Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Work in Progress. Let me know what you all think,

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shallow depth of field isolates the subject from its surroundings, and can be really useful in portrait photography. But in the above images none of them really have a subject that could benefit from this isolation in fact most Landscape photographers work in the other extreme. Just because you paid dearly for a lens with a 1.4 aperture setting doesn't mean you have to use it to get you moneys worth and adding creamy bokeh to a photo doesn't necessarily make it better :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like that you select a good subject for these aperture shots. I really like the first shot, and the fourth - probably because the images are recognizable even though most of the image is not in sharp focus - I find that works quite well to support the subject of the photo. The sixth almost looks like its from a tilt/shift lens. But the others, too much blur for me, but really I don't find them interesting, perhaps depending on your lens, taken at the "best" aperture, you would get more detail in the focus areas and still keep the blur -  for instance a Loxia 50 is best between f4 and f5.6, and that is still enough the blur the background sufficiently - photos at f4 with that lens, generally are the best, I find, for contrast and sharpness.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shallow depth of field isolates the subject from its surroundings, and can be really useful in portrait photography. But in the above images none of them really have a subject that could benefit from this isolation in fact most Landscape photographers work in the other extreme. Just because you paid dearly for a lens with a 1.4 aperture setting doesn't mean you have to use it to get you moneys worth and adding creamy bokeh to a photo doesn't necessarily make it better :-)

Thank you. 

 

I shot these photos not intending to do a typical landscape with everything in focus. Its called the Brenizer Method. Wondering where in the photog rule book states that Bokeh is exclusive to portraits. And more than half of these images were shot using the $200 Rokinon 85mm f1.4. So i feel your critique has missed the point of whats rather obvious with this set. That was my fault as I should have explained my self with these photos and my intent. 

 

 

https://500px.com/davidgrano-de-oro

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like that you select a good subject for these aperture shots. I really like the first shot, and the fourth - probably because the images are recognizable even though most of the image is not in sharp focus - I find that works quite well to support the subject of the photo. The sixth almost looks like its from a tilt/shift lens. But the others, too much blur for me, but really I don't find them interesting, perhaps depending on your lens, taken at the "best" aperture, you would get more detail in the focus areas and still keep the blur -  for instance a Loxia 50 is best between f4 and f5.6, and that is still enough the blur the background sufficiently - photos at f4 with that lens, generally are the best, I find, for contrast and sharpness.

Thanks for the suggestion. 

 

But actually every singe shot is in perfect focus. The upload compressed the hell out of the photos and display of the images is no where near the actual size and clarity of the originals. Some of these are over 400mp at around 1GB average file size. I like Tilt shift lenses but the quality isnt where I would like it. CA is the major reason I upgraded from my Rokinon 85mm to the Zeiss Batis 85mm.

 

The first 8 were shot using the Rokinon 85mm f1.4 the last two were with the Zeiss Batis. 

 

https://500px.com/davidgrano-de-oro

Link to post
Share on other sites

These stitched images then? Sure, thats pretty interesting, I want to do something similar, I found that 24MP was not enough for forest scenes ... and also that CA was a real problem, which Batis helps with quite a bit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup all of these are a panoramic stitch that's focus stacked and dynamic range stacked with no less that 90 photos per layer. There is no other way to get such a shallow depth of feild on such large objects. Tilt shift dosnt work all that well when the main point of focus extends beyond the foreground and background like a huge building in a cityscape. Tilt shift will blur the top of the building in focus and the bottom.

 

The largest and most complex of which I've produced was 800mp! made up of 425 photos, all shot at 85mm at f1.4 at a distance of 2 feet from the subject but a field of view of 16mm. Essentially an impossible shot no matter the lens and camera combo. It's very difficult work that requires extreme patients, precision, and near constant studio like lighting. Which is why I only shoot in overcast conditions. I then light my point of focus with a number of strobes. Often it will take me over an hour to do each shot. Now consider all of that and I've to shoot in slow shutter like in the very first image and second image. I wish there was a way for you all to see the true resolution of these images.

I've been working on perfecting this technique for over 3 years now and wanted to see how my results would stand up. I've been selling these images rather well as they are able to be printed at 300dpi at over 30ft by 10ft.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very cool. Sounds quite similar to the Astro photography, in terms of complexity. Perhaps next time you are out, take a picture of the whole setup, since it would be interesting to see how it all looks in the field.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I've started to do just that these past few weeks. People keep asking me what it must be like and how I set everything up. Take for instance...the first image required me to set the tripod flat across some rocks while I was crouched under the tripod. And bc I was sitting still for so long most people thought I was taking a crap in between the rocks. lol Hell during this shot a snake crept up between my legs and sat there warming in the sun, it wasn't at all aware of me bc I hadn't moved in over an hour. And my strobes were set up with sandbags out into the middle of the river, and another clamped onto a tree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you. 

 

I shot these photos not intending to do a typical landscape with everything in focus. Its called the Brenizer Method. Wondering where in the photog rule book states that Bokeh is exclusive to portraits. And more than half of these images were shot using the $200 Rokinon 85mm f1.4. So i feel your critique has missed the point of whats rather obvious with this set. That was my fault as I should have explained my self with these photos and my intent. 

 

 

 

Thanks for the link. You have done a lot of nice work. And you are also correct there are no hard and fast rules in photography. I am familiar with the Brenizer method and in this vain you kind of support my critique. It is used (most of the time) to draw attention to a main subject and I feel that in most of the shots(1 and 9 excluded) you posted here the out of focus areas distract attention from the in focus (or subject) area. The detail and colors in your shot are exceptional but the focal point(s) lack the pop to take these to the next level. Again thanks for sharing your work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks.

 

It is a work in progress. And plan on eventually including models. But for now I'm learning how to better compose/frame the shot before I take the shot. But unlike any other techniques I can't see what it's going to look like until hours after the fact not unlike a sculpture starting from a block of marble. The sculpture has the benefit of seeing his work as he progresses, I on the other hand can't see the progression only the end result. Some times I'll go back and reshoot the same exact spot to produce a better composition and balance with bokeh. The objective of what I'm doing is to create a dreamy like image with manually sculpted light to be used for portraits. Many of my clients love the end result even just the landscapes. I'm looking for advice on what I might not be considering or need better training in.

 

Your first comment was more judgemental and less useful than proactive. I could even interpret your comment as arrogant, with intent to talk down to me.

 

"Just because you paid dearly for a lens with a 1.4 aperture setting doesn't mean you have to use it to get you moneys worth and adding creamy bokeh to a photo doesn't necessarily make it better."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your first comment was more judgemental and less useful than proactive. I could even interpret your comment as arrogant, with intent to talk down to me.

 

"Just because you paid dearly for a lens with a 1.4 aperture setting doesn't mean you have to use it to get you moneys worth and adding creamy bokeh to a photo doesn't necessarily make it better."

 

Yes I can see how it could of been taken in a negative context. Just like texting can read with an entirely different tone then intended so can these. Simply meant as a joke between peers.

I would venture a educated guess that like me you can tell by looking at a few shots of someone's work if they have an above average talent. When I see such work I will spend the time to comment, critique, or inquire for more details. If I see just "snapshots" I move on.

 

Keep the important things in life in focus, everything else is just bokeh.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...