just checking

[natatbeach]

This is a shot from the last photo mini gathering here in Boston... I really love this shot because the guy is just checking her out and both the "girlfriend"
(I presume) and the other girl were quite oblivious...

does the framing work...it was a pretty quick "grab shot" but I was pleased with the feel of it... any comments feelings or opinions welcome as always...

Thanks

[gahspidy]

Natalie, great shot. this is one of those rare shots where I agree with the square crop. I think the woman right up in the forefront and the rest of the scene behind her is so effective. I think this is one of the best that I have seen from you ( i also loved the shot you posted of the red boats on the still water) as well as many others. The b&w is perfect although a slight bit contrasty but don't change a thing.

[Elysian]

Nice shot and very interesting too, an image that "speaks".
The three people should be in focus, but I don't like the background, too much going on and too distracting in my opinion.
It is possible to have them in focus and not the background, it's about keeping an eye on the dof indicators on your lens if you have any.

Well done.

[Peter_AUS]

Hey JoeD,

On the note about getting the background out of focus, how would you suggest this be done. There is like 8 to 10 feet maybe more between the girl in the front and the guy and the girl, not know what setting Natalie used, I'm guessing, but would be interested in the feedback.

I saw what you did with the double building, ferris wheel and cars, bluring.

[Elysian]

On the note about getting the background out of focus, how would you suggest this be done.

I don't understand you Peter.
It's like I said... keep an eye on the dof markers on the lens (in manual mode) or maby you don't know what these are Peter?

[natatbeach]

This was shot using a point and shoot camera and I had it on auto...which probably explains the lack of control with the depth of field. I've been really trying stuff out to get the DOF field right on different shots so I see what you mean... it would have really brought the "story" even more into focus (no pun intended )

Thnaks

[Elysian]

I still think it's one of your better images even without the dof

[gahspidy]

Just my thought on the dof. I personally feel that in this city scene, I like seeing everything else going on around them. The whole bustle atmosphere of the urban enviroment is helping the story going on in front.

[Elysian]

I still consider it distracting. I do agree, it adds to the atmosphere, but with a bit of dof it looks better and people will still be able to recognise all the little people.
Just a different view on things I guess.

[Lava Lamp]

I...maby you don't know what these are Peter?

JoeD, why do you really feel that comments like the above are necessary? I can't read that as anything other than an attack on Peter. You may have noticed that the general tone on this board is friendly and helpful.

[Elysian]

Lava Lamp, I didn't understand why Peter didn't understand my explantion, which made me wonder if Peter knows about dof markers, nothing more. He asked an innocent question and I replied as best as possible, that's all there is to it.

[Peter_AUS]

JoeD, I do know what they are, and it was a little offensive with the tone of your reply. I asked this, because of the depth between the person in the front and the two people behind being what like 10-12 feet away, how you would do this. I use Canon equipment, and there aren't any DOF markers on the lenses. So with that in mind, how would you blur out the background, keeping the person in front and the two people behind in focus.

You know what you are talking about, I can see that in your posts. With the Jargon and everything, but why, these underlying snide remarks to questions, and this isn't the first I have seen, do you have to make them.

LavaLamp is right in the reply from him, this site is a friendly helpful place, but things have been a little off target lately. Is there something you dislike about a novice that you think should be allowed to post questions, photos etc. You seem to be on a different level when it comes to explaining things.

I have found your replies to people most offensive, but there have been postings where you have helped and advised people well. Why are you so different to certain people. Not everyone completely understands some posts, we all have different levels of education, different cultural backgrounds and they come into play on forums like this and I think you need to keep that in mind.

Just my thoughts.

[Elysian]

I had no intention to be in any way negative or to make fun of anyone and I'm saddened by the fact that you two don't believe me. You have the right to doubt some of my actions in the past, but don't pretend that I'm a liar, which I'm absolutely not. If some of you choose to follow the same path, to interpret my comments in the light of what has happened in the past, I'm sorry, but I thought that there was still something like "forgive and move on". Apparently not.

Photo-John has clearly stated in a personal message how he looked at the whole situation and I don't think it's fair that some of you to drag this on forever, when he himself doesn't have the intention do to so, unless there is good reason to it.

I'm only a short member of this board and I have no clue what Peter's experiences are with photography. If a moderator like Lara with 250 posts writes "I'm a moderator here who will soon be shooting photography", how am I to assume that Peter does know about dof markers? It's the assumption that I should have known that Peter knows about dof markers what leads to all this confusion. Don't blame me for 'assuming' things, when some of you do the same thing!

From now on I will refuse to reply to any more of these comments. You all think it helps the board and maybe you'll achieve that I grab my bags, but in the end you create a lot of negative publicity for this site (in public), exactly that what you accuse me of.

I also know that some of you don't agree with the fact that members continue (read: "continue") to mark me as a black sheep and who do appreciate my honest critique (which I always try to back up with lots of arguments). To them I would like to say; please support me more in public than just in a personal message, it would not only help me but also the board.

