Does Narrow DOF Work On This Shot?

[Bob Hullinger]

I must be learning. A couple of months ago I would have wanted a larger depth of field. Today I am completely in sync with those who say it is excellent and for the reasons they are saying so. While I agree that the 3 stigma on the head is a great reason, the one I like best is:


As an amateur, every thing I shoot is for my enjoyment. So Jeffries1 statement resonates deeply with me.

I don't see why not. If you like it that's the ultimate test anyway. I think it looks good.

To illustrate the importance of someone liking an image, this is the most expensive Picasso ever sold. Someone, besides Pablo, liked it very much and paid $179,000,000 to hang it on their wall. Don't worry about what other people think. Create what you enjoy creating.

 

[Isaac Grant]

Here's the original question asked by Woody. "I'm wondering what you think about the narrow depth of field on this shot. Thanks!"

I have a feeling that Woody could have gotten all the sharpness he wanted on the wings if that was the goal.

Checking out some of Woodys other work I see excellent, sharp BIF images. One image of a herron in particular has water droplets frozen in motion beautifully highlighting the image. Woodys images show that he understands how to stop motion and freeze action so I have to believe he didn't want sharp wings distacting from the crisp birds head. The wings in this image are soft because they are behind the depth of field area.

Stopping down, not up, would make them sharper but they are also on two separate planes so the fstop and focus combination would have to be one that covered both planes and the head to get them sharp. I doubt any of that is what Woody was going for when he shot this image.

I'd enjoy hearing Woodys remarks. I could be totally wrong.

Most like it and think it works, I don't. That is not personal, has no impact or relevance to any of his other shots and is my personal taste and honest critique. That is it. I know plenty of people who only care if an eye is sharp and not about the rest of the bird. I am not one of them. But that does not make me right or wrong, just what I like.

Re the wings and shutter speed I have no clue what he was after which is why I asked. Total speculation but I would guess that this seems like the kind of shot that was not planned to me. Hummingbird happened to fly by there and the shot was taken. Settings are far from optimal for freezing a hummingbird and the he was too close to get the bird and flower in the same focal plane. If that was not the case and this was what he was after than to me it doesn't work as well as if he were further back and the bird was on a different angle.

That all being said I am always trying to push myself into new ideas and types of shooting so kudos for a bit of an outside the box type of shot regardless of my personal likes and dislikes.

 

[Isaac Grant]

View attachment 44980To illustrate the importance of someone liking an image, this is the most expensive Picasso ever sold. Someone, besides Pablo, liked it very much and paid $179,000,000 to hang it on their wall. Don't worry about what other people think. Create what you enjoy creating.

sorry but this is not relevant to a critique forum. It literally defeats the purpose of the whole forum. You post here to hear honest critiques and those can be good or bad. Sure you do what you want and enjoy and create any image that you like, but if you post here and not in the presentation forum than you are asking what others think. This just seems silly to me...

 

[Bob Hullinger]

sorry but this is not relevant to a critique forum. It literally defeats the purpose of the whole forum. You post here to hear honest critiques and those can be good or bad. Sure you do what you want and enjoy and create any image that you like, but if you post here and not in the presentation forum than you are asking what others think. This just seems silly to me...

My remarks simply addressed Woodys very specific question and the overwhelming reaction in the room. I know from seeing with my own eyes what Woody creates with his camera and have a pretty good idea of what he is capable of producing. Snapshots don't seem to be his style but as I said before...I could be wrong. That's the end of my participation in the discussion. Have a great day, Isaac.

 

[Isaac Grant]

My remarks simply addressed Woodys very specific question and the overwhelming reaction in the room. I know from seeing with my own eyes what Woody creates with his camera and have a pretty good idea of what he is capable of producing. Snapshots don't seem to be his style but as I said before...I could be wrong. That's the end of my participation in the discussion. Have a great day, Isaac.

So because the overwhelming reaction in the room is positive that means I am not entitled to my opinion? Sorry but you just continue to make zero sense. There is no reason to defend anyone. And any other photo taken has zero impact on this one and they were not brought up by anyone but you.

 

[Bob Hullinger]

So because the overwhelming reaction in the room is positive that means I am not entitled to my opinion? Sorry but you just continue to make zero sense. There is no reason to defend anyone. And any other photo taken has zero impact on this one and they were not brought up by anyone but you.

I never criticized your opinion. Please do not address me again.

 

[Woodyg3]

Hey guys, chill please.

Issac, thanks for your honest opinion.

Bob, thanks for yours, as well, and for the complements to my other shots.

I wanted honest opinions, and that's what I got

Issac, most of the area was in shadow, and so I shot at 1/2500. Beyond that, I don't mind a little wing blur, anyway. That, as you said, is a personal taste kind of thing, so no opinion is wrong.