What do you think of this shot?

G.T.

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jul 12, 2008
500
0
Is this B&W satisfactory to people (e.g. enough contrast etc.). In terms of pet/animal shot how could it be improved?
 

Attachments


Gold89

macrumors 6502
Dec 17, 2008
263
0
UK
Indeed the bench in the background conflicts with the dog, the horizontal lines just crossing the subject. The background is just as important as the subject.
 

flosseR

macrumors 6502a
Jan 1, 2009
746
0
the cold dark north
it looks like the color shot just got de-saturated and the aperture was too small. The composition could have been better: without the bench and the dog to the left of the frame looking to the right.

IMHO.


//f
 

G.T.

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jul 12, 2008
500
0
Indeed the bench in the background conflicts with the dog, the horizontal lines just crossing the subject. The background is just as important as the subject.
Agreed I should try remember the background more. I should have made sure the bench is straight.
I think because the dog is hard to keep still the shot is rushed and so the background falls down on the priority list. Any tips for animal shots, would a tripod make my life easier?

it looks like the color shot just got de-saturated and the aperture was too small.
When you say too small I take it u mean the number, cause it was shot wide open, f1.7. Also it was put in black and white with a blue filter (made background lighter and dog easier to see).
 

Gold89

macrumors 6502
Dec 17, 2008
263
0
UK
Agreed I should try remember the background more. I should have made sure the bench is straight.
I think because the dog is hard to keep still the shot is rushed and so the background falls down on the priority list. Any tips for animal shots, would a tripod make my life easier?
I would say no to the tripod as the best animal shots are usually spontaneous (imo). If you have a longer lens try using that instead and getting someone else to play with him and just shoot away. Animal shoots are 90% luck, 10% skill, you just have to keep trying to get that great shot.

Cute dog btw. :)
 

G.T.

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jul 12, 2008
500
0
I would say no to the tripod as the best animal shots are usually spontaneous (imo). If you have a longer lens try using that instead and getting someone else to play with him and just shoot away. Animal shoots are 90% luck, 10% skill, you just have to keep trying to get that great shot.

Cute dog btw. :)
Thanks :), will be getting a new lens soon hopefully.
 

flosseR

macrumors 6502a
Jan 1, 2009
746
0
the cold dark north
wow, f1.7? you could have fooled me, I would have guessed 3.5-5.6. For 1.7 the background is not blurred enough. What lens was this? Because at f1.7 it should look different, especially the tree in the background. As an example see this, it was shot at f2.8 and yours should have MUCH more blur, especially in the tree. The distance of the kid to the snow was less than one meter.
 

Attachments

Gold89

macrumors 6502
Dec 17, 2008
263
0
UK
wow, f1.7? you could have fooled me, I would have guessed 3.5-5.6. For 1.7 the background is not blurred enough. What lens was this? Because at f1.7 it should look different, especially the tree in the background. As an example see this, it was shot at f2.8 and yours should have MUCH more blur, especially in the tree. The distance of the kid to the snow was less than one meter.
EXIF says 1/400s f/1.7 ISO100 20mm from Panasonic DMC-GF1 so at 20mm the DOF will not be huge particularly if the OP was away from the subject and has cropped it.
 

FX120

macrumors 65816
May 18, 2007
1,173
232
wow, f1.7? you could have fooled me, I would have guessed 3.5-5.6. For 1.7 the background is not blurred enough. What lens was this? Because at f1.7 it should look different, especially the tree in the background. As an example see this, it was shot at f2.8 and yours should have MUCH more blur, especially in the tree. The distance of the kid to the snow was less than one meter.
Not if the focal length was extremely short, as it is on most point and shoot cameras...
 

El Cabong

macrumors 6502a
Dec 1, 2008
620
278
wow, f1.7? you could have fooled me, I would have guessed 3.5-5.6. For 1.7 the background is not blurred enough. What lens was this? Because at f1.7 it should look different, especially the tree in the background. As an example see this, it was shot at f2.8 and yours should have MUCH more blur, especially in the tree. The distance of the kid to the snow was less than one meter.
Keep in mind that f/1.7 at 20mm on a 4/3 sensor (such as the OP's GF1) is equivalent to f/3.4 at 40mm on a full frame sensor (such as your D700). Aperture is not the sole determinant of DOF.
 

G.T.

