skip to main |
skip to sidebar
So despite the fact that I believe I had excellent lighting, (overcast, and not 12-noon sun positioning) I'm not completely satisfied with how these portraits turned out.
click to enlarge, or see it on Flickr
Aperture: f/2.6
Shutter Speed: 1/500
ISO: 80Tripod
Despite the fact that I purposely put the background elements way far back from the subjects, and shot at a very wide aperture, my background absolutely refused to blur. This could just be because of my super short focal length (because the camera I used for this isn't DSLR, my focal length was actually 5.8mm, though I think the small sensor size makes it appear longer). Other than that, I have no freaking explanation.
Pretty frustrating, but within about a week, I'll have my Rebel XSi and P&S focal lengths will be a non-issue.
If any of you more experienced photographers have any kind of advice on how to make these better, please share. I still consider myself a total portrait noob.
Today's post is early because I'm going to be gone all day. The district honor choir of which I'm a part is performing Mozart's Requiem in Provo today, under the direction of Mack Wilberg! Yesterday I had a 7-hour rehearsal with him, and I'm leaving to an all-day rehearsal in about 10 minutes.
Yesterday when I was doing indoor macros, I got this shot, too. Not as satisfying, but it's one of the better indoor macros I've done.
click to enlarge, or see it on Flickr
Aperture: f/2.6
Shutter Speed: 1/125
ISO: 80
Tripod
The flower area that I'm primarily interested in is sharply in focus. But the pollen is only somewhat in focus. This is, of course, a result of my f/2.6 aperture, but when I tried the same shot at wider apertures, I found I had the same problem. I discovered that the problem is actually my macro lens. It does great close-ups, but the widest depth-of-field I can get with it is roughly equivalent to f/2.8. So this may be another photo that requires two exposures with different focuses, and some careful masking in Photoshop, a la this post.
Yesterday I went on a short walk through a ravine near my house. One good photo came from the shoot—it was a macro shot of a poky-looking weed that I thought would be interesting up close. I had heard something about getting everything you want in focus via some program that takes multiple exposures at different focus distances and combines them, but I don't have any such program. The idea seemed sound though, so I went ahead and took two of the exact same photo, just with a focus adjustment. Between the two images, I had the entire subject in focus, but the background was still a nice bokeh.
click to enlarge, or see it on Flickr
Aperture: f/2.6
Shutter Speed: 1/160
ISO: 80
Gorilla Pod
I pasted one image over the other in Photoshop, and then meticulously masked out the unfocused areas from the one on top. in a few places, the background was a slightly different color in one image due to the amount of lens blur on the pixels, but a little bit of healing brush fixed that quickly. It took kind of a long time, but now I have a nearly perfect depth of field: one that encompasses my entire subject (almost; there are still a few spots out of focus), but one that still throws the background into a nice, non-distracting bokeh.
After the masking was completed, I flattened the image and treated it like a single photo to continue post-processing.
Have any good depth of field shots? They don't have to be DoF hacks, just post links in the comments!
One tip I picked up recently was to get down on the level of your subject. In most cases, photographing a subject (particularly a small subject) from above makes for a rather boring shot. When you get down and dirty, your shot will instantly become more personal, which makes it eye-catching. I took this photo while laying on my stomach in the road, but my short sacrifice of dignity rewarded me with a photo much better than if I had set up even a miniature tripod to take this exposure.
click to enlarge
Another nice thing about this photo is how the background, though blurred by a small depth of field, provides a stark contrast between the "importance" of the leaf, and the "importance" of the mountains. Something not so nice about this photo: that stupid light pole. A very distracting line that leads your eye to nowhere. And I'm not sure how I feel about the mountains being truncated at the top. Feedback?
