# My son, narrow DOF



## jcdeboever (Apr 7, 2017)

I am blessed by his presence. However, he is very co-operative because he loves his Father. I was trying out the 55-200 on him, trying different angles, heights, widths.  I see light so differently than the book @tirediron mentions. However, the instruction is good concerning the camera movements. I get tripped up in the per-visualization, probably because he is my son. Anyway, here is a real bad rendition of my best bud, SOOC jpeg. This image deserves a medium format resolution. Granted, I am unable to execute a quality image at this time, I am less than satisfied in the resolution of the composition.


----------



## jcdeboever (Apr 7, 2017)

I am so struggling to produce an image that is of quality. I love people and want to portrait them as such. I am borderline ready to give up because I haven't the skill.


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 7, 2017)

Good lookin young man!


----------



## jcdeboever (Apr 7, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> Good lookin young man!



Thanks smoke


----------



## ZombiesniperJr (Apr 7, 2017)

Nice shot


----------



## annamaria (Apr 7, 2017)

Very handsome 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jcdeboever (Apr 7, 2017)

annamaria said:


> Very handsome
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Thanks.


----------



## loonatic45414 (Apr 7, 2017)

Great photo, excellent composition. A couple technical details I can see, however...

I would try to dim the amount of light going to the forehead & hair just a touch, maybe pulling down the highlight in PP would accomplish that.

I'm a little disturbed by the hand being out of focus. 

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 7, 2017)

jcdeboever said:


> I am so struggling to produce an image that is of quality. I love people and want to portrait them as such. I am borderline ready to give up because I haven't the skill.



JC you're always growing in your skill, so don't get frustrated. Couple of comments the eyes are super sharp, but the DOF is extremely shallow. Unlike the fantastic floral images you produce, you need more DOF to keep the facial features in focus. One thing that's helped me on portraits is the addition of an exposure meter. Granted you can use your in camera meter on spot, to sample the face, but using a meter is so much quicker to dial it in. The other thing that helped in portraits was the addition of the Alien Bees, modifiers, and the big octabox. With the meter and the lights it's quick and easy to dial in the exposure and be really close the first time. Something that keeps the model happy. The last thing, I know you're big on SOOC right now, but Raw is the way to go for portraits, you can correct a lot of sins post.


----------



## jcdeboever (Apr 7, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> > I am so struggling to produce an image that is of quality. I love people and want to portrait them as such. I am borderline ready to give up because I haven't the skill.
> ...



Thanks bud. I really tried hard to make the DOF focus narrow. I purposely pushed it to create a style. I think I failed but it was a great lesson. I know it is not that great but I am very happy to have found another knot in the string that @Derrel guided with. Eventually, I want to be able narrow things by third areas.


----------



## jcdeboever (Apr 7, 2017)

loonatic45414 said:


> Great photo, excellent composition. A couple technical details I can see, however...
> 
> I would try to dim the amount of light going to the forehead & hair just a touch, maybe pulling down the highlight in PP would accomplish that.
> 
> ...


Is the hand out of focus a no no? I had the glass so small focus pointed and wide open.


----------



## loonatic45414 (Apr 7, 2017)

The narrow dof isn't bad for portraits necessarily, if you're trying to single out the eyes as often done in romantic shots by candlelight.

The hand would work very well with f/16 or even f/22. I wouldn't use a higher ISO to achieve that, use a tripod & use a longer shutter speed.

I personally have to say that having an out of focus spot that big hanging out there by itself is distracting. If you put his hand more in front, as on a table or on the back of a tall chair, out of focus could work.


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 7, 2017)

jcdeboever said:


> I really tried hard to make the DOF focus narrow.



I'm confused by this statement. Why??? What were your trying to achieve? The hand OOF is minor IMO, the face/chin being OOF that much is very distracting. Maybe had you captured more DOF on the face, the hand being OOF would work giving depth to image?? Again I'm confused as to what you were shooting for, maybe elaborate more?


----------



## jcdeboever (Apr 7, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> > I really tried hard to make the DOF focus narrow.
> ...


I was trying to be creative with the lens. Forcing the OOF areas. I have images that are sharp throughout,. I was trying to imitate images I seen with a Fujifilm GX680III medium format film camera. I like the render of a person where the eyes are focused and the rest is not important but not to a point of distraction. I know I failed. However, by posting this image, maybe I would Garner insight on improving a controlled focus to create drama, interest, and an exceptional composition.


----------



## jcdeboever (Apr 7, 2017)

loonatic45414 said:


> The narrow dof isn't bad for portraits necessarily, if you're trying to single out the eyes as often done in romantic shots by candlelight.
> 
> The hand would work very well with f/16 or even f/22. I wouldn't use a higher ISO to achieve that, use a tripod & use a longer shutter speed.
> 
> I personally have to say that having an out of focus spot that big hanging out there by itself is distracting. If you put his hand more in front, as on a table or on the back of a tall chair, out of focus could work.


Wow, thank you! That is very helpful. Very encouraging, moving forward.


