# Gorgeous Kathleen! Should I have fixed these things?



## DGMPhotography (Jan 20, 2014)

Hey there,

So I would love some thoughts on my image here! Also wondering if you think I should clean up her hair a little bit in post, or leave it as is?




Thanks!


----------



## Parker219 (Jan 20, 2014)

Whats the purpose of this photo? 

Is this formal "portrait"? 

I notice the shadows on her face more than her hair btw.

I want to know what she is looking at...


----------



## Derrel (Jan 20, 2014)

Looks okay. Shame about the too-shallow DOF though.


----------



## manicmike (Jan 20, 2014)

Looks kind of blue on my screen.


----------



## TreeofLifeStairs (Jan 20, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Looks okay. Shame about the too-shallow DOF though.


I was thinking the same thing. Her eyes are nice and crisp, which is good, but the hair along her forehead is out.


----------



## apaflo (Jan 20, 2014)

DGMPhotography said:


> Hey there,
> 
> So I would love some thoughts on my image here! Also wondering if you think I should clean up her hair a little bit in post, or leave it as is?



That image has fabulous potential.  It is almost perfect as is, but is better with just a few tweeks.  The purpose of the tweeks is to remove distractions from the mental image formed when a viewer looks at the picture.  Forget all the "Rules", lets think about it in terms of the mind's eye of a viewer.

Draw an imaginary egg shaped area on her face, with the ponted end down and just touching the edge of the chin directly below the eye on the left.  The wider top of the egg is a line right along her eyebrow.  The left side isn't really important, other than that the hair entering along her jaw line should not be included.  On the right the line should follow the shadow on her nose down, bisecting the upper lip and mouth and at the bottom connecting with the opposite side, but leaving the right edge of the shadow along her jaw line outside the area marked.

Okay?  Nothing outside that line should be in sharp focus, everything inside it is the center of attention and should be 1) sharper, 2) brighter, and 3) higher contrast than the rest of the image.

Specifically, the eye on the left needs to be made a wee bit sharper, and it should be just a bit brighter than the eye on the right side.  You might darken the right side eye, but it is already slightly out of focus and need not be more so.  Sharpen the left side eye and also brighten up only the white part of the eye.

There are three things that will help the hair.  First is a very slight blur to the hair along the left jaw line.  Second is clone out the bright spot just above the "D" in your watermark and another bright spot on the left edge even with her jaw.  Third is shift the color of the hair along the part line where it has grown out since being dyed.

The basic purpose is to lower the entropy by removing unnecessary distraction to the mental image of a viewer.  Often that does not require totally removing something that also adds necessary context.  Instead just a touch of blur or making  it darker can be enought to re-order the dominance of compositional symbols within an image.  


Original:  View attachment 64936   Edited:


----------



## bingbang (Jan 21, 2014)

Very subtle change made by apaflo, and I like this way of thinking about a picture.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 21, 2014)

bingbang said:


> Very subtle change made by apaflo, and I like this way of thinking about a picture.



And yet, when looked at large, it still looks like the photographer botched a dead-simple shot by falling into the noob-trap of shooting wide-open from very close with a 50mm lens...it's like telling a beginning singer, "Okay, if you're going to sing off-key, here's how to disguise it...sing LOUDLY, and it'll sound better."


----------



## apaflo (Jan 21, 2014)

Derrel said:


> And yet, when looked at large, it still looks like the photographer botched a dead-simple shot by falling into the noob-trap of shooting wide-open from very close with a 50mm lens...it's like telling a beginning singer, "Okay, if you're going to sing off-key, here's how to disguise it...sing LOUDLY, and it'll sound better."



I am hard pressed to see how it was botched.

The shot was at ISO 1000, f/1.8, and with a shutter speed of 1/100.  This is with a DX camera (a Nikon D5100), so the significance is that at ISO 1000 it has a useful dynamic range of about 7 stops, and using a higher ISO is definitely going to degrade the image quality.  A shutter speed of 1/100 with a 35mm equivalent focal length of 75mm is just faster than a minimum (1/75) for hand holding.  And that pretty much requires using f/1.8, which for sharpness is quite acceptable with the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G lens.

