For clarity, in both photos I mentioned I do like the pose of the model, and the way they've "relaxed into the frame". I'd just have moved the steps. (And since the steps are somewhat non-trivial to move, just for a photo, the more realistic option is to consider asking the model to move a touch to the left/right, and/or moving the camera to match.) It is, however, very much an artistic choice. And it sounds like you got the result you wanted.
I saw an experienced photographer point out recently that if lens design had started now -- with our pretty insane by historical standards ISO levels (100-400 was "high" for most of the 20th C; these days 1600-6400 is "high") -- then there may never have been a technical reason to create lenses with really wide apertures (f/1.8, f/1.4, f/1.2, f/1.0, f/0.9), the focus would have gone into "a bit higher ISO". (For both the original technical reason was "acceptable shutter speed in low light".) But now, as you say, that "shallow depth of field" option has become part of the visual language of photography ("pay attention to this bit, the rest is background"). As it happens I am short sighted (about -7.5 diopter), so shallow depth of field/blur can definitely resonate a lot for me.
BTW, it occurs to me -- just now -- that "digital noise" is the steampunk of film grain. So it's even more appropriate. (Possibly only in that pretentious arty way though :-) )
Ewen
PS: I know Sadie via a mutual friend from her former country, and Joy from Rock'n'Roll dancing (and via Sadie prior to that). I too have a hopeless memory for names, so it's possible both our brains are refusing to recall a time when we met!
I saw an experienced photographer point out recently that if lens design had started now -- with our pretty insane by historical standards ISO levels (100-400 was "high" for most of the 20th C; these days 1600-6400 is "high") -- then there may never have been a technical reason to create lenses with really wide apertures (f/1.8, f/1.4, f/1.2, f/1.0, f/0.9), the focus would have gone into "a bit higher ISO". (For both the original technical reason was "acceptable shutter speed in low light".) But now, as you say, that "shallow depth of field" option has become part of the visual language of photography ("pay attention to this bit, the rest is background"). As it happens I am short sighted (about -7.5 diopter), so shallow depth of field/blur can definitely resonate a lot for me.
BTW, it occurs to me -- just now -- that "digital noise" is the steampunk of film grain. So it's even more appropriate. (Possibly only in that pretentious arty way though :-) )
Ewen
PS: I know Sadie via a mutual friend from her former country, and Joy from Rock'n'Roll dancing (and via Sadie prior to that). I too have a hopeless memory for names, so it's possible both our brains are refusing to recall a time when we met!
Reply
Leave a comment