Pulling Strings With The 70-200 VR2!!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Things are getting a bit spotty with the 500/4 Nikkor!!
Next: But will MS's overheat in the sun, like the Crapple iPad?
From: Savageduck on 2 Aug 2010 10:18 On 2010-08-02 06:13:26 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> said: > Bruce wrote: >> On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 17:16:19 -0700, Savageduck >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >>> On 2010-08-01 16:39:29 -0700, Larry Thong <larry_thong(a)shitstring.com> said: >>> >>>> I know, I know, this was a job for the good old 200/2, but I was a bit >>>> lazy to carry it today so I went on the cheap with the trusty old 70-200 >>>> VR2. It worked! >>>> >>>> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Strings.jpg> >>> This is a nice capture, but it is spoilt by shooting wide open and >>> having the right arm OF. >> >> >> Absolutely. >> Potentially a very good shot, ruined by a poor choice of aperture. > > Possibly that particular aperture was fine, but if the focal point was > moved to just past the arm, the arm and the face/violin could have also > been in focus, no? No. It is a DOF issue. The 70-200 VRII f/2.8 stopped down, as it should have been, would be quite capable of cleaning up the problem. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: MC on 2 Aug 2010 12:39 Larry Thong wrote: > On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 17:16:19 -0700, Savageduck wrote: > > > On 2010-08-01 16:39:29 -0700, Larry Thong > > <larry_thong(a)shitstring.com> said: > > > >> I know, I know, this was a job for the good old 200/2, but I was a > bit >> lazy to carry it today so I went on the cheap with the trusty > old >> 70-200 VR2. It worked! > >> > >> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Strings.jpg> > > > > This is a nice capture, but it is spoilt by shooting wide open and > > having the right arm OF. > > > > I don't know what your actual aperture was, as we have no EXIF > > data. I can only guess you were wide open at f/2.8. I would have > > thought there was more than enough light + VRII to shoot at > > f/6.3-f/12 bringing that arm into focus. > > Thanks. I'm content with the arm not being in focus as this is what > I wanted. Why? What was your reasoning behind wanting a big blurred arm acros the bottom of the frame? The whole image is spoiled by it. MC
From: Savageduck on 2 Aug 2010 12:51 On 2010-08-02 09:39:19 -0700, "MC" <any(a)any.any> said: > Larry Thong wrote: > >> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 17:16:19 -0700, Savageduck wrote: >> >>> On 2010-08-01 16:39:29 -0700, Larry Thong >>> <larry_thong(a)shitstring.com> said: >>> >>>> I know, I know, this was a job for the good old 200/2, but I was a >> bit >> lazy to carry it today so I went on the cheap with the trusty >> old >> 70-200 VR2. It worked! >>>> >>>> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Strings.jpg> >>> >>> This is a nice capture, but it is spoilt by shooting wide open and >>> having the right arm OF. >>> >>> I don't know what your actual aperture was, as we have no EXIF >>> data. I can only guess you were wide open at f/2.8. I would have >>> thought there was more than enough light + VRII to shoot at >>> f/6.3-f/12 bringing that arm into focus. >> >> Thanks. I'm content with the arm not being in focus as this is what >> I wanted. > > Why? What was your reasoning behind wanting a big blurred arm acros > the bottom of the frame? The whole image is spoiled by it. > > MC I agree. Sorry Rita, there is no rationalization fro the OOF right arm. Any claim of artistic interpretation, and deliberate intent, would be just silly. You can do better that that. It remains a good capture spoilt. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: Allen on 2 Aug 2010 16:05 Savageduck wrote: > On 2010-08-02 06:13:26 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> said: > >> Bruce wrote: >>> On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 17:16:19 -0700, Savageduck >>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >>>> On 2010-08-01 16:39:29 -0700, Larry Thong >>>> <larry_thong(a)shitstring.com> said: >>>> >>>>> I know, I know, this was a job for the good old 200/2, but I was a bit >>>>> lazy to carry it today so I went on the cheap with the trusty old >>>>> 70-200 >>>>> VR2. It worked! >>>>> >>>>> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Strings.jpg> >>>> This is a nice capture, but it is spoilt by shooting wide open and >>>> having the right arm OF. >>> >>> >>> Absolutely. >>> Potentially a very good shot, ruined by a poor choice of aperture. >> >> Possibly that particular aperture was fine, but if the focal point was >> moved to just past the arm, the arm and the face/violin could have >> also been in focus, no? > > No. > It is a DOF issue. The 70-200 VRII f/2.8 stopped down, as it should have > been, would be quite capable of cleaning up the problem. > But what would it have done to the background, which is totally non-distracting? I think this is probably why Rita chose the one with the bowing arm OOF. Allen
From: Savageduck on 2 Aug 2010 17:10
On 2010-08-02 13:05:33 -0700, Allen <allent(a)austin.rr.com> said: > Savageduck wrote: >> On 2010-08-02 06:13:26 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> said: >> >>> Bruce wrote: >>>> On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 17:16:19 -0700, Savageduck >>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >>>>> On 2010-08-01 16:39:29 -0700, Larry Thong <larry_thong(a)shitstring.com> said: >>>>> >>>>>> I know, I know, this was a job for the good old 200/2, but I was a bit >>>>>> lazy to carry it today so I went on the cheap with the trusty old 70-200 >>>>>> VR2. It worked! >>>>>> >>>>>> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Strings.jpg> >>>>> This is a nice capture, but it is spoilt by shooting wide open and >>>>> having the right arm OF. >>>> >>>> >>>> Absolutely. >>>> Potentially a very good shot, ruined by a poor choice of aperture. >>> >>> Possibly that particular aperture was fine, but if the focal point was >>> moved to just past the arm, the arm and the face/violin could have also >>> been in focus, no? >> >> No. >> It is a DOF issue. The 70-200 VRII f/2.8 stopped down, as it should >> have been, would be quite capable of cleaning up the problem. >> > But what would it have done to the background, which is totally > non-distracting? I think this is probably why Rita chose the one with > the bowing arm OOF. > Allen I know that a distracting background can also ruin a shot, but this capture could have been made with the background OOF and the complete subject in focus. I believe this is not one of those cases where the quest for classic, creamy background bokeh should be made to the detriment of the subject. The background would not have been sharp at f/4-f/5.6, certainly not with classic creamy bokeh. It would not be distracting, and the arm should be in focus. The OOF arm spoils the shot. To salvage it, all of the fiddler needs to be in focus first. If needed the background could be easily dealt with in PP. -- Regards, Savageduck |