*And the DOF is perfect!*

So just exactly where is this "noob-trap"?


----------



## Derrel (Jan 21, 2014)

The noob-trap is shooting everything at wide-open aperture...you know...so the forehead is out of focus, one eye is in focus, one eye is out of focus...it's being "enthralled" by the lure of "f/1.8".

The realism is killed by the needless lack of focus. It serves no purpose, but just calls attention to the inexperience of the shooter. That's what a 50mm shot wide-open basically is...a noob-trap. You can point out ways to lessen the impact of blown focus and bad composition all you want. It's a great exercise for you,apparently.

Correcting faults and mistakes after the fact is the province of many of today's digital snappers. As the OP asked, "Should I have fixed these things?" My answer is , "You should have used more photographic skill when making the exposure, and done it right, in-camera." My answer is, "No, you should not have to "fix" mistakes, but rather, use the equipment as a skilled shooter would have and thus not MAKE the mistakes in the first place. Do not commit mistakes to film (or sensor)."

Sing in-key, not off-key. Spell properly, not haphazardly. Drive safely, not like a fool. Take a few extra seconds, and do it right, the first time.


----------



## apaflo (Jan 21, 2014)

Derrel said:


> The noob-trap is shooting everything at wide-open aperture...you know...so the forehead is out of focus, one eye is in focus, one eye is out of focus...it's being "enthralled" by the lure of "f/1.8".



A noob-trap?  More like artistic talent at work.

Style is a matter of taste, and perhaps the depth and complexity of style is a matter of innate talent matched to experience.  Which is to say that the newby trap would actually be refusing to ever use a lens wide open, because "it isn't sharp".  Or it might be thinking that a portrait needs to have every hair sharply in focus! Even if that distracts horribly from what a portrait is supposed to do...

 Style that is based on a more complete understanding of the psychology of visual art can be a great deal more complex that just a "rule" that everything has to be sharply focused.  For example the  style appropriate for documenting a body at the morgue certainly needs to have both eyes in focus.  And that might also be true for a very good snapshot for the family album, and isn't a bad idea for a Senior Picture or a Head Shot and a number of other very useful styles of photography.  

For art it is not really a good idea to have the eyes balanced in terms of sharpness, focus. or perspective.  It's just too bland.



Derrel said:


> The realism is killed by the needless lack of focus. It serves no purpose, but just calls attention to the inexperience of the shooter. That's what a 50mm shot wide-open basically is...a noob-trap. You can point out ways to lessen the impact of blown focus and bad composition all you want. It's a great exercise for you,apparently.



 Realism???   Photographs are not realsim.  The "needless" lack of focus serves a very specific purpose, and avoids calling attention to an aspect of an image that needs to be subordinate to other aspects.

 Study the work of Picasso.  Read "Entropy and Art" by Rudolf Arnheim (www.kenb.ca/z-aakkozzll/pdf/arnheim.pdf) and also study his classic text "Art and Visual Perception:  A Psychology of the Creative Eye"

The characteristics of that style and the methods are all well known and understood.



> Correcting faults and mistakes after the fact is the province of many of today's digital snappers. As the OP asked, "Should I have fixed these things?" My answer is , "You should have used more photographic skill when making the exposure, and done it right, in-camera." My answer is, "No, you should not have to "fix" mistakes, but rather, use the equipment as a skilled shooter would have and thus not MAKE the mistakes in the first place. Do not commit mistakes to film (or sensor)."
> 
> Sing in-key, not off-key. Spell properly, not haphazardly. Drive safely, not like a fool. Take a few extra seconds, and do it right, the first time.



 A bit hung up on rules, eh?  "There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs." said Ansel Adams.  And the only value of rules is to assist to people learning basics, because once the basics have been learned those rules are not valid.


