I too love that ethereal look. It’s why I got the lens. You’re right, sometimes it’s the wrong choice but often hs such a cool dreamy look.
I ran into a downside shooting 2 ppl together and realized oh duh Rich, they both need to be in focus.
But portraits it’s cool on.
I could see there being a time to close way down for fashion too. Then you need to show the whole outfit.
DanielScott wrote:
I for one am a big fan of shallow depth of field, even in-studio. I have a big appreciation for breaking away from the rules and I think you did it well. Perhaps it wasn't the best choice for all of these shots (though I think it worked really well for the second shot), but I would still love to see you experiment with this, just perhaps in situations where the face is the only thing that needs to be in sharp focus, or when that shallow depth of field helps convey a message, story, or intent. For example I love the look of old fashioned tintype studio portraits with a very shallow depth of field, and an f/1.2 aperture in my opinion is a good way to mimic that depth of field. It has a very interesting and ethereal look that I really love. I have often been heavily criticized by other photographers for choosing to shoot at f/1.2 with my 85mm lens, but I love the look, and so do my clients, so I will continue to do so when I want to. It doesn't mean I do all of the time, but I don't hesitate to shoot at f/1.2 when I want to. ...Show more →
Those pics were to promote a show I just did Friday. Went pretty good. He asked me to come back every Friday. Plus I have a gig in a couple weeks on the 13th. That place asked me to do a Sunday as well.
Each show is decent money so….kids school and bday money, potential lens or guitar money too.
Danpbphoto wrote:
Pickin' but no grinnin' brother!
Glad these have your "gittar" in the frame!!!
Any gigs lately?
Well done Rich!
Dan
and the sinus infection was was an added "attraction"........nice humor!
...nice humor!