RustyBug
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
|
 Re: Patrick | |
Dneufarth wrote:
DanielScott wrote:
Personally, I don't like the crop, and I wish the depth of field wasn't so thin because I think some more detail in his skin would add a lot to this photo.
f/1.2 is a tough aperture setting for a close-in portrait like this and in my opinion was the wrong choice of aperture setting. I feel like this shot is missing something, and perhaps it's lost in the crop and in the incredibly shallow depth of field. I like a strong connection, but I'm just not able to connect well with a portrait that cuts so much of the face off and has such a small sliver if detail where it is in focus. I think perhaps if this were shot at least at f/2 it would have enough to keep both eyes in focus and enough skin detail to to really appreciate, but otherwise I just have a hard time feeling satisfied with the connection when I view this. I'm curious to see the un-cropped version.
Daniel, thank you so much for the input. I know that this style is not for everyone. I admire your work for it’s precision, and how clean your post work is. My personal taste for my personal work is “in your face,” and in this case, I love the swirling, topographical, plane of focus. Although, I will admit that I would prefer that the left eye was a tad sharper, but to get both eyes would have required at least f2.8, and the swirl would be gone. As requested here is the un-cropped version.
Interesting point about your preference for the swirl. It sounds as though it is something you find attractive (additive). 
Compared to Daniel's points, it sounds as his comments are things he finds as detractions (subtractive).
Just a comparative point that we all have to give consideration to those things that are additive vs. those things that are subtractive to our goals for a given image. Sometimes, one outweighs the other. How much any given audience will find the detractors vs. attractors is variable, but it is something to be aware of when the quid pro quo relationship of our choices is in play. One person's attractor, can generate another person's detractor ... vice verse. 
I think for me, this one is more of a "umm, skinny is tough, just missed ... but, still gets the job done with some intimacy". I never went "swirl, how cool", otoh. I tend to find that the large central oof area of the nose (general to all images, not specific to this one) to be a detractor, en route to the eyes or mouth, whenever folks go this skinny on the topography of the facial contours. But, that's just me. Others will love it.
I'd be really curious to see the same shot at 1.2, 1.4, 1.8, 2.0 ... to find the "sweet spot" from the subject distance for this one. My guess would be that 1.4 or 1.8 would retain the topography (attractor), and reduce / minimize the incongruent (detractor) of the focus on the eyes. Maybe an exercise for another day.
Anyway, looks like you had a good session. 
|