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 21, 2014)

I would say the DOF is far from "perfect". 
for portraits, you would typically shoot with a shallow DOF to blur an otherwise distracting or busy background. 
in this case, there is nothing in the background that benefits from OOF or bokeh. instead, what we get is half of the headshot in focus, with the face, head, and hair quickly falling out of focus. this is generally not as desirable in a portrait where the subject is turned to that angle. 

just because the equipment necessitated a large aperture such as f/1.8, does NOT automatically make the DOF "perfect". 
it means, a tripod or monopod was needed to further reduce the shutter speed so the aperture could be adjusted for a larger DOF.
"artistic choice" is the battle cry of many a poor image. Now, this image is far from poor, but for a portrait "head shot", it needed more DOF, and it needed fill light. 

yes yes...i know. "needs fill light" is another battle cry of the studio photographer that uses flashes or strobes. in this case however, it was, in fact, needed. the lighting is not dramatic enough to be artistic, and given that, fill flash would have been an improvement. 
you cant call "artistic talent" after the fact, to cover up for a technical error. (note that this is NOT what the OP is doing btw)

this shot is not posed, lit, or staged to look like any sort of "artistic" or "edgy" shot. It is not posed or lit like someone who is trying to create or emulate a certain "style". 
it IS however, posed and lit like it was meant to be a formal style staged portrait or head shot. I think we can rule out Picasso as a potential muse for this shot. 

DGM- this is a decent shot, certainly not a tosser. the pose is good, I like the expression.  however....this shot needed fill light and a deeper DOF, especially if her head is going to be angled like that.  a shallower DOF would have looked a little better if she was facing the camera straight on. 
the OOF shoulder and stray hairs are distracting, as is the strong shadowing with bits of light on her face and neck. 

on a side note. yes. photos are realism. _*especially*_ portraits. this is her. this is what she really looks like (I assume)


----------



## apaflo (Jan 21, 2014)

pixmedic said:


> I would say the DOF is far from "perfect".
> for portraits, you would typically shoot with a shallow DOF to blur an otherwise distracting or busy background.
> in this case, there is nothing in the background that benefits from OOF or bokeh. instead, what we get is half of the headshot in focus, with the face, head, and hair quickly falling out of focus. this is generally not as desirable in a portrait where the subject is turned to that angle.



Why do we want to blur a distracting background?  And why would not the exact same reason be applied to something other than "background"?  If the answer to the first question applies to something other than "background", then the exact same treatment applies.

There is no reason to necessarily avoid "the face, head, and hair quickly falling out of focus" if that produces an effect that is dramatically better than not.

Following these basic rules of thumb for beginners will prevent a photographer's style from ever developing past a beginning photographer's look!  Follow them only until you can learn how to decide when to do better.

Here is a link that clearly demonstrates exactly how useful a narrow DOF can be for a portrait.

Nice portrait with narrow DOF.

Can we agree that the photographer who made that image didn't fall into any "noob-trap"?  If so, note that it is virtually the same style as the image in this thread.  One eye is in focus, the other not.  Most if not all of the hair is blurred.  DOF is very limited almost certainly by purposely using an f/1.4 aperture!



pixmedic said:


> on a side note. yes. photos are realism. _*especially*_ portraits. this is her. this is what she really looks like (I assume)



Fantasy!  

It isn't her, and it is not really even what she looks like.  It's just a photgraph, and is an illusion that reminds us of her.

Photographs are all illusions.  Literally by definition.  In particular, a portrait can never be reality.  Reality is a living breathing human, an illusion is a photograph that makes you say, "That's Kathleen!"  Except, it's a photograph, not Kathleen.  (Ask the photograph  how she feels today...)


----------



## Braineack (Jan 21, 2014)

That picture would have been better with more dof.


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 21, 2014)

apaflo said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > I would say the DOF is far from "perfect".
> ...



well, first off, I never made any mention of either "noob" or "trap" so i am not sure why you are bringing that up with my post. 

yes yes...there are SOME portraits that work with a shallow DOF. this is not one that I personally feel does it well. 
the image you linked? its nice. not great. not fantastic....just nice.  just like DGM's portrait is nice. (did you notice the lighting in the photo you linked? no bad shadows on her face? hmmm?)_

as for the background...backgrounds are rendered OOF for a number of reason when it is done on purpose.  when backdrops are used, there is little need or use for it because you do not get the noticeable effect because you are making a simple flat surface OOF. 
why would you not blur out a background that is distracting and offers nothing to the benefit of the picture? what do you do with your distracting backgrounds in a portrait? I avoid them all together, personally. when thats not possible, I do my best to crop and render them OOF without taking away from the subject. in the case of DGM's photo here, i refer back to my original statement about the lighting, and the fact that the DOF rendering here does not make the picture better. 

