Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by Smeghead, Apr 24, 2009.
Wirelessly posted via wap.offtopic.com (lulz: BlackBerry8320/4.2.2 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/100)
Nice color, crayola
A smaller dof to blow out the background would be nice.
background is a bit distracting..
IMHO I would have liked the background to be the rest of the tree / that nice deep blue sky..
It's at f2.8....
This is what i was gonna say. and you have oversaturated in post. tone down the colors by a notch or two, and you're golden.
What's your point? Lenses go down below 2.8...or use a longer focal length @ 2.8 for more bokeh.
yeah, he shot at 17mm... should have gone to 50 and stood back to frame it the same... or just recompose outright.
My lens only goes down to 2.8
Okay I toned down on the vibrance. Put it back to 0 actually
? i thought distance to subject was what determined DOF, not focal length
According to our very own Jcolman.
I don't think he would be using the same f-stop.
I was a good 25-30 feet away from this guy. 300mm (200mm lens on a crop body) @ f/2.8.
My 50mm @ 2.8 doesn't separate the background nearly as much.
The statement you bolded says what I said.
I said it wrong, a combination of distance and focal length. Meaning framing it the same, with the same aperture means it'll have the same DOF. woops
I'm confused, you told him to frame it the same with a longer focal length. Wouldn't that do nothing to his DoF?
Once again, I'm mistaken, the other guy said that.
sorry, just took my last final
take a nap or something bro
got hockey with the boys soon
It was me that said that... and yeah, you're right: getting the same framing with a longer focal length will result in the same DoF. going from the same distance and going for a longer focal length will result in shallower DoF.