p.1 #1 · Model glamour beauty/shallow depth of field
Hi guys,
from my latest beauty shoot, wide open with the DC Nikkor 135mm f2 and 85mm 1.4, hope some of you will find it useful http://www.mikekobal.com/blog/?p=6342
cheers,
Mike
p.1 #2 · Model glamour beauty/shallow depth of field
Lovely set. As a maximum aperture kind of guy myself, I find that I have underestimated the required DOF many, many times. In your series shots 3 & 5 have the close eye at critical focus, but the away eye nearly, but not, in focus. This is in contrast to image # 2 where the two eye's focal planes are very clearly separate; and in #4 where the planes are identical. My point is that nearly-in focus creates a bothersome ambiguity that clearly out of focus does not - especially in tight shots that emphasize the eyes.
I have made hundreds, if not thousands, of portraits where I have committed the same technique that I'm criticizing here. In retrospect and in being honest, I find that had I worked at 2.0 or 2.2 instead of 1.2 or 1.4, I'd have made a stronger contact with the model and a better portrait - yet without disrupting the dreamy atmosphere I was afraid of ruining by stopping down slightly.
Just my personal analysis. Everything else about your series and model and very lovely to my eyes.
p.1 #3 · Model glamour beauty/shallow depth of field
I know it was intentional, and I know it was supposed to break the rules, but for me this rule breaking is not working I don't mind portraits with narrow DoF and have shot and shown many myself, but for me a beauty shoot is all about that crisp, sharp appearance and being able to take in all the detail. This set lost that in my eyes.
They are, however, beautifully styled and beautifully lit. And they certainly stand out from the crowd.
p.1 #4 · Model glamour beauty/shallow depth of field
thanks for your feedback, John and ChiShutter. I am very interested to hear fellow photographers opinions. The blurry approach was a team request and putting the second eye out of focus was intentional, for the finals we even went further and applied additional blur in post to simulate that large format feeling. Usually we shoot beauty "sharp" and this was a welcome break for everyone involved, of course I don't have enough distance to judge it since I just shot it and the team loved it -but we are all biased of course-I am really grateful for feedback here, looking forward to more comments.
p.1 #5 · Model glamour beauty/shallow depth of field
Have to agree with ChiShutter. Not digging it I'm afraid. I could handle the softness and oof thing but not with one eye in and one out. I don't think this style of oof/soft image suits the styling myself. Just my opinion of course.
P.S what was supposed to be helpful or did I miss something?
I don't mind portraits with narrow DoF and have shot and shown many myself, but for me a beauty shoot is all about that crisp, sharp appearance and being able to take in all the detail. This set lost that in my eyes.
.