portraits are all illusions? come on man. lets not drag this into total fantasy land. portraits are a representation of the subject. sometimes they are meant to be realistic, and sometimes they are meant to completely change the nature of the subject. this was very obviously not the latter. this is no attempt at Picasso. (thankfully)


man...why do people keep insisting on bringing up the word "style". 
"style" is a joke. its a buzzword newbies and artists that are legends in their own often mind use to justify  technical errors and an inability to learn basic photographic fundamentals and posing. this is not what is going on with DGM's photo. 
DGM is not trying to make a "style" here, he is trying to take a good portrait. (hopefully)

this is not about being a photographic bad-boy, breaking all the rules for the sake of his tortured art. 
this is a portrait. Claims of artistic license and purposeful rule breaking do little to belay the fact that the lighting here was insufficient. 

DGM has not weighed in here for a bit, so I think we do him a disservice continuing to debate the merits of his photograph without him 
getting in here and commenting on what has been said so far. this is his picture we are discussing after all.


----------



## apaflo (Jan 21, 2014)

Braineack said:


> That picture would have been better with more dof.



It is valid to say that *you* would like it better with more depth of field.  But it is also valid to say that others would disagree. It's not a case of it would or would not be better, just a case of a style that will appeal to some and not to others.  

Photographs are not "better"  just because we individually like them.  Look at all the folks who claim Rhein II by Andreas Gursky is a bit of garbage they would put in the trash, yet anyone who actually does understand art will explain that it is great art (and the proof is clear enough, it sold for $4.3M).  The significance is that we shouldn't grade art by whether we like it, but by it's qualities as art.  That is true even when we distinctly dislike the style.

I would like that picture better if it had just a slight bit *less* DOF. Note that the edited image I posted did exactly nothing to "fix" any lack of DOF, but rather did the opposite.  My point however was not to better emulate an illusion of reality, it was to clarify the beauty that is visually communicated by the image in order to heighten the viewer's persception of it.

To quote Ansel Adams, "There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a  fuzzy concept."  Blurring part of the image can make the concept much sharper...


----------



## Derrel (Jan 21, 2014)

apaflo said:
			
		

> To quote Ansel Adams, "There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a  fuzzy concept."  Blurring part of the image can make the concept much sharper...



Wow, descending to the ridiculous. I like your *style*. Maybe if the OP would have had one of those ultra-fast f/0.7 oscilloscope lenses rigged up, the shot could have been elevated to masterpiece level, you know, with say, just one eyelash in good focus, and the rest blown out to really,really,realllly out of focus.


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 21, 2014)

apaflo said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > That picture would have been better with more dof.
> ...



wait...so...
someone who doesn't think a piece of art that sold for millions is "great" doesn't understand art?
that's a pretty slippery slope your treading there. especially considering you just said "Photographs are not "better"  just because we individually like them." 

there is no other way to grade art other than whether we like it or not. otherwise, noone would have paid 4 million for a piece of art. 
art by itself has no intrinsic value. it doesn't produce anything, we don't eat it, it doesn't give us warmth...etc etc. 
arts ONLY value is the value we personally place on it as an individual. without those personal opinions, art is nothing except what it is to its creator.


----------



## ronlane (Jan 21, 2014)

apaflo said:


> So you are saying that Pixmedic, Derrel  and Braineack don't know photography? Gotta call bs on that one.


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 21, 2014)

I think we can all agree here,  that the model is indeed, Gorgeous.


----------



## apaflo (Jan 21, 2014)

> man...why do people keep insisting on bringing up the word "style".
> "style" is a joke. its a buzzword newbies and artists that are legends in their own often mind use to justify  technical errors and an inability to learn basic photographic fundamentals and posing.



