From: Savageduck on
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.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

From: LOL! on
On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 20:07:00 -0500, Larry Thong
<larry_thong(a)shitstring.com> 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.

What's that? ANOTHER DSLR image shot to hell due to too shallow DOF? What
were the odds of THAT happening? AGAIN.

LOL!

>>
>> 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

But of course you are! You're a low-life crapshooter. How would you know
what is and is not a decent image? You've proved that so many times it has
become common knowledge.

LOL!

> as this is what I wanted.

Of course it is!

> I do have other shots at different apertures for different
>effects.

Sure you do!

LOL!

From: John McWilliams on
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. I do have other shots at different apertures for different
> effects.

The arm being OoF distracts. But otherwise a perfect shot.
--
john mcwilliams
From: Bruce on
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.

From: John McWilliams on
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?

--
john mcwilliams