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 7, 2017)

@jcdeboever  Ok I know there are differences in the DOF, Field of View, and Bokeh, in the MF, but I think I need to do a little reading so I understand more of what your trying to accomplish. Or, hopefully some of the more in the know crowd will comment, then we both might learn something LOL


----------



## jcdeboever (Apr 7, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> @jcdeboever  Ok I know there are differences in the DOF, Field of View, and Bokeh, in the MF, but I think I need to do a little reading so I understand more of what your trying to accomplish. Or, hopefully some of the more in the know crowd will comment, then we both might learn something LOL


Me too my brother. I am just exploring my hardware and what @Derrel has taught me and little I have practised. Here is an example of where I want to get to but not end up at. 

Portrait of Stacy


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 7, 2017)

jcdeboever said:


> Here is an example of where I want to get to but not end up at.



Ok I'm following you again I think the thing throwing me is the OOF area extending almost up to the bottom of the nose. Had that OOF started at the line of the chin (or below) as in your example that would have improved the image tremendously. Moving the hand around as Loonatic suggested could then be used to give a sense of depth to the image. 

One other thing, I tend to be a detail oriented realist, both in my artwork and photographs, so I may be a little skewed on my opinions, but I lean more toward soft lines on the female form as opposed to a male with hard defined features, count the hairs in their beard detail. At my age, I doubt that will change so take what I say with a grain of salt.  You on the other hand always seem to be willing to step outside the comfort zone. You've reached a point where you never miss the target, just get some closer than others to the bulls eye. I'm confident you'll readjust and fire again.


----------



## KmH (Apr 7, 2017)

DoF is narrow when looked at from the side, or perpendicular to the lens.
Looking along the long axis of a lens, like when looking at a photo, the DoF is shallow.


----------



## jake337 (Apr 7, 2017)

jcdeboever said:


> I am so struggling to produce an image that is of quality. I love people and want to portrait them as such. 0I am borderline ready to give up because I haven't the skill.



Of quality compared to what?  Give up?   Stop with the self loathing already.   

Don't create to compare to others.

Create for yourself.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 7, 2017)

You nailed the eyes. Jake's got a point about the self-deprecation...you're better than you say you are. You can shoot.


----------



## Gary A. (Apr 7, 2017)

JC, you cannot duplicate what a camera with tilts and swings can do with a camera that does not have tilts and swings. Personally, I would have liked to see everything in focus.  The hand, for my tastes, is too prominent to be relegated as an unimportant element. For me a bit more detail in the arm and hand and viola ... a classic portrait.  I understand being hard on yourself.  Self critiquing is how we get better.  But you're trying to duplicate a Vermeer with a six inch paint brush.

If this was a painting, would the hand been soft?

I'm not saying for you not to be different ... but sometimes it is absolutely fine to be timeless rather than trying to blaze a path with the wrong equipment.


----------



## jcdeboever (Apr 7, 2017)

annamaria said:


> Very handsome
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


He's single


----------



## limr (Apr 7, 2017)

The only thing that bugs me is the chin. I like the thin DOF and the composition. I don't care if the hand is in focus or not, because the purpose is clearly to look at his eyes.


----------



## tirediron (Apr 7, 2017)

I like the image, and I like the composition; I don't mind the OOF hand, but I would consider burning it in a bit to reduce it's attention-grabbing ability.  I'm not as fussed though on the OOF chin however.  This is a strictly personal thing, and there's no right or wrong.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 7, 2017)

You had a plan and went with it. It succeeded at some level. You nailed the eyes. Yes, the chin is OOF. It's a "look" that many people like, that lensy look, that shallow DOF look. While it's not a great shot, it's also not an awful shot either, but somewhere in between I guess. It has some good qualities to it.


----------



## annamaria (Apr 7, 2017)

jcdeboever said:


> annamaria said:
> 
> 
> > Very handsome
> ...



Is he really?  [emoji6]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## vintagesnaps (Apr 7, 2017)

That's really nice. Captures the personality and done in B&W gives it an atmosphere or mood, whatever you want to call it. Nice. 

I don't usually care for something close to the camera being out of focus unless it's framing the subject or somehow it works for the photo. So I'd like it better with less shallow depth of field, but it's not necessarily a deal breaker so to speak. I like John's idea of making it a little less noticeable, that's probably why I don't particularly care for OOF being done in the foreground, closer to the viewer. 

But you're learning and experimenting, which is good. And you haven't been at this all _that _long, I've been a photographer for yeeears... keep at it. This is pretty darn good.


----------



## jcdeboever (Apr 8, 2017)

annamaria said:


> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> > annamaria said:
> ...


Ill send him your way


----------



## jcdeboever (Apr 8, 2017)

OK, here is the one I wasn't playing around trying to be all artsy fartsy. He always wheres the same types of shirts, I told him not to wear them. Some kind of nylon sweat wicking kmart crap. Of course he wore one. I asked him why, and he said that's all he has... he bought 6 of them, different colors. On sale for $5.99 each.... Oh I had him looking at a crisp, new, $100 bill (birthday gift I gave him later), standing up on a stool. He knows how to focus on money....