People bring that up because it is important.  Knowing the difference between what is good art and what is just art that you like is a requirement to any understanding or meaningful discussion of photography past the beginner level.

Style is not a joke, it's not a buzz word.  It has nothing at all to do with what you imagine are errors or inabilities.


----------



## apaflo (Jan 21, 2014)

ronlane said:


> So you are saying that Pixmedic, Derrel  and Braineack don't know photography? Gotta call bs on that one.



Your BS though. I have never said any such thing.


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 21, 2014)

apaflo said:


> > man...why do people keep insisting on bringing up the word "style".
> > "style" is a joke. its a buzzword newbies and artists that are legends in their own often mind use to justify  technical errors and an inability to learn basic photographic fundamentals and posing.
> 
> 
> ...



art is subjective. there is no "good art" or "bad art". there is only "art", and the individual persons response to it. 
but you cant take every picture that has technical errors and correct it just by calling it "artistic license"
OOF is OOF, missed focus is missed focus, poor WB is poor WB, and so on. putting a label on it that says "art" or "style" does nothing but lend to the incredibility of those words.  the word "style" is _*grossly*_ overused. I mean, _*obscenely *_so, to the point that it really has little to no relevant meaning anymore. style has a LOT to do with errors and inabilities when it is used by someone lacking fundamental knowledge to justify bad technical errors. 

you cant say that art is subjective in one breath, and then in the next breath, say that some piece of art is great and we just don't understand it if WE dont think its great too. 
you know what is a real requirement to any understanding or meaningful discussion of photography past the beginner level?
an actual understanding of photography past the beginner level. you know....things like the exposure triangle, understanding light, DOF, WB, composure.....all those "rules" you seem to think that people dont need to follow.


----------



## apaflo (Jan 21, 2014)

pixmedic said:


> wait...so...
> someone who doesn't think a piece of art that sold for millions is "great" doesn't understand art?
> that's a pretty slippery slope your treading there. especially considering you just said "Photographs are not "better"  just because we individually like them."



Ask anyone who has studied what art is.  A Master of Fine Arts degree level or higher.



pixmedic said:


> there is no other way to grade art other than whether we like it or not. otherwise, noone would have paid 4 million for a piece of art. art by itself has no intrinsic value. it doesn't produce anything, we don't eat it, it doesn't give us warmth...etc etc. arts ONLY value is the value we personally place on it as an individual. without those personal opinions, art is nothing except what it is to its creator.



Grading the quality of art has very little to do with personal likes.  I don't personally have any desire to produce anything like most of the great art that I've ever seen.  It just doesn't appeal to me at all.  But I know that, whether I happen to like Picasso or not, his work is absolutely great.  Same with Gursky, just not to the same degree.

The price of Rhein II was almost certainly based on perceived intrinsic value and just as certainly had little to do with whether the buyer actually liked it as art or not.


----------



## TheGiant (Jan 21, 2014)

I would personally clean up the hair in post.. At least the few loose strands on the left side of her face.


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 21, 2014)

Art only sells because someone likes it. It has everything to do with individual likes and dislikes.  A fine art grade means nothing without someone willing to spend money on it. 

But this thread isnt about fine art, or its grading system. Its about a portrait. Not a piece of fine art. A portrait, with technical flaws that can be easily corrected. 
I dont really the OP mentioning anything about trying to get his work into a museum.


----------



## manicmike (Jan 21, 2014)

Thread level Epic in 3..2...


----------



## apaflo (Jan 21, 2014)

pixmedic said:


> apaflo said:
> 
> 
> > > man...why do people keep insisting on bringing up the word "style".
> ...



 Art may well be subjective, but yes there is good and bad art.  It's fairly clear that several individuals through recorded history are known to have produced good art.  Virtually anything they did is thought of as good art.

Any given individual might well be unable to distinguish between good and bad art...  But that doesn't mean the distinction does not exist!



