If this is not sharp, then sharpness is a bourgeois concept!
http://www.pbase.com/tinamanley/image/158530973
I can count the pores on his nose. The zipper on his jacket and the fuzz
on his cap are sharp and they are further apart than the nose and eyes.
I guess it doesn't really matter because I really like the look in his eyes
that's the reason for the photo.
Tina
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Chuck Norcutt <
chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I missed this one when it first came around. I'm afraid I have to side
> with Moose on this one since, your protestations to the contrary, visually
> the shepherd's nose doesn't strike me as sharp even in the small web image.
>
> I decided to double check myself and your comments about aperture. After
> sizing up the image I decided that the height that's covered is
> approximately 18". You used a 90mm lens on a full frame camera which means
> that the camera was 3.75 feet from the subject if the image covers 18" on
> the long side. You say you shot the image at f/9.5. Even using a very
> modest resolution value of 30 lines/mm (CoC = 0.033mm) the total depth of
> field for those parameters is only 3.6" and almost evenly distributed
> between the near and far focus points. Your statement that the depth of
> field is plenty to cover the eyes and nose is true, if, and only if, you
> nailed the focus somewhere between the eyes and tip of the nose. If your
> true focus point was the eyes (and you actually achieved that) the tip of
> the nose would have to be not more than 1.8" ahead of the eyes to remain in
> focus. I don't know about Leica but Canon doesn't guarantee that autofocus
> is any more accurate than somewhere within the depth of field... a
> reasonable position since, by definition, anything within the depth of
> field is in focus.
>
> The point that I'm trying to make is that your aperture settings and depth
> of field notions likely don't always work. The depth of field on this
> image (which is not stringent) is so restricted that it requires perfect
> focus from both you and the camera. Even if the camera nails perfect focus
> at f/2 the parameters are so tight even at f/9.5 that if you even waver
> 1/4" you're going to miss the focus. And I agree with Moose... in this
> case you have missed the focua... and a lot of others you've shown here as
> well. f/9.5 is not a small aperture yielding a large depth of field when
> you're very close to the subject at 90mm.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
>
> On 12/5/2014 7:26 AM, Tina Manley wrote:
>
>> I disagree. I have examined these photos at 100% and they are sharp. The
>> aperture on the farmer and shepherd is 9,5 - plenty of depth of field for
>> the eyes and nose to be sharp and they are.
>>
>> Tina
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 12:19 AM, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> I find all of these portraits frustrating to look at.
>>>
>>> They are stunningly good shots of wonderful subjects, caught mostly in
>>> engaging eye contact and interesting expressions.
>>> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Manley/Andean_Portraits.htm>
>>> But OTOH, they are technically so much less than they could/should be.
>>> Done right, they're the stuff of National Geographic covers, NY gallery
>>> shows. Even the backgrounds of three are perfect! (and the other
>>> correctable)
>>>
>>> The very shallow DoF on the Shepherd has managed to leave his cheeks in
>>> wonderful focus, his eyes and nose out of focus. I know, you do this a
>>> lot,
>>> and say you like it. I still feel that the general portraiture rule is
>>> valid. If the eyes are obviously visible, and particularly if they are
>>> looking at the camera, they should be in focus.
>>>
>>> You've argued before that some other thing is the real focus of the
>>> image.
>>> With Shepherd and Farmer, there isn't anything else - it's all about the
>>> face. They are people, we are people, and people relate to each other
>>> through the eyes.
>>>
>>> Shepherd has such a sweet face, add clear eyes with a little sparkle, and
>>> I just melt, almost can't tear my eyes away.
>>>
>>> Personally, I don't like big, blurry noses sticking out toward me, but I
>>> suspect that may be less universal than the eyes.
>>>
>>> Then, the Farmer's chin is what's in focus.
>>>
>>> OK, the knitter's knitting is interesting, but Knitter I is the same as
>>> the others, plane of focus between eyes and nose, with neither in focus.
>>> I
>>> know you love shallow DoF. Might there not be subjects where it isn't the
>>> best thing to do?
>>>
>>> Well, I don't know what happened to Knitter II. Some kind of flare? In
>>> any
>>> case, there's a powerful portrait beneath that veil. I made his knitting
>>> more in focus, too.
>>>
>>> As always, I hope this is not just critical, but helpful.
>>>
>>> Moose D'Opinion
>>>
>>> --
>>> What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
>>> --
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>>> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
>>> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
--
Tina Manley
www.tinamanley.com
tina-manley.artistwebsites.com
http://www.alamy.com/stock-photography/3B49552F-90A0-4D0A-A11D-2175C937AA91/Tina+Manley.html
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|