- This topic is empty.
Jon
-
Do you have the original of this Joseph, the one before b/w conversion? I would like to see this in colour.
I noticed an other thing… you know those numbers on the lens… if you choose a bigger number, you get more so called DOF, and the other shoulder of the guy would be sharp.
Otherwise not bad photo.. needs some work, but not bad.
randomway wrote:
…Otherwise not bad photo.. needs some work, but not bad.
:lol:
Very good Zoltan…
That’s what you call a “Look to camera”.. :)
Nicely done, I think if you’d done more with the composition, you would have lost the intensity of the “look”. I like portraits where the picture is solely somewhere for an expression to sit.
All best
Si
Thanks Everyone…
and thank you Si, nicely put…Thanks bingbong, appreciate it-
look forward to printing this one too-Apart from dust removal, that picture has only had global adjustments-
no dodging or burning or anything-
so it bodes well for the print…Zoltan, I always get confused by the numbers
now that I look again, I probably should have used a bigger number-
ƒ/500 or ƒ/1000 or something.What’s DOF? :shock: :shock: :shock:
Will they have it in Gunn’s?
How much should I ask for?(Rob, don’t be encouraging him…)
Now Sharon, there really isn’t room for any more delusional people here…
Thanks again for all the comments-
josepn
Ok I dont do much portrait work so I dont really
have that much experience . . .but for me
the image is very striking, I first noticed a 3D effect
to this where you get a real sense of the subject standing
out of the image, I suppose it is because of the shallow DOF
and the lighting and backround.For me the shallow DOF works, it gives that 3D effect and
Im not worried about the shoulder as the face is all important.The models expression is very interesting, I think it is his
normal non expression face.Beautiful Joseph.
Just a technical question JB: was the lens parallel to the plate?
I get the impression that the focal plane slopes because the black
jumper is out of focus and yet the left ear looks sharp. I assumed
this was a bit like that flower wot you posted a while back, where
the Scheimpenflugen principle had been evoked.Whatever, I might buy a signed contact print from you. I can’t
get enough of this photo.Thank you Alan, Pete-
Your observations are more or less related-
regarding the depth of field, plane of focus…If I gave you the numbers, you could check an online depth of field chart-
300mm, (indicated) f/11, at about 1.7m.Try it, you’ll like it…
However, depth of field is calculated on the enlargement ratio of the final print,
and this was taken to be contact printed, same size-
If I had been taking it to enlarge it,
I might have had to use at least ƒ/32 or ƒ/45…Pete, there might have been some swing, it’s evident on the neg-
but the only movement I purposely used was front rise,
to place his head closer to the optical axis of the lens-Scheimpflug was not specifically called for on this occasion,
although on a camera where strict parallelism is not always guaranteed,
he’s never too far away…Better maybe to pay another visit to Dublin, and have your own likeness fixed…
I’ve even found a paneled room to take it in…Let me know when you’ve had the tats removed…
Thanks again for the comments, and interesting questions…
I might have gone into lot more detail,
but I would have lost even more readers than I have done already…joseph
Very nice portrait as already said Joseph. This chap really has a very striking gaze.
Is is quite a formal portrait, but with an informal feel to it..if that makes the slightest sense.
Even though the gaze is intense, he looks at ease with the camera.
R
The more detail the merrier I say.
Oh, and I agree with the poster above who said that you should do a series of similar portraits with different subjects.
Thanks Robbie, thanks bingbong-
yes, must do some more…
this board has been hanging around for a while now,
and I might never make a desk out of it…Might do one tomorrow…
Yes Robbie, he wasn’t intimidated by the thing-
I think he liked the idea of getting one picture taken, (we took 2) and leaving it at that…Thanks again for the comments-
by the way, there have been some conversations regarding the composition earlier…
I must admit, that was one thing I wasn’t concerned with at all,
and I suppose I was surprised to hear that…just thought I’d mention it…
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
