Lilly

[ARP]

I can't decide if the tilted DOF in this shot works or not.  Does anyone want to take the time to crit this?   



Cheers.

[Rob C]

Can almost taste it; lovely texture. DOF? Doesn't matter at all - the shot's enough.

Rob C

[MikeWhitten]

I think it works.

[popnfresh]

Using a very shallow DoF on a profile shot of a flower against a featureless black background seems like an odd creative choice to me, especially since you've placed the critical focal point on the lower petal, thereby isolating that part from the rest of the flower. For this kind of subject I would prefer to use DoF isolation when shooting a 3/4 or frontal view, having the foremost part in focus with the rest trailing off into the bokeh. But that's just me. It's still a nice shot.

[ARP]

Using a very shallow DoF on a profile shot of a flower against a featureless black background seems like an odd creative choice to me, especially since you've placed the critical focal point on the lower petal, thereby isolating that part from the rest of the flower. For this kind of subject I would prefer to use DoF isolation when shooting a 3/4 or frontal view, having the foremost part in focus with the rest trailing off into the bokeh. But that's just me. It's still a nice shot.

Thank you for the input.  I'm experimenting with scheimpflug on the 24pc-e.  Funnily enough, I did take a 3/4 shot as well, but it works better in B&W I reckon.



Thanks to everyone that commented.

[jhemp]

Damn, thats a hard call but it does seem a little shallow to me.

[Rob C]

Why do some feel this subliminal obligation to total sharpness? Outwith technical, industrial, applied photography, where infinite DOF is sometimes an aim, I generally feel that having different levels of crispness across a picture is far more satisfying and allows the added advantage of placing the area of intererst (to the snapper) exactly where he chooses.

Especially in flower piciures in this style; everybody knows that the soft zones are but more of the same as the sharp zones; where's the problem, it's just an artist's decis¡on.

Nice idea.

Rob C

[popnfresh]

Why do some feel this subliminal obligation to total sharpness? Outwith technical, industrial, applied photography, where infinite DOF is sometimes an aim, I generally feel that having different levels of crispness across a picture is far more satisfying and allows the added advantage of placing the area of intererst (to the snapper) exactly where he chooses.

Especially in flower piciures in this style; everybody knows that the soft zones are but more of the same as the sharp zones; where's the problem, it's just an artist's decis¡on.

Nice idea.

Rob C

I don't think it's a question of total sharpness. I think it has to do with critical focus and the right amount of DoF for the shot. There's a lot of room for finessing that. But you're right in that it's completely an aesthetic judgement.

And now that I've had a second look, I much prefer the focus and DoF in the color shot to the B&W.