> but you cant take every picture that has technical errors and correct it just by calling it "artistic license"
> OOF is OOF, missed focus is missed focus, poor WB is poor WB, and so on. putting a label on it that says "art" or "style" does nothing but lend to the incredibility of those words.  the word "style" is _*grossly*_ overused. I mean, _*obscenely *_so, to the point that it really has little to no relevant meaning anymore. style has a LOT to do with errors and inabilities when it is used by someone lacking fundamental knowledge to justify bad technical errors.



Perhaps that is all at times true, but not a word of that applies to the OP's image.  I for one did an edit on it, and nothing I did was directed at what you are calling errors or mistakes.  In fact a couple of the things you say are wrong, I purposed exaggerated!

And I have shown another image, which clearly has to be called "great photography", that uses exactly the same basic style!

Now, you don't have to like that style, but your arguments are a rant rather than logical.


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 21, 2014)

apaflo said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > apaflo said:
> ...



wait, explain to me why the other image you showed "clearly HAS to be called great photography"
do you see how that statement there, suggests that you are saying that you are right and everyone else's opinion is wrong? is that what you are actually saying?

whether on purpose or not, you have placed yourself in a position of claiming yourself to be an expert on not only art, but portrait photography as well. (didnt you state in another thread that you didnt do portrait photography? maybe im thinking of someone else) I think you should show some credentials before making such blanket statements about  what we _*have*_ to accept as a great photograph. 
because if it is the image you linked earlier....its nice... its not great, its not fantastic, but nice. 
 my arguments arent arguments at all. they are what I consider technical flaws with the photograph. 
apparently, i am not the only one on the forum who has photography experience that thinks the same thing. 
you can justify your edits with whatever beliefs you want, but it does not make your opinion any more valid or invalid that the rest of ours. 

now, you were right about one thing. my comment about excuses indeed does not apply to the OP, because DGM is not making any excuses for his picture. he is not trying to justify it with buzzwords. he is just asking for opinions. which is what he got.


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 21, 2014)

apaflo said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > apaflo said:
> ...



wait, i get it now...
by your _*exact*_ logic...

you HAVE to accept this photo as "great", because it uses a basic shallow DOF style. 
now your arguments are just a rant. 
see what I did there?


View attachment 65010


----------



## DGMPhotography (Jan 21, 2014)

Well alrighttttyyyy then!!

How fun! I'm glad my post could garner such entertaining discussion. 

First off, Pixmedic, please take down that picture immediately, it burns my eyes. 

Second, Apaflo, I really appreciate your thoughts on art. Art truly is subjective thing, and I think you have some valid opinions. I think you would enjoy conversation with my art professor, Stephen Alcorn. Check him out! The Alcorn Studio & Gallery

However, I do realize that my image is far from perfect. While I personally like the image, I was only asking if I should clean up some of the hair in post, _not_ any other aspect of the photo. I know that it's best to get the shot right in-camera, but I'm not going to pick up every strand of hair on her head and position it the way I want it. I _do_ think I could have done with a little deeper depth of field. I will admit that I am allured to the all-magnificent wide-open f/1.8. I should experiment going past that. I'm not really sure why I had my ISO so high.. I was using flashes. However, I _did _need to get the background out of focus because it was wrinkly... yes, I know I should have ironed, but I didn't. And the space we were shooting in (my room) didn't leave a lot of room for maneuvering.

Thanks for the feedback so far, everyone! I did like your edits on the hair, Apaflo, which is what I was specifically asking about. And I appreciate the critiques on the image itself from everyone else as well. 

And here's some better dof, for comparison purposes..

View attachment 65027

Argue on!


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 21, 2014)

not a fan of the beach eh?
oh well, there's just no pleasing some people.  ;-)
the green screen does catch the occasional persons fancy, and its lots of fun to work with. 
plus, I can charge extra for picking your own fancy background. its win/win!
but I digress....


i like this shot much better. 
(just MY opinion....im not an art guy...dont want to offend anyone)
the hair is better placed, the DOF is more appealing, and the lighting is more even. (evener? evenest? whatever)
her expression is great. 

my only question would be, why the space on the right as apposed to the rest of her head on the left?
I dont think that choice detracts from the photo mind you, I was just curious as to the thought process. 
very nicely shot.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 21, 2014)

apaflo said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > That picture would have been better with more dof.
> ...



