Leading Lines

To be perfectly honest with you, I just liked the lines in this shot. Do the interesting lines make up for the boring subject? ("It's just a chain").

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

I like it, though the blur at the front of the pic is kinda distracting, do you think it would look better cropped a little closer to the chain?

Cheers

Can easily do that. I'll try it, thanks.

Sorry, but I am coming to the conclusion after several years of looking at the new wave of digital photography that the most pervasive error being made in images is inadequate depth of focus.

I haven't figured out whether its due to some misplaced confidence in blurry backgrounds or whether it's some fascination with seeing just how short a depth of field can be obtained shooting wide open, or is it the never ending quest for better bokeh?

Frankly, I think it is probably that people who spend their money on fast lenses become driven to demonstrate in their photographs that they can produce a shallower depth of field than anyone else. What else could it be?

It's not even a fast lens .

Point taken, however.

Could it be that folk are trying out ideas and learning and developing. Maybe on the internet you just see the same mistakes over and over, i guess that is frustrating. Being new to photography it's that weariness in others that worries me when I think of posting for critique. Good point though, well made.

Cheers

I think you need to look for the most brutal CC there is; I can't find people who will tear my work apart (not just in photography!) As much as I think people are complete and utter *******s, when it comes to critiquing anything everyone is just a damn nancy-boy. Tell me it's ****, how it's ****, why it's ****, and how I can polish it into a diamond, THEN I will get better.

Anywho, I took your suggestion Mick, and I also straightened it out; I think it was crooked just the slightest.

whole picture is boring

Prefer the second version, but i would say that!

Robert_Lay wrote in post #6680744
Sorry, but I am coming to the conclusion after several years of looking at the new wave of digital photography that the most pervasive error being made in images is inadequate depth of focus.

I haven't figured out whether its due to some misplaced confidence in blurry backgrounds or whether it's some fascination with seeing just how short a depth of field can be obtained shooting wide open, or is it the never ending quest for better bokeh?

Frankly, I think it is probably that people who spend their money on fast lenses become driven to demonstrate in their photographs that they can produce a shallower depth of field than anyone else. What else could it be?

Hey Bob,
This is just my opinion as always, but I think it's simply a matter of extremes more than anything else. To me it seems that when a lot of folks get started into photography they seem to go for maximum DOF and try to get every last little detail in the image as sharp as they can, regardless of the subject. Then at some point they discover this thing called "depth of field" (or focus) that's a wonderful tool for isolating the central subject of their image and things flip the other direction...they go too shallow.

Of course, I also think that the process of learning shutter speeds and the relationship between shutter, aperture and ISO may have something to do with it as well. Most folks learn at some point that if the image looks under exposed, then you need to "open up the aperture" to get more shutter speed and thus end up again shooting too shallow just to get the exposure right. In that regard, I also think that a lot of folks are under the false assumption that aperture is the only thing that affects DOF...they don't realize that distance to the subject and even the focal length also play an important role.

I would also say that for a lot of begginers, I think there is a mental perception that using a very shallow DOF makes their images look more "professional". I think that a great deal of the picture taking public in general (you'll note I didn't actually say "photographers") have seen and/or taken a great many snap shots over the years with cameras such as point & shoots where you tend to have little or no control at all over the DOF and most of those cameras lean towards maximum DOF by their design. No offence intended here, but I'm sure you're old enough to remember the old Kodak 120 "Instamatics"...every try to shoot something with a creatively limited DOF with one of those suckers? It's damn near impossible! LOL!!! As such, I think that when people get into a more pro level camera/lens and discover this thing called DOF, they simply go overboard with it.

Now that said, while there certainly is such as thing as too shallow, I also must admit that personally I tend to lean towards images where there is a shallow DOF...depending on the subject of course. A city scape for example usually does not look right with a limited DOF. But for many things where there is just one central subject, to me at least, when used properly it is a wonderful device for putting emphasis on the subject of an image. Even here though from my own experience, there is such a thing as too shallow. My experience with animals and particularly dogs where you often have a "long" face, I've learned that it's easy to go too shallow even with a slower lens. As with all things, it should be about "balance".

Now as far as the OP's image goes, the original image doesn't seem to be available, but as far as the second shot goes, I have to agree....way to shallow. Of course I also feel the need to mention that this doesn't look like it was from the camera or the lens...at least not completely. To me it looks like extra blur was applied to this shot in pp as the change from oof to sharp towards the bottom of the chain is rather abrupt. Not sure if that's really the case or not, but that's the way it looks to me.

I do actually think this is a rather interesting composition in itself, but I would have liked to have seen a little more DOF and a more natural transition to the central subject (the chain).

Again and as always, just my $.02 worth,
Jim

I think the abruptness comes from the fact that my camera was basically resting on the gate (the middle white line the chain is resting on). I didn't add any type of blur in photoshop or anything like that; I simply shot wide open and got close to the chain.

arizona85224 wrote in post #6680840
whole picture is boring

Well it just doesn't take you long to look at a chain!

Walczak Photo wrote in post #6684944
Hey Bob,
This is just my opinion as always, but I think it's simply a matter of extremes more than anything else. To me it seems that when a lot of folks get started into photography they seem to go for maximum DOF and try to get every last little detail in the image as sharp as they can, regardless of the subject. Then at some point they discover this thing called "depth of field" (or focus) that's a wonderful tool for isolating the central subject of their image and things flip the other direction...they go too shallow.

Of course, I also think that the process of learning shutter speeds and the relationship between shutter, aperture and ISO may have something to do with it as well. Most folks learn at some point that if the image looks under exposed, then you need to "open up the aperture" to get more shutter speed and thus end up again shooting too shallow just to get the exposure right. In that regard, I also think that a lot of folks are under the false assumption that aperture is the only thing that affects DOF...they don't realize that distance to the subject and even the focal length also play an important role.

I would also say that for a lot of begginers, I think there is a mental perception that using a very shallow DOF makes their images look more "professional". I think that a great deal of the picture taking public in general (you'll note I didn't actually say "photographers") have seen and/or taken a great many snap shots over the years with cameras such as point & shoots where you tend to have little or no control at all over the DOF and most of those cameras lean towards maximum DOF by their design. No offence intended here, but I'm sure you're old enough to remember the old Kodak 120 "Instamatics"...every try to shoot something with a creatively limited DOF with one of those suckers? It's damn near impossible! LOL!!! As such, I think that when people get into a more pro level camera/lens and discover this thing called DOF, they simply go overboard with it.

Now that said, while there certainly is such as thing as too shallow, I also must admit that personally I tend to lean towards images where there is a shallow DOF...depending on the subject of course. A city scape for example usually does not look right with a limited DOF. But for many things where there is just one central subject, to me at least, when used properly it is a wonderful device for putting emphasis on the subject of an image. Even here though from my own experience, there is such a thing as too shallow. My experience with animals and particularly dogs where you often have a "long" face, I've learned that it's easy to go too shallow even with a slower lens. As with all things, it should be about "balance".

...

Thanks for that input, Jim. The only think I can add to that is that I realize that like it or not, the world of photography is changing very rapidly - due to the sheer number of people who can afford expensive digital cameras and also the wizardy of technology. I definitely feel sometimes that I'm not keeping up - Hi!