DOF on a portrait of my catgreenspun.com : LUSENET : General Photo Critique : One Thread |
This was a picture taken indoors on a south facing window, 85/1.8 USM lens, Fuji NPH pushed one stop. I scanned it myself so there are some annoying dust particles...sorry. I'm wondering if I should have gotten more depth of field by using higher speed film and then stopping down to a smaller aperture. Should his "mane" be in focus, or is the softer out of focus look of his mane better to contrast with a razor sharp face?
-- Edwin Yoo (edwinyoo@fas.harvard.edu), January 21, 2000
I think the DOF is just fine. I think it allows greater attention to the eyes & face. The composition is not very striking though. I like the lighting but I find myself wanting to see more of the cat. Maybe a verticle composition would have helped. Perhaps this could be cropped as well?Joe
-- Joe Perrigoue (joe@supply.com), January 21, 2000.
I like this picture the way it is. I suppose there is a little dead space on the right hand side, perhaps I'd suggest cropping so the mane comes a little closer the the right edge. That's pretty minor, in my opion. I like the shallow depth of field. I can still see the form of the cat, but emphasis is on the face.
-- Tom Smart (tsmart@rconnect.com), January 22, 2000.
One of the several ways you can draw attention to a part of your photograph is selective focus. Intentionally or unintentionally, you did a great job..
-- Jeff Polaski (polaski@acm.org), January 25, 2000.
I really like it the way it is. If you're good controlling DOF, you may have even gotten it shallower as long as you keep the face razor sharp. I agree it might be nice to see more of the cat. Maybe a vertical shot with less dead space on the right and the right side of his body trailing off, or horizontal like it is with ride side of body trailing off.I like the subject floating in the blackness. I love photos where the subject either floats in blackness or blends into washed out white. That's just me and I'm just a pathetic amateur.
-- Kent Berry (kent69@texas.net), February 14, 2000.