Love these images, though I haven't shot Nikon for quite a while -- nice talent on display.
But, wanted to throw in my 2 cents:
I don't really agree with the tone the poster took nor about bokeh necessarily being a crutch (though I guess some photographers use it as such...we all have our vices!) but I will say this...with the understanding that I'm not pointing out any single photographer here or anywhere else for that matter....too much bokeh I think gets distracting (and by bokeh, I'm actually meaning "very thin DOF")
It seems contradictory, but true. I'm not sure exactly what the issue is but maybe I can explain it...some photos (especially with 200/2s, though I love that image thread) look fake.
The same phenomenon also happens with the Sony 135 STF lens, which actually sorta turned me off to that lens.
I think it's because someone will photograph a 'flat field' shot, meaning the intended focal plane--containing the subject and surrounding photo elements--is entirely parallel with the sensor. The background elements are far enough away that the are almost obliterated.
The effect, then, is that you have what looks like a composite image. Super-sharp (and usually really nice) subject that almost looks like it's been pasted on a digital background.
The same effect happens when someone locally edits a file with a gaussian blur and obliterates the background a little too much -- it just tends to look a bit unnatural to me.
That's not to say all 200/2 shots (or 100/1.4 or 135 STF, etc) are like that, but when the stars align just so, the photos look very 'odd' because of this phenomenon -- Super sharp subject foreground and zero transition to a super-blurred background.
I think it's that distinct lack of fall-off that really looks strange to me. It's not that I'm adverse to the '3-D' ness of a shot (I LOVE those) but the ones I like typically have transitions, whereas something like a 200/2 or the STF can have a jarring non-transition ??
edit -- just realized that other poster may have been talking about bokeh, in general, as a crutch, which I totally disagree with. It's what helps us separate the look of our photo from something like a P&S camera and it's infinity-DOF I guess I went on a crazy tangent with my line of thinking.
There is a distinct difference to a bokeh background and a Gaussian blur background.
cputeq wrote:
First:
Love these images, though I haven't shot Nikon for quite a while -- nice talent on display.
But, wanted to throw in my 2 cents:
I don't really agree with the tone the poster took nor about bokeh necessarily being a crutch (though I guess some photographers use it as such...we all have our vices!) but I will say this...with the understanding that I'm not pointing out any single photographer here or anywhere else for that matter....too much bokeh I think gets distracting (and by bokeh, I'm actually meaning "very thin DOF")
It seems contradictory, but true. I'm not sure exactly what the issue is but maybe I can explain it...some photos (especially with 200/2s, though I love that image thread) look fake.
The same phenomenon also happens with the Sony 135 STF lens, which actually sorta turned me off to that lens.
I think it's because someone will photograph a 'flat field' shot, meaning the intended focal plane--containing the subject and surrounding photo elements--is entirely parallel with the sensor. The background elements are far enough away that the are almost obliterated.
The effect, then, is that you have what looks like a composite image. Super-sharp (and usually really nice) subject that almost looks like it's been pasted on a digital background.
The same effect happens when someone locally edits a file with a gaussian blur and obliterates the background a little too much -- it just tends to look a bit unnatural to me.
That's not to say all 200/2 shots (or 100/1.4 or 135 STF, etc) are like that, but when the stars align just so, the photos look very 'odd' because of this phenomenon -- Super sharp subject foreground and zero transition to a super-blurred background.
I think it's that distinct lack of fall-off that really looks strange to me. It's not that I'm adverse to the '3-D' ness of a shot (I LOVE those) but the ones I like typically have transitions, whereas something like a 200/2 or the STF can have a jarring non-transition ??
edit -- just realized that other poster may have been talking about bokeh, in general, as a crutch, which I totally disagree with. It's what helps us separate the look of our photo from something like a P&S camera and it's infinity-DOF I guess I went on a crazy tangent with my line of thinking.
falconbach wrote:
Congrats with your new puppy. Very cute!
Did the lens track him well? What was the keeper rate? I thought that this lens would be too slow focusing for running puppies or dogs.
Keeper rate @ F1.4 is about 1 out of 5, maybe less but I wouldn't think any lens will be great wide open but I could be wrong. I haven't used it much for action but it does track my son's hockey games fine when they are skating head on to me and it does track this little guy running straight towards me.
Definitely no 200mm F2 or even 70-200mm F2.8 but I can't say I have ever felt the focus speed has limited what I can capture.
3d vs the fake look is mostly about composition and light. The transition of the lens is glorious but you need to use your environment so the brain beleives in the picture with out the common viewer being conscious of why.
I guess I went on a crazy tangent with my line of thinking.
