More flowers

It doesn't work to have significant portions of the foreground out of focus.

Try focusing on the foreground, or take a vantage point where you can put the subject in front of everything else and focus on it.

I find that the selective focus only works when you have a single object in focus that is the opposite of everything else in the frame.

An examples that comes to mind (anyone else know which photograph I am describing? I want to know too - it got me interested in photography): B&W, A homeless man sleeping on the streets of Manhattan, while everyone else walks by - all shoes are out of focus. Street level with the sleeping man being the furthest thing from the lens.

Robert_Lay wrote in post #6178438
It doesn't work to have significant portions of the foreground out of focus.

Try focusing on the foreground, or take a vantage point where you can put the subject in front of everything else and focus on it.

I have the opportunity to go back and try again, so I just may do that. I'll try different vantage points as well, but I'm curious, do you think this one would have worked better if the foreground was in focus also?

photoguy6405 wrote in post #6178772
I have the opportunity to go back and try again, so I just may do that. I'll try different vantage points as well, but I'm curious, do you think this one would have worked better if the foreground was in focus also?

aram535 has a good point. In his view, depth of field (or selective focus) is a tool that can be used by the photographer, and one usage is to draw attention to the object focused upon.

However, selective focus, like selective coloring, can be overdone, and when it is, the objective of that image may fail.

While a somewhat out-of-focus foreground may contribute to 3-dimensionality (good), it may also mar an otherwise interesting image.

If I really want my viewer to appreciate the mid-range elements of the picture, to what extent could I allow his view to be obscured by irrelevant material? Most viewers will sub-consciously react unfavorably to unnecessary obfuscation.

To answer your question, it would change the picture dramatically to have the foreground in focus. The result may or may not be an improvement. We cannot always foresee the results of the change. You have to experiment with it. Thank goodness, we can trash what we don't like with the press of a button and use the file space for another version.

photoguy6405 wrote in post #6178772
I have the opportunity to go back and try again, so I just may do that. I'll try different vantage points as well, but I'm curious, do you think this one would have worked better if the foreground was in focus also?

I personally think so because the bokeh background of the multi colours would compliment the foreground.

My attempt at the scene, if possible (assuming its a field) is to raise the point so you can see the top of the last set of flowers. Show depth in the frame by actually showing depth.

I'm thinking the main drawback wasn't necessarily the foreground being OOF itself, but that the OOF portion of the photo is too much. It's dominating and overbearing. In focus may work. OOF, but less dominating may work. I'll experiment. Thanks.

photoguy6405 wrote in post #6183552
I'm thinking the main drawback wasn't necessarily the foreground being OOF itself, but that the OOF portion of the photo is too much. It's dominating and overbearing. In focus may work. OOF, but less dominating may work. I'll experiment. Thanks.

I think that you have a pretty good handle on the situation. Also consider that the large size of the foreground flowers (Celosia 'Plumosa') would present a problem even if it were more nearly in focus.

A solution might involve backing away and elevating the camera more. If you want to maintain approximately the same framing then use a longer focal length. One nice thing that I miss about film SLRs is that I could smoothly vary the DOF with the aperture ring on the lens barrel while DOF preview was locked and then unlock it to adjust exposure with the shutter speed. I would need to become a contortionist and grow at least one extra hand to do this on a digital SLR.

You could also use that out of focus foreground as a framing tool, if you had just one of those out of focus objects to the left and right, or if you shot it through a gate or something like that. Its not always a bad thing.

But to echo the other guys comments, with this scene it looks better to raise the camera a little bit.

This would be a very wonderful photo, however the flowers out of focus right in front of the camera lens ruin it...
If you wanted the same angle, shoot through a gap between the flowers so you don't get any of them on the photo.
My 0.02c.