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jul 12, 2008
500
0
Keep in mind that f/1.7 at 20mm on a 4/3 sensor (such as the OP's GF1) is equivalent to f/3.4 at 40mm on a full frame sensor (such as your D700). Aperture is not the sole determinant of DOF.
Ah thats good to know, I knew 20mm on micro 4/3rds was doubled so 40mm but didn't realise the f-stop is doubled too. Thanks.
 

flosseR

macrumors 6502a
Jan 1, 2009
746
0
the cold dark north
Keep in mind that f/1.7 at 20mm on a 4/3 sensor (such as the OP's GF1) is equivalent to f/3.4 at 40mm on a full frame sensor (such as your D700). Aperture is not the sole determinant of DOF.
Ok, I should have read the EXIF really. OP, how far away were you?

On the other hand the fstop doesn't double. You are not changing the focal length, just the field of view so the Aperture stays the same.It's like taking the photo at 20mm on a fullframe and then crop it down to the field of view of a 40mm.

well, it still then a question about composition of the photo.

//f
 

leighonigar

macrumors 6502a
May 5, 2007
908
1
Ah thats good to know, I knew 20mm on micro 4/3rds was doubled so 40mm but didn't realise the f-stop is doubled too. Thanks.
The point is that a shorter lens with the same aperture will have a wider depth of field. Hence it is more difficult to isolate subjects with a wide angle than a telephoto. Because a four-thirds sensor is smaller, shorter lenses are used to achieve the same field of view, when compared to DX-crop or full frame cameras. Thus, if you were using a full-frame camera you might have had a 40mm f/1.7 prime (hypothetically) to get the same shot, but you would have had greater subject isolation. Somebody volunteered that you would have had to shoot at f/3.4 with the hypothetical full frame/40mm combo to get a shot that looked broadly the same.

The others have said this, but I thought I would say it again, sometimes reading several takes helps.

Also... nice dog!
 

G.T.

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jul 12, 2008
500
0
Ok, I should have read the EXIF really. OP, how far away were you?

On the other hand the fstop doesn't double. You are not changing the focal length, just the field of view so the Aperture stays the same.It's like taking the photo at 20mm on a fullframe and then crop it down to the field of view of a 40mm.

well, it still then a question about composition of the photo.

//f
I was fairly close too subject cause its a prime lens so obviously can't zoom.

The point is that a shorter lens with the same aperture will have a wider depth of field. Hence it is more difficult to isolate subjects with a wide angle than a telephoto. Because a four-thirds sensor is smaller, shorter lenses are used to achieve the same field of view, when compared to DX-crop or full frame cameras. Thus, if you were using a full-frame camera you might have had a 40mm f/1.7 prime (hypothetically) to get the same shot, but you would have had greater subject isolation. Somebody volunteered that you would have had to shoot at f/3.4 with the hypothetical full frame/40mm combo to get a shot that looked broadly the same.

The others have said this, but I thought I would say it again, sometimes reading several takes helps.

Also... nice dog!
I'm confused now this the aperture value. So it doesn't double then only the focal length. OK before this thread I only thought that the focal length changed with sensor size, now some people are saying focal length changes and others are not. So I would have said f1.7 at 40mm would produce the same result is this correct? Or are there other factors?
 

HBOC

macrumors 68020
Oct 14, 2008
2,494
234
SLC
i really like the dog one (the set you posted). The colours in the background really bring out the colour of the dog. Also his pose gives off emotion, which every photo should convey. Well done!
 

leighonigar

macrumors 6502a
May 5, 2007
908
1
I was fairly close too subject cause its a prime lens so obviously can't zoom.



I'm confused now this the aperture value. So it doesn't double then only the focal length. OK before this thread I only thought that the focal length changed with sensor size, now some people are saying focal length changes and others are not. So I would have said f1.7 at 40mm would produce the same result is this correct? Or are there other factors?
Firstly, I think you did a great job on those last two photographs, the separation, mood and colour are really nice.

Secondly, and I originally wrote a very long reply, but I think it was a bit cryptic, you need to grasp the difference between actual focal length, which is a fixed character of a lens and effective focal length, which is something photographers used to using 35mm film made up. When we say your 20mm is a 40mm, we really are just referring to the field of view we would expect on a 35mm film, or full-frame based camera. It's a comparison based on magnification (and so field of view for a given frame size), not on other characters such as depth of field. Where DOF is concerned, a 20mm, is a 20mm, is a 20mm, regardless of format.

