Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Ed Blagden on October 16, 2009, 03:59:37 pm
-
Does this work for anyone else? (And yes I know the highlights are irreparably blown. Sorry.)
Ed
[attachment=17251:Death_of...ent_0151.jpg]
-
Ed,
too bad that the rat's open body (at least I suppose its a rat!) is not in focus along with the boys face! Otherwise it would be a really good image, telling a story.
-
Agree with Christian, and since limited dof forced you to make a choice I would have put it on the rat, since that's where your eye immediately gets drawn to. Having all the faces oof would have probably been less distracting than now with the rat oof.
-
I had a hard time even locating the rodent's body in the photo; had to really hunt. The problem in that lay in what the rodent was reposed upon.
-
Ed, I certainly don't want to discourage this kind of shot. It was a very good try -- well composed and an interesting story... But you needed enough depth of field to cover the kid in the foreground, the teacher, and the rat. The others in the background can afford to be soft. But keep it up. This kind of thing is much more interesting than vegetation, etc.
-
Yep, keep it up!
-
Thanks for the comments, chaps.
I suppose this is a good illustration that what works for the photographer doesn't always work for anyone else. In this case the shallow DOF and the focus on the face of the boy on the right was a very deliberate decision... the photo is supposed to be of the boy, and his involvement in what is happening around him. Everything else (the rat, the teacher, the other figures, who are in very funereal poses) is just backdrop. I felt at the time (and I still do) that changing the focal point and deepening the DOF would have lost what I was trying to isolate.
So judging by the comments, it seems that this shot has failed... the photographer was trying to force attention on to one particular face, but the viewer wants to look at something else.
Interesting.
-
Yep, keep it up!
I distinctly remember hearing something like that being said to me many years ago.
Rob C
-
I distinctly remember hearing something like that being said to me many years ago.
Rob C
And had it any effect? Usually people do what they do anyway, at least thats my experience
-
Thanks for the comments, chaps.
I suppose this is a good illustration that what works for the photographer doesn't always work for anyone else. In this case the shallow DOF and the focus on the face of the boy on the right was a very deliberate decision... the photo is supposed to be of the boy, and his involvement in what is happening around him. Everything else (the rat, the teacher, the other figures, who are in very funereal poses) is just backdrop. I felt at the time (and I still do) that changing the focal point and deepening the DOF would have lost what I was trying to isolate.
So judging by the comments, it seems that this shot has failed... the photographer was trying to force attention on to one particular face, but the viewer wants to look at something else.
Interesting.
His face is for me the most interesting thing in this scene (since Im still able to see the other expressions) so your own focus on THAT is in itself spot on. But I can tell you why I want to look at something else: What's interesting here is exactly how the boy (and also the other people) are reacting to the open rat, to the situation. You on the other hand just show one isolated reaction, and that let it loose impact. Maybe you where worried about maybe too much clutter? So yes its interesting already (despite the blurring!) but frustrating since, well, I want to SEE what the boy SEES! I also want to see what everybody in this picture is focused at, I want also to see more clearly the emotion of the other people. Maybe thats more clear from my side.
-
the photographer was trying to force attention on to one particular face, but the viewer wants to look at something else.
Yes, quite interesting.
For me too, the OoF rat breaks it as it's hard to read (btw, what's under the rat? a print?) - maybe for that kind of things, it's better to isolate the subject by other means than DoF (that said, at 1/40s f/2.5 800ISO the light quantity is rather limiting - time to pass to ยต4/3? ).
There may be another problem in tonalities : the main character is not well lit and a bit dark, that too distracts the eye to the other ones that are better lit, in this case.
A last quibble would be that seeing him from 3/4 back masks a bit his key facial expression, but not that much.
-
Thanks for the comments, chaps.
I suppose this is a good illustration that what works for the photographer doesn't always work for anyone else. In this case the shallow DOF and the focus on the face of the boy on the right was a very deliberate decision... the photo is supposed to be of the boy, and his involvement in what is happening around him. Everything else (the rat, the teacher, the other figures, who are in very funereal poses) is just backdrop. I felt at the time (and I still do) that changing the focal point and deepening the DOF would have lost what I was trying to isolate.
So judging by the comments, it seems that this shot has failed... the photographer was trying to force attention on to one particular face, but the viewer wants to look at something else.
Interesting.
I understand what you are trying to accomplish, but I think that scene does not want to play your game: all the faces are looking to the rat, and the teacher's arm is pointing to the rat; so the viewer's attention is immediately directed towards the rat.