BS, the DOF was perfect.  that was an objective statement.


----------



## DanOstergren (Jan 21, 2014)

I like the lighting. Both the light and shadows seem soft, and there is more than enough detail in the shadows to where I personally don't feel that fill light was needed. To me it looks like you used natural window light, so I'm impressed that you were using flash. I do feel that the hair could be cleaned up a little, and that perhaps a little more room on the left side of the image would have complimented this shot; a little too much of the side of her head was cut off in my opinion. 

While I enjoy the shallow depth of field and don't feel that it makes you look like a newb photographer, if you feel that you want a slightly deeper depth of field and a little more sharpness, try stopping the aperture up to f/2.8 or 3.5. 




apaflo said:


> text




In my experience, this forum is not for art. I would go to deviantart.com if you like art photography; there are much less stubborn people there who actually understand why it's important to break rules and don't immediately say "needs fill" when there are shadows on the face and dismiss a photographer as a newb simply because they shoot with their lens wide open or because the photographer doesn't intend to capture both eyes in focus. This forum is stuck on "rules" and will quickly encourage you to stick yourself in a box rather than be creative or think differently than they do. Derrel is a perfect example of this; if you disagree with his opinion he descends to insults, sarcasm, and attempts to make others look like fools in order to make his opinion seem correct; eventually you will end up on his ignore list if you disagree with him one too many times. Subjectivity is something that is almost completely rejected here, so it's virtually impossible to get others to understand you or to let go of their ego if you go against the grain and think outside the box.
 Funny how the day I come back to post something here I am immediately reminded why I stopped coming here in the first place.


----------



## apaflo (Jan 21, 2014)

pixmedic said:


> apaflo said:
> 
> 
> > And I have shown another image, which clearly has to be called "great photography", that uses exactly the same basic style!
> ...



That is exactly the opposite of what I did say.  

You apparently failed to notice just exactly what the image I linked is.  It is one of a small set that Nikon uses in promotions for their rather well known 85mm f/1.4G lens.  As I said, you don't necessarily have to like the image or the style, but if one of the world's foremost makers of lenses chose that image to promote the lens most famously associated with that style, it is great photography by definition.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 21, 2014)

*Anything* seen in an advertisement is the truth. Bank on it. If it's in an advertisement, it is The Gospel. You know, "by definition".


----------



## DGMPhotography (Jan 21, 2014)

Lol, but I _like _Derrel! We have the same name (though not in spelling)! And cutting off on the left just came naturally to me. I don't like my shots to be centered usually, and I wanted her to be _looking _at something so I gave her some extra space on the right.


----------



## apaflo (Jan 21, 2014)

Derrel said:


> *Anything* seen in an advertisement is the truth. Bank on it. If it's in an advertisement, it is The Gospel. You know, "by definition".



The validity, or lack of, in the advertisement which used the image has nothing to do with this discussion.

Lets try to use at least a little common sense, eh?


----------



## DanOstergren (Jan 21, 2014)

DGMPhotography said:


> Lol, but I _like _Derrel! We have the same name (though not in spelling)! And cutting off on the left just came naturally to me. I don't like my shots to be centered usually, and I wanted her to be _looking _at something so I gave her some extra space on the right.


Doesn't make him any less rude or completely childish when you disagree with him. Just look above for a perfect example. 

As far as the crop, it's ultimately at your discretion; just telling you how I think it could work better.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Jan 21, 2014)

DanOstergren said:


> DGMPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Lol, but I _like _Derrel! We have the same name (though not in spelling)! And cutting off on the left just came naturally to me. I don't like my shots to be centered usually, and I wanted her to be _looking _at something so I gave her some extra space on the right.
> ...



I appreciate your feedback, but I was actually answering Pixmedic's question, not trying to argue with you.


----------



## DanOstergren (Jan 21, 2014)

Derrel said:


> *Anything* seen in an advertisement is the truth. Bank on it. If it's in an advertisement, it is The Gospel. You know, "by definition".


Assuming that we are talking about Nikon using an image specifically to sell a lens, they are hands down going to choose a good image to represent that lens.


----------

