[LRflex] Re: I finally got a olympus 35 macro, quizz anyone ?
- From: "David Young" <dsy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Bille Xavier F." <leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 07:29:45 -0800
In a message dated 20/01/2011, Bille Xavier F. said ...
>BXF- Right on spot Richard!
>BXF- David has used the same explanation as yours to emphisize the point!
Good Morning, Xavier, Richard and all:
If I may weigh in...
For an image of an animal or person to look good, their eyes must be sharp.
When we are speaking, in conversation, you don't look at my double chin, or
my fast receding hairline, or my floppy ears... you look at my eyes. And I
look at yours. It's what we humans do, when we converse.
So, simply put, if the eyes are sharp, the photo is sharp. If the eyes are
soft, with the point of focus as near as the bridge of the nose, people
will look at your photos and be underwhelmed. Most likely, they won't even
know why; and they'll likely mumble "very nice", or some such thing. But
they won't be "wow-ed". When it comes to eyes, close doesn't cut it.
Proof of this concept is simple. In this photo of a duckling, the depth of
field is about .6cm (1/4 inch). So, other than the eye, almost nothing is
sharp! Yet, 95% of the people who see this shot (and I've shown it to
hundreds, if not thousands, at various fairs), will tell me it's sharp.
http://www.furnfeather.net/Temps/duckling.html
Repeat after me... "If the eyes are sharp, the image is sharp."
Now, if your subject has his/her face at an angle to you, the eye nearest
the camera (viewer) must be sharp. It's OK if the eye farther away is a
bit soft, even a lot soft, so long as the eye nearest the subject is tack
sharp.
With Xavier's image of Ayda, there are two problems. The first is the
somewhat soft near eye (the joys of auto-focus - especially at close
range!). It appears that the point of focus is on the bridge of the
nose... so, here, a smaller aperture would have probably have made the
difference.
The second is that using a w/a lens for portraiture, tends to emphasize the
body parts nearest the lens... thus Ayda's forehead, eyes and nose seem
disproportionate to her lips and chin. Still, I must admit, I like the
choice of angle! And it's not as bad as it would have been on a FF camera,
for the 2x crop factor means that, even with a 35mm lens, Xavier was back
further than he would have been, to fill the frame of a FF sensor!
The perils of getting too close, with a w/a lens, are seen here:
http://www.furnfeather.net/Temps/TooClose.html
Had Ayda's portrait been done with, say, Oly's 50mm macro,rather than the
35mm version, that problem would likely have been solved.
I'll get off my soap box, now....
Cheers!
David.
--
David Young - Photographer
Logan Lake, CANADA
Wildlife: www.furnfeather.net
Personal: www.main.furnfeather.net
A micro-lender through www.Kiva.org.
------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/
Archives are at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
Other related posts:
