Back Modifications (0)
Views: 112 (48 Unique) 
Vote 32
Award Shortlist   

Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


Comments


saeidNL 6 3 Netherlands
18 Jan 2011 6:49PM
Wonderful and Excellent capture,
saeid

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

stevoe_mc 7 3 Scotland
18 Jan 2011 6:52PM
lovely shot, great capture
steven
18 Jan 2011 6:56PM
Captured this very well with superb detail and colour.

Len
18 Jan 2011 7:12PM
this is a great shot with nice colours and nice dof well done regards jim
18 Jan 2011 7:32PM
Stunning close up detail capture, love the composition, super animal great colours.
Jeff
Mynett 7 142 6 United Kingdom
18 Jan 2011 8:10PM
a sly and long legged look to this fox, very nice capture

Linda
CarolG Plus
9 195 18 Greece
19 Jan 2011 6:13AM
A super capture, Tim. Carol
gingerdelight 9 298 11 United Kingdom
19 Jan 2011 8:59AM
Love this one Tim!
Carol
20 Jan 2011 9:38AM
Wonderful capture, Tim.
TrevB Smile
Lillian Plus
6 21 17 United Kingdom
20 Jan 2011 1:02PM
A great capture and what a look ..has his eye on somebody, wonder who?
Good colours and detail Tim
Lillian
20 Jan 2011 4:00PM
Wonderful shot Tim - well done !

Chris
Glostopcat Plus
10 255 2 England
23 Jan 2011 4:56PM
A fine shot of this handsome animal, he/she is posing beautifully for you
DRicherby 7 269 725 United Kingdom
26 Jan 2011 2:39PM
I think I'd prefer more depth of field in this one. Having only the head fully sharp doesn't seem quite enough, to me, especially as the front legs are quite a large part of the frame and are in that in-between case of not being fully sharp but not really being nicely blurred, either. You've bags of shutter speed to go to f/8, for example.
tigertimb 8 40 66 United Kingdom
27 Jan 2011 10:15AM
Hi Dave
Thankyou so much for the critique, although may I respectively ask if you'd be happy with less DOF instead of more?

I agree entirely about the detail of the fox's legs, and obviously I had lots of shutter speed to play with, but I chose the aperture for the shallow DOF and already feel that the background is getting a little busy. Going to f8 and I feel I'd also lose the way the subject is isolated from the background and that slight '3d' feel.

This is obviously always going to be the choice and compromise when the subject isn't that far from the background. And in terms of preference, I admit that I'm probably close to the extreme in liking the effect of a shallow DOF, as long as the critical features are sharp.

Would be lovely not to have to compromise in this way and suit more people's preference: to get the whole subject sharp and then have a rapid dropoff to blur the background.
And I've been trying to reason it through in my head: am I right in my thought that a long focal length from further away is the way to have this control; that for the same DOF the dropoff with sharpness would be quicker?

Tim
DRicherby 7 269 725 United Kingdom
28 Jan 2011 5:00PM
tigertimb wrote:
> I respectively ask if you'd be happy with less DOF instead of more?
> [...]
> I'm probably close to the extreme in liking the effect of a shallow DOF, as long as the critical features are sharp.


I don't think I'd be happy with less DoF, either, though that would address the issue of the legs being in that half-way house of neither sharp nor fully blurred. Liking shallow depth of field is fair enough, and largely a matter of personal style, but, to me, this photograph contradicts itself a bit. The shallow depth of field seems to be saying that the face is really the only important thing in the shot, since it's the only part that can be seen clearly. The composition as a whole seems to be saying that you want me to appreciate the fox in its environment but I can't even see the whole fox clearly, let alone its environment. I think this 'mixed message' dilutes the shot's impact.

In general, I'd say that less depth of field requires a closer crop so that the composition and DoF are making essentially the same point. For example, here's one of my cat photos (off-site link). I'm not proposing that it's a perfect shot but it does illustrate my point. The depth of field is very shallow at 200mm and f/4 (full zoom and wide open on that lens) which means that just the cat's head is sharp. But the head takes up about a third of the frame and the extra space is mostly there for composition, to give him space to look into.

In contrast, the fox's face here is only about a twentieth of the frame. Now, I'm not saying that there's some magic percentage of the frame that has to be sharp for a photo to work but I do think that there needs to be consistency between what the composition and the depth of field say is important in the shot.

> already feel that the background is getting a little busy.

I don't think it's too bad, as the orange fox stands out well against the green. Even at f/8, I think the fox would hold the shot. Smoothly blurred backgrounds are great but you do need a decent distance between subject and background to get that.

> And I've been trying to reason it through in my head: am I right in my thought that a long focal length from further
> away is the way to have this control; that for the same DOF the dropoff with sharpness would be quicker?


From the way you've phrased this, I assume you know that you get the same depth of field at essentially any focal length as long as the subject framing is the same. I'm not sure if that means that the sharp region tails off faster or not. However, longer focal length lenses certainly give the impression of more background blur because they have a narrower angle of view. This means that, if you'd taken this shot from farther away with, say, a 300mm lens at f/3.2 (good luck affording one of those Wink) you'd get the same DoF on the fox but a smaller amount of background would be spread over the same amount of photograph, giving an apparently greater degree of blur. Brian Carnathan has a good demo of this on his site (flower shots, about 60% of the way down that page).
tigertimb 8 40 66 United Kingdom
28 Jan 2011 7:19PM
PM sent Dave, but thankyou for the detailed and considered feedback; lots for me to take on board and not really thought about the relation of DOF to composition before

Tim

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.