Author Topic: Filmwasters advice please .... (Read 7122 times)

LT · « **on:** June 22, 2011, 02:19:28 PM »

Here are three pictures, each with the same lens movements used to create blur and swirly bokeh, but with successive greater depth of field.

Which do you prefer? I have my favourite, but I'm interested to know which you think works best.

Cheers!

hookstrapped · « **Reply #1 on:** June 22, 2011, 02:21:57 PM »

The second. The background highlights balance with the foreground but aren't too sharp as in the third.

Paul Mitchell · « **Reply #2 on:** June 22, 2011, 02:31:21 PM »

Deffo number 2 too!

gothamtomato · « **Reply #3 on:** June 22, 2011, 02:34:24 PM »

I prefer number 2.

gregor · « **Reply #4 on:** June 22, 2011, 02:53:41 PM »

3 - the appropriate amount of DOF, without losing too much fore and background definition, unifying the composition. On the preceding two, the composition potentially falls apart with the more extreme DOF.

Mil Mascaras · « **Reply #5 on:** June 22, 2011, 03:10:46 PM »

If the message is all about the bokeh then definitely number two, otherwise I prefer the composition in number three.

Miller · « **Reply #6 on:** June 22, 2011, 03:23:56 PM »

Mil Mascaras summed it up for me... Also too much ambiguity as regards what the 'shots' about in 1 and 2 for moi...

Rgds

Mlr

jojonas~ · « **Reply #7 on:** June 22, 2011, 03:29:18 PM »

aaargh! I like ALL damn it! haha. but anyway.. I think the first and second are strongest. (third is to busy for me in the top area - though it has a balance to the lower part in a a different way than the others). I'm thorn and it's basically the hint in the second shot of something beyond the paved path that the eye can start to seek, only to see it blur out into mystical fluff. I also think the second is easier on the eyes in the way that the trees are more easily identifiable as just that; trees.
gotta say that the light falling on the left trees are quite pleasing on the third.

'scuze me for being about all over the place

Coveman · « **Reply #8 on:** June 22, 2011, 03:38:00 PM »

Top one all the way for me leon

chricela · « **Reply #9 on:** June 22, 2011, 03:48:13 PM »

At first glance I was leaning towards #1. But I prefer #2. I like, that even though it's soft & blurry , you see more detail.

astrobeck · « **Reply #10 on:** June 22, 2011, 03:53:37 PM »

I agree with Mil and Miller for the same reasons.

Volker · « **Reply #11 on:** June 22, 2011, 04:35:45 PM »

#1 for me.

Suzi Livingstone · « **Reply #12 on:** June 22, 2011, 04:49:49 PM »

The last two. I can;t decide between them, I like them both.

DS · « **Reply #13 on:** June 22, 2011, 05:22:04 PM »

#3 for me

Phil Bebbington · « **Reply #14 on:** June 22, 2011, 05:51:19 PM »

Torn between 2 & 3, but, I do like the sharpness in the foreground of 3 that seems to balance the blur in the background. So, with a heavy heart, I say 3.

sapata · « **Reply #15 on:** June 22, 2011, 06:12:07 PM »

I'll go for first one Leon... I love swirl and the first has got it all in my opinion.

Can I ask you about the gear and technique involved ? I love this kind of pictures...

LT · « **Reply #16 on:** June 22, 2011, 06:25:48 PM »

Thanks all - quite a varied response.

Mauricio - it is my horseman using the standard 105mm lens. There is both lens fall and forward tilt added, so the top of the image is right on the edge of the lens coverage area causing the swirl.

My schneider symmar s 150mm does a similar thing on 5x4, - you have to use the lens with either rise or fall to get the image right on the edge of the lenses coverage and add another movement (usually tilt).

here's an example from the 5x4:

Randy B · « **Reply #17 on:** June 22, 2011, 07:03:08 PM »

#2. I like that the white weeds are sharp against the blurry black background.

Very nice image. #1 is cool too but 2 bests it in my book.

This-is-damion · « **Reply #18 on:** June 22, 2011, 09:49:49 PM »

One or two for me

Nigel · « **Reply #19 on:** June 22, 2011, 10:59:12 PM »

I like two, the blur is a bit to much on the first one.

Karl · « **Reply #20 on:** June 22, 2011, 11:32:17 PM »

Alan · « **Reply #21 on:** June 22, 2011, 11:34:01 PM »

2 please

sapata · « **Reply #22 on:** June 23, 2011, 12:08:47 AM »

Quote from: leon taylor on June 22, 2011, 06:25:48 PM

Thanks all - quite a varied response.

Mauricio - it is my horseman using the standard 105mm lens. There is both lens fall and forward tilt added, so the top of the image is right on the edge of the lens coverage area causing the swirl.

My schneider symmar s 150mm does a similar thing on 5x4, - you have to use the lens with either rise or fall to get the image right on the edge of the lenses coverage and add another movement (usually tilt).

here's an example from the 5x4:

Thanks Leon... lovely picture.

I keep saying I'll try more these things with my 4x5 but never actually get my camera out of the box... too bad

darryl cox · « **Reply #23 on:** June 23, 2011, 01:07:00 AM »

#3 for me...

calbisu · « **Reply #24 on:** June 23, 2011, 02:18:04 AM »

Same as Mil, Miller and Becky. All in all I find it a more balanced composition #3. Blur in 1 and 2 distracts me (And I thought I would never say that), but it could be it was because I was looking at it. But then, what is the subject of the picture? The punctum, as not long ago was mentioned in filmwasters.

Late Developer · « **Reply #25 on:** June 23, 2011, 08:28:31 AM »

Number 2. The first one makes me a bit dizzy and if the 3-D effect of separating foreground from background is the main feature, number 3 doesn't do it quite so well.

Roger Thoms · « **Reply #26 on:** June 23, 2011, 05:21:57 PM »

#2, find the background more pleasing, think maybe the overall contrast of the image has something to do with it.

Roger

LT · « **Reply #27 on:** June 23, 2011, 06:47:23 PM »

I took this into the darkroom today and printed all three on some new Ilford/ Hahnemuhle MG Art 300. Despite the 1st one being my favourite, neither the first nor the second worked in the print. the DOF was just too shallow, but the 3rd one sings.

Thanks for all the responses.

Mojave · « **Reply #28 on:** June 23, 2011, 07:11:59 PM »

I was going to vote for 2 but I see that you already picked your favorite. That fact that they came out looking so differently in print form really has me questioning my current print practices. My prints always look just like the image I see on my screen, with some color shifting, but I do inkjet printing and no darkroom printing and now Im wondering just how much further I could take my work by creating darkroom prints. The print made a big difference in your pick. I really have to get a darkroom set and give it a try.

Author Topic: Filmwasters advice please .... (Read 7122 times)

astrobeck