April 14, 2009 at 10:00 pm #17696CarolineParticipant
shallow depth of field
[attachment=0:2vyhni7w]P4142048.JPG[/attachment:2vyhni7w]April 17, 2009 at 9:54 pm #19120Duncan RawlinsonKeymaster
From a technical standpoint you’ve done exactly what was asked of you. In your first image, you’ve isolated your main subject from the background by using a shallow depth of field. This allows us to focus our attention what you (the photographer) want us to look at while still providing background context.
In your second image, you’ve creatively used a book to show how a photograph can capture the illusion of movement. You have pretty good isolation in this photograph as well because you’ve made sure only a small part of the object shows movement. That being said, there is a lack of focus for some reason on the bottom of the book (the side that’s on the floor). The part of the book you’re holding up is quite focused and crisp but the bottom part seems slightly out of focused (possibly because it moved as well). At first I thought it might be a depth of field issue, but it seems the equivalent distance on the other side of frame is in focus, which makes be think it might have been an issue of movement.
From a composition standpoint I have 1 point for you to consider for each photograph. In your photograph of the swing consider limiting the space above your subjects head. This is called “dead space”. Most portraits try to bring the top of the frame down towards the top of the subjects head which allows you to include more of the action. However, if you’re trying to exaggerate the chains of the swing than I would recommend using vertical framing and including more of the chains to fully exaggerate your point. I feel like you’re stuck in between these two ideas and it comes off as a little sloppy.
In your second image of the book, the composition is great. You have wonderful colour control, isolated movement and great framing. However, your image is very flat because all of the action takes place in one layer of depth. It would have been interesting to see what you could have done if you either repositioned your camera or your book to create a stronger sense of depth through the use of a more pronounced foreground, middle ground and background. This would give a more dramatic and three dimensional feel to your photograph. It’s not wrong what you’ve done, but it’s rewarding to experiment with depth, not only through your depth of field setting, but also through object placement.
Overall… great work!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.