To get the same field of view from the same position would have required a 40mm lens, if you were using a full-frame camera (though, actually the aspect ratios are different, ignoring that). To get the same depth of field from a full frame camera in the same position, a 20mm shot at f/1.7 would do the job, this photo would have a wider field of view, but could be cropped down to a shot matching the above.
 

flosseR

macrumors 6502a
Jan 1, 2009
746
0
the cold dark north
To get the same field of view from the same position would have required a 40mm lens, if you were using a full-frame camera (though, actually the aspect ratios are different, ignoring that). To get the same depth of field from a full frame camera in the same position, a 20mm shot at f/1.7 would do the job, this photo would have a wider field of view, but could be cropped down to a shot matching the above.
Yeps by about half :) for micro 4/3rds. So the crop factor and "multiplier" is purely for the field of view, NOT the depth of field.

And you focal length does not physically change its still a 20mm lens, your sensor just sees the same as with a 40mm lens if both were on the traditional 35mm film camera size.
On the second pictures.. the cat did it for me. What a change.. Those second pics really work MUCH better. ou concentrated on the subjects and they stand out well.

Good job.

//F
 

G.T.

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jul 12, 2008
500
0
i really like the dog one (the set you posted). The colours in the background really bring out the colour of the dog. Also his pose gives off emotion, which every photo should convey. Well done!
Thanks :) I'm getting there.

Firstly, I think you did a great job on those last two photographs, the separation, mood and colour are really nice.

Secondly, and I originally wrote a very long reply, but I think it was a bit cryptic, you need to grasp the difference between actual focal length, which is a fixed character of a lens and effective focal length, which is something photographers used to using 35mm film made up. When we say your 20mm is a 40mm, we really are just referring to the field of view we would expect on a 35mm film, or full-frame based camera. It's a comparison based on magnification (and so field of view for a given frame size), not on other characters such as depth of field. Where DOF is concerned, a 20mm, is a 20mm, is a 20mm, regardless of format.

To get the same field of view from the same position would have required a 40mm lens, if you were using a full-frame camera (though, actually the aspect ratios are different, ignoring that). To get the same depth of field from a full frame camera in the same position, a 20mm shot at f/1.7 would do the job, this photo would have a wider field of view, but could be cropped down to a shot matching the above.
Thanks for the help. It makes more sense now :).

Hard to believe these photos were taken by the same person as the first photo! That's quite a drastic improvement.
:D I just keep taking loads of shots practicing, I know I should take more time to think of the scene which in those two pictures is much more clear I hope. I know when taking shots of pets I feel rushed not to miss out on the perfect moments.

Yeps by about half :) for micro 4/3rds. So the crop factor and "multiplier" is purely for the field of view, NOT the depth of field.

And you focal length does not physically change its still a 20mm lens, your sensor just sees the same as with a 40mm lens if both were on the traditional 35mm film camera size.
On the second pictures.. the cat did it for me. What a change.. Those second pics really work MUCH better. ou concentrated on the subjects and they stand out well.

Good job.

//F
Thanks for your input.
 

eyewobbles83

macrumors newbie
Apr 10, 2010
3
0
I agree the issue here is framing and perhaps depth of feild. I would have used the bench, an object with many straight lines, to frame this shot which would have meant shooting along side the bench. This way, using the bench to frame, it is not taking focus away from the subject. Also, as i mention, i would have used DoF to take some focus off of the background and bring the subject into more prominence, as it is pretty much an attempt at animal protraiture. Perhaps with blurring the background out, if only slightly, as well as using appropriate framing this shot would have ben much nicer.
 

G.T.

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jul 12, 2008
500
0
I agree the issue here is framing and perhaps depth of feild. I would have used the bench, an object with many straight lines, to frame this shot which would have meant shooting along side the bench. This way, using the bench to frame, it is not taking focus away from the subject. Also, as i mention, i would have used DoF to take some focus off of the background and bring the subject into more prominence, as it is pretty much an attempt at animal protraiture. Perhaps with blurring the background out, if only slightly, as well as using appropriate framing this shot would have ben much nicer.
Yeah I need to frame bench better. But as I said before I used the lens with smallest aperture value I had f1.7, so can't really do much more for DoF could blur more in PS though.