
Can someone explain

[mr.photoguy]

Number three, f.4 @ 200mm. I'm amazed at how shallow the DOP is. Is that something to do with the longer focal length. If I took that shot with the Nifty @ f4 the whole face would easily be in focus.
Can someone explain

Well remember it's 200mm @ f4, and not 50mm @ f4. At 50mm & F4 the AOF would be larger, and if you were standing where I was standing you couldn't get the whole face in the frame.
The DOF isn't that narrow @ f4 @ 200mm.
If you look closely the AOF ranges from her right eyebrow, over the eye, part of the glasses, and part of her cheek.
Also, if you used the 50 @ f4 more of the background would have been in focus, as opposed to it being blurred.
The issue is I quickly put the center dot on her eye, focused, and then recomposed. Sometimes I get away with this sometimes I don't.

If you want to see a narrow DOF ... look at image #4.
I was trying to get the LOVE Red patch in focus.. or at least readable, because I knew my shutter speed was way to slow I knew the image would be blurry, but you can see that V, and the E in LOVE is blured out. That's 3.5 @ 180mm, and I was much closer than I was in shot #3. Remember the Tamron is Macro, so I can focus as close as 11 inches away from something, and the closer you get the narrower the DOF gets.

ok enough of my rants.

[BlueTit]

It is #1 and #3 for me too, with #3 just winning.

Great shots

[stelogic]

the 3rd pic is an amazing capture