Animal Portraits, Focus.

EdinburghGary

EdinburghGary

Reply not Report
Suspended / Banned
Messages
19,271
Name
Gary
Edit My Images
Yes
Guys,

Quite simple, just wondering what people prefer?

Option 1:
Ultra shallow DOF, f1.4 and below. Sharp eyes, everything in front (nose etc), will be OOF, everything behind (Ears, Body), OOF....Background melts away...

Option 2:
Sharp from the tip of the nose, through to the back of the head or so, body melts away with baclground...

Option 3:
Sharp face, head, body and some background definition too...

I seem to take a LOT of option 1.

Option 1 example: (Think this is oversharpened, please ignore :) )
3391341327_714bed3d60_o.jpg



One with much more DOF:
a30f1e.jpg



Also are things like Collars, Name Badges and other "man made" objects a put off?

Gary.
 
I try and go for option 2 but I do often end up with option 1, and your example is very good.

I presume this would be an option 2.....

_CBG6454.jpg
 
Depends on the set up I guess...if it was studio-esque then all the body in focus..as just a small amount of the photo being sharp looks a bit odd to me, when against a flatly coloured background.

Outdoors/real environment I think there is a little more scope for experimentation as even the out of focus objects in the background add a little interest to break up the monotomy of it.
 
EdinburghGary said:
Perfect example. And a lovely model!!! He looks rock solid, yet sweet :)

I see no collar. Is this purely to enhance the photo?

Gary.
Click to expand...

This was taken at an equine show, I was taking a break when he wandered over and dropped a stick at my feet waiting for it to be thrown. :D I'd never seen before and when I chucked his stick he returned to the same spot everytime so I just grabbed this one, it's exactly as he was - no collar.
 
Option 2 is what I aim for, unless the head is filling the frame.

An artist made a pencil sketch from one of mine, and the client (my mother!) didn't want the name tag included. Bit like birds and tatts, when they come to their senses ;)
 
I tend to go at it using option 2 or 3.

Couple of shots (First I grabbed from my collection to illustrate)
Unless you are doing something a bit arty the entire head from nose to ears would do well to be in focus

060426_IMG_2369.jpg


For full body shots you still want to maintain some detail throughout the body although it is not critical as long as you get head, shoulders and front paws in focus.

061216_IMG_6386.jpg
 
Thanks guys! So it seems option 2 at the very least, so I guess unless at a decent distance, f1.4 is going to be overkill a lot of the time.

Interesting, I have taken some photos today whilst on our walk, and most of them at f1.4. Will create a thread in a wee while and post the link here. Interesting to see your take.

Gary.
 
love option 1 and option 2 is always a favourite, not a big fan of how option 3 would look,

how about option 1 with a fisheye?
 
Definitely number 2 for me, I like to see the whole of the animal in focus :)
 
EdinburghGary said:
Thanks guys! So it seems option 2 at the very least, so I guess unless at a decent distance, f1.4 is going to be overkill a lot of the time.

Interesting, I have taken some photos today whilst on our walk, and most of them at f1.4. Will create a thread in a wee while and post the link here. Interesting to see your take.

Gary.
Click to expand...

F1.4 can be amazing. I borrowed a friends 35mm F1.4L a couple of months back and I was blown away with how much scope you have. This still rates as one of my favourite 'play' photos to date. Definitly an option 1 here but it's proof that sometimes you need to go real shallo DOF. I don't think that shot would have worked with a great lot more DOF.
IMG_1381.jpg


EdinburghGary said:
Richard,

LOVELY doggy :)

Gary.
Click to expand...
Thanks Gary - it's his fault I'm so into this photography lark! :lol:
 
RichardtheSane said:
F1.4 can be amazing. I borrowed a friends 35mm F1.4L a couple of months back and I was blown away with how much scope you have. This still rates as one of my favourite 'play' photos to date. Definitly an option 1 here but it's proof that sometimes you need to go real shallo DOF. I don't think that shot would have worked with a great lot more DOF.

Thanks Gary - it's his fault I'm so into this photography lark! :lol:
Click to expand...


That's more akin to the shots I prefer I guess. Full of soft shadows, vignetting and lots of blurring, other than on the eyes. Absolutely lovely photo IMO.

Gary.
 
I think i prefer the eyes:)
mini-_MG_0010-1.jpg

Sometimes.:)
mini-IMG_0023-1.jpg
 
good images and options

i suppose its down to personal preferences, myself likes the option 2 most definitely and will have option 3 as well. option 1 doesn't sit well with me
 
I personally prefer option 2 better. These are a couple I have taken to demonstrate what I prefer. I appreciate all peoples opinions differ.

I also agree that collars and tags are distracting, but again its personal preference.
oreymarch091p.jpg


claude2p.jpg


img0419800x600.jpg
 
I personally like option 2 - I normally like to see both the eyes and the nose in focus.

3212801275_84034705b3.jpg


3206111341_84891c686f.jpg


Having said that... sometimes I don't mind a shallower DOF - but strangely mostly when the focus is on the nose...

3277230610_a458dcaf0c.jpg


3166274153_526228aa24.jpg
 
Definitely 2, unless it's a Dorisesque Headshot...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top