Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: >Thanks for the clarification! > >It's interesting ... that's three comments on this list preferring >more DoF. Comments from other lists haven't mentioned it at all. > They aren't as smart as we are :)
seriously - the darkest thing in the photo is blurry - and it is on the right... so it kinda leaps out at you. if the foreground twigs had been blurry and the large twig sharp it perhaps might have worked ... For me it isn't that you used shallow DOF, but that what was not in focus overwhelmed the rest. And your photos are so much better than this generally... so one want's to give you a jolt :) ann > >I photographed this scene both at f/3.5 and at f/11 as it was hard to >tell in the viewfinder or LCD which one would do what I wanted: > > http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW7/48ba.htm > >To my eye, the deeper DoF loses the dimensionality I was after and >becomes a little too planar. I wished I could have gotten just a >little bit more blur, a little shallower DoF. > >Very interesting what appeals to other eyes... !! :-) > >Thanks for all your comments. > > >best, >Godfrey > >On Nov 25, 2007, at 7:40 PM, ann sanfedele wrote: > > > >>Godders - he means the out of focus reed in the background - top right >>bothered me, too. >> >>I liked your little free verse intro , though >> >> >> >>>Thank you for your comment. >>>Can you be more specific? I'm not sure I understand what you mean. >>> >>> >>> >>>>Don't care much for the out of focus ones... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW7/48b.htm >>>>> >>>>> > > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