----------



## jcdeboever (Apr 8, 2017)

ZombiesniperJr said:


> Nice shot



Thanks



loonatic45414 said:


> The narrow dof isn't bad for portraits necessarily, if you're trying to single out the eyes as often done in romantic shots by candlelight.
> 
> The hand would work very well with f/16 or even f/22. I wouldn't use a higher ISO to achieve that, use a tripod & use a longer shutter speed.
> 
> I personally have to say that having an out of focus spot that big hanging out there by itself is distracting. If you put his hand more in front, as on a table or on the back of a tall chair, out of focus could work.



Thanks for the explanation. I was experimenting and had fun. 



jake337 said:


> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> > I am so struggling to produce an image that is of quality. I love people and want to portrait them as such. 0I am borderline ready to give up because I haven't the skill.
> ...



I was being a little sarcastic, it never does show up well in a text, I keep forgetting that. I was giving up on trying to accomplish something that wasn't obtainable. A lensbaby probably would have been the tool. Thanks for your concern jake, your a good dude. 



Derrel said:


> You nailed the eyes. Jake's got a point about the self-deprecation...you're better than you say you are. You can shoot.



Thanks bud. I seen something but couldn't do it with what I had. 



Gary A. said:


> JC, you cannot duplicate what a camera with tilts and swings can do with a camera that does not have tilts and swings. Personally, I would have liked to see everything in focus.  The hand, for my tastes, is too prominent to be relegated as an unimportant element. For me a bit more detail in the arm and hand and viola ... a classic portrait.  I understand being hard on yourself.  Self critiquing is how we get better.  But you're trying to duplicate a Vermeer with a six inch paint brush.
> 
> If this was a painting, would the hand been soft?
> 
> I'm not saying for you not to be different ... but sometimes it is absolutely fine to be timeless rather than trying to blaze a path with the wrong equipment.



Well said, you know me all to well. I got your text, spot on. Good point about the painting. Hey but I had fun and spending time with my son. Man we had some good laughs last night. He is an even bigger goof ball than me. I gave him a camera last year, he gave it back yesterday, never used it. He said, "I'll leave the stupid photo stuff to you and focus on all those art supplies you gave me." I said, "that's cool, more money for you to buy kmart shirts with." 



limr said:


> The only thing that bugs me is the chin. I like the thin DOF and the composition. I don't care if the hand is in focus or not, because the purpose is clearly to look at his eyes.



Thanks. I appreciate it. See the second image I posted. This was before I got lost in the art of being a camera geek



tirediron said:


> I like the image, and I like the composition; I don't mind the OOF hand, but I would consider burning it in a bit to reduce it's attention-grabbing ability.  I'm not as fussed though on the OOF chin however.  This is a strictly personal thing, and there's no right or wrong.



Thanks, that is encouraging. I have too many creative idea's running around in my pea brain. Lots of rusty tractors in there too. 



Derrel said:


> You had a plan and went with it. It succeeded at some level. You nailed the eyes. Yes, the chin is OOF. It's a "look" that many people like, that lensy look, that shallow DOF look. While it's not a great shot, it's also not an awful shot either, but somewhere in between I guess. It has some good qualities to it.



Thanks. Hey it was fun. Maybe I'll make a lens. I bought some really old, funky tin or brass glass that need attention. I have some ideas as for a mount. 



vintagesnaps said:


> That's really nice. Captures the personality and done in B&W gives it an atmosphere or mood, whatever you want to call it. Nice.
> 
> I don't usually care for something close to the camera being out of focus unless it's framing the subject or somehow it works for the photo. So I'd like it better with less shallow depth of field, but it's not necessarily a deal breaker so to speak. I like John's idea of making it a little less noticeable, that's probably why I don't particularly care for OOF being done in the foreground, closer to the viewer.
> 
> But you're learning and experimenting, which is good. And you haven't been at this all _that _long, I've been a photographer for yeeears... keep at it. This is pretty darn good.



Thanks dear. I chalked up to a fun learning experience.


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 8, 2017)

@jcdeboever  i think the old adage "you can't see the forest for the trees", could apply to your work. This second image is ART. It exudes all the qualities of a young man his age, something you can both be proud of.


----------



## jcdeboever (Apr 8, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> @jcdeboever  i think the old adage "you can't see the forest for the trees", could apply to your work. This second image is ART. It exudes all the qualities of a young man his age, something you can both be proud of.


Thanks bud.


----------



## loonatic45414 (Apr 8, 2017)

If this is a digital camera, you can shoot all different ways and see the results right away. I'd think you could learn what works quickly. I shoot film with manual cameras. That's a whole different level of complexity.

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk


----------



## jcdeboever (Apr 8, 2017)

loonatic45414 said:


> If this is a digital camera, you can shoot all different ways and see the results right away. I'd think you could learn what works quickly. I shoot film with manual cameras. That's a whole different level of complexity.
> 
> Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk


I fired off three frames with film. 1 with my Nikon F and the 50mm 1.4 pre AI. Second one with Airesflex medium format. Third with Pentax SP1000 and 55mm 1.8. All shots, including digital were shot with a Nikon SB15 flash via a 20ft PC sync cable, and a reflected umbrella.


----------

