Cheers again!
Made it into the 2019 British Photography Awards shortlist!
- Thread starter BananaDunka
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Dec 2013
- Posts
- 35
Voted. Good luck 
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2018
- Posts
- 26
Great photo. Lovely texture. Voted.
Soldato
Congrats mate..I'll voteI ask for your help once more folks.
I submitted two photos in different categories for the latest BPA contest and one of them got into the shortlist of 240 from around the world!
Your help will be in the people's choice award, if you choose to vote for my entry of course
The shortlist gallery to view and vote is https://www.britishphotographyawards.org/2019-Shortlist
My photo is the one in the Weddings section entitled "A boy's boredom".
The rules say sharing and asking people to vote is completely allowed for the people's choice award.
Thanks!
Associate
Voted to, good luck
Man of Honour
I know I'm going to upset a few but my self diagnosed OCD is taking over and I've got to say it:
Why oh why oh why oh why do people take photos where everything else in the picture is out of focus?
It really does my head in.
There said it however it is a cracking photo.
Why oh why oh why oh why do people take photos where everything else in the picture is out of focus?
It really does my head in.
There said it however it is a cracking photo.
Caporegime
LOL !!!!
I saw your name on front page that you posted and thought "he is going to moan about why isn't everything in focus!!!"
And it is exactly what I got.
I can't read what the ad says in the back !!!
Last edited:
I can't speak for everyone who uses shallow depth of field, but in ref to mine, usually it's needed for a number of reasons.
Main ones being:
1: It's just how camera lenses work.
The wider the aperture, the more light that can enter the lens and onto the sensor or film. This means the camera can use a faster shutter speed so you're less likely to get the subject blurred if they're moving.
My shot was taken at f/1.8 with a shutter speed of 1/250s and iso1600. The light in that room was fairly adequate but not perfect, the minimum shutter I use for lower light situations where taking a candid photo is usually around 1/200s with a wide aperture, else I'd have to increase the ISO and use a narrower aperture to compensate which results in more noise, which isn't desirable for such a scene where there's a lot of mid tone detail that might not look ideal.
2: Subject isolation.
A wider aperture isolates whatever you're shooting and keeps attention drawn to it. I could have used f/8 and iso4000 and much more of the background would have been in focus. But then that wouldn't have the desired feel to the image and it would change the mood of it.
With prime lenses you will always have foreground and background blur, this has always been the case going way back to the early days of cameras. It's not something you can avoid completely. So it's best to incorporate that into whatever is being photographed.
Some people go a bit heavy with depth of field in modern times, others are selective. Depends on the person really
There isn't a right or wrong though just personal style.Check out this photo from Antwerp taken in 1918 as citizens marched the streets after Germany's surrender, notice it's a wide shot, yet everything in the background and foreground is blurred. It adds to the mood of the photo!
Last edited:
mrk explained it all tremendously well but subject isolation is the main reason for most people. Have you not noticed in movies that most medium/close-up shots of people employ the same technique? If they didn't you'd be distracted by the extras walking in the background, or the furniture
With this picture in particular, if the background was in focus as well, your eye would be drawn to the couple at the table and it wouldn't have the desired effect. The viewer would be confused about what exactly the subject was.
Caporegime
It's also how our eye balls work. It has a relative aperture of around F/2.1 in low light.
The last day for public voting is for today so.... last call
The Sassi Holford image was quite cool as well on the beach, reminded me of another image I considered submitting:
Was on Ryde Beach during low tide. Not llng after would have been knee deep in water
The Sassi Holford image was quite cool as well on the beach, reminded me of another image I considered submitting:
Was on Ryde Beach during low tide. Not llng after would have been knee deep in water
Soldato
Done, it is also my fav photo on the page so well done
Thanks! I think the BPA peeps did me a huge favour too, my photo is the first one people see in the weddings category so in general people may be more inclined to vote for that first as well
Roll on the 25th and see if I get invited!
Roll on the 25th and see if I get invited!
Associate
hopefully good news coming tomorrow for you
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2018
- Posts
- 13,162
Im going to assume you mean people and the answer is yes but they are at the back and out of focus so you cant see them properly.Did they not have tall paople back then?
LOL !!!!
I saw your name on front page that you posted and thought "he is going to moan about why isn't everything in focus!!!"
And it is exactly what I got.
I can't read what the ad says in the back !!!
Ah, the era before sharpness obsession - even the subjects faces are soft. That would get a hammering if it was posted for critique on a photography forum today despite being a fantastic image.