I'm not going to spend one word on this whole topic in public from now one, not even one letter. My defense to a silly assumption like we see in this thread only puts more oil on the fire and I refuse to be part of that.

As for the problem, you keep both people in focus by focusing on the point exactly between them. Sometimes there are things you can focus on, sometimes you can't. In that case you have to measure the distance of between point A and B and manually focus on a distance, half ways between those points. Then you use the combination of aperture, shutter speed and ISO setting to get the right dof, for which dof indicators are very helpful. It absolutely possible to get those 3 people sharp (mind me, not perfectly sharp) while still having a background that's reasonable out of focus the bring more depth into the shot.

[Peter_AUS]

Thanks JoeD, for explaining in the last paragraph what I had originally asked some advice on. This has been something I have been having difficulty with and unable to resolve, even with reading about forcusing. One of the problems with todays equipment is things are getting left out.

I'm not sure where the "Liar" bit comes in, certainly wasn't from me and not from any posts I have read over the past days.

I have said to you directly and in public that I think you know what you are talking about and your cretiques help when the information is fully there.

What I try and do when helping out with information, is to assume that the person might not know anything and cover the areas as fully and briefly as possible to allow for a full understanding of the question asked. This is a bit like when asked to write a paper on a subject. Assume the examiner knows nothing about the subject and address it that way. Over time you get to know who knows and doesn't know certain things and then your way of replying to certain people changes to address their level of knowledge. Most people are here trying to learn and it has worked well and should continue to work well if we all take a deep breath and smell the roses so to speak.

Nobody is asking you to pack your bags and go JoeD, but I have seen several people ask, that you look at the way you post, the structure of your posts, and your not the first asked to do this and I have been subject to some criticisim in the past on things as well, which I fully addressed realise my error, try and fix it and move on too.

You seem to think people are out to get you, which they aren't but yes, we need to move on, all of us, and continue in the same vein these forums are recognised for.

The Helpful, Sharing, Nurturing Environment it is and all of us wish it to remain.

There need not be any personal attacks from anyone to address differences, ideas or maybe missunderstandings that happen from time to time, but gentle nudging in the right direction is often better than a head on collision, wouldn't you agree.

I enjoy a good discussion on many subjects, but detest confrontation fully as it usually leads to hatefullness and spitefullness which is something I certainly don't want and believe everyone else wouldn't either.

I speak to you honestly and openly and hope you take my comments to you as they are intended.

[Chunk]

Just my thought on the dof. I personally feel that in this city scene, I like seeing everything else going on around them. The whole bustle atmosphere of the urban enviroment is helping the story going on in front.

I agree, Gary.
This isn't the sort of shot where you see the guy and think now he might do something interesting and figure out what in the scene should be in focus and how to manage dof, etc. and then wait for a worthwhile expression. This is just reacting to what is going on around you. If your camera is set for a large dof you can more easily react to what is happening around you without making large changes in your settings.

I guess that someone might set their camera to normally have a narrow dof, but I'd rather have a wider dof available, especially as I get older with reaction times slowing and vision degrading.

[Chunk]

This is a shot from the last photo mini gathering here in Boston... I really love this shot because the guy is just checking her out and both the "girlfriend"
(I presume) and the other girl were quite oblivious...

does the framing work...it was a pretty quick "grab shot" but I was pleased with the feel of it... any comments feelings or opinions welcome as always...

Thanks

Oh, yeah. Are you real sure he's checking out the cute blond and not the cute photographer?

[another view]

Great street shot. I like the square format - but then a lot of times I like it more than other people. Only thing I might do is a little dodging and burning - darken the background and lighten the girl's face in the foreground.

Darkening the background a little will help it become less prominent. It would be nice to have a little less DOF back there, but even with an SLR it would be hard to get the DOF perfect in a situation like this. Doesn't really bother me that much, and burning in the background might be a good alternative here. To get all of the technical aspects just right, you'd have one in a million odds or have to pose the people - which, of course, wouldn't happen.

[natatbeach]

he was putting his sunglasses on as he spotted her and checked her out and put the sunglasses on and continued to "discreetly" glance... all the while kinda chatting with his chick every so often between glances. it was pretty comical... it seemed a whole lot of effort considering he had a perfectly beautiful girl next to him.

[natatbeach]

but really he wasn't bad looking--he was "interesting looking" more of a rugged look to him ;)

glad you saw the story right away

[natatbeach]

here's the revised version...taking into consideration most of the input given...

with the blurred background and I adjusted the levels a bit to get some details out a bit more. and burned the highlights in the background....

BTW Thnaks everyone for your reponses to this particular one...I REALLY appreciate all the help you've offered...

[Elysian]

Looking good Natalie, the improvements really helped.

One last note: keep an eye on the details in the highlights too. For example the area under the word 'Jak' has lost a few. Just mask them out if you find it hard to keep them under control when you make a correction. Do slightly blur these masks to have a smooth transistion between highlights and the area that's going to be corrected. 1-4 pixels is what I use in most images, depending on the resolution.

Well done!