Here I am ! A snap from the archive. A different take that the definition or prominence of a subject is not necessarily reliant on its size in the frame. Nikon D3, Nikon 70-300mm VR @...

winterrose Loc: Kyneton, Victoria, Australia

A snap from the archive.

A different take that the definition or prominence of a subject is not necessarily reliant on its size in the frame.

Nikon D3, Nikon 70-300mm VR @ 116mm, 1/500", F11, ISO 640.

Nightski

winterrose wrote:

A snap from the archive.

A different take that the definition or prominence of a subject is not necessarily reliant on its size in the frame.

Looking lost in the hustle bustle of the scene, she is the focal point. Very interesting perspective.

infocus Loc: Australia

winterrose wrote:

A snap from the archive.

A different take that the definition or prominence of a subject is not necessarily reliant on its size in the frame.

Nikon D3, Nikon 70-300mm VR @ 116mm, 1/500", F11, ISO 640.

Great technique winterrose. A very different shot that promotes the viewers interest IMHO.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

Golly, Rob, finally a chance to take a legitimate shot at you and there's not much to say.

Seriously though, it appears that the sense of movement on the right side is less than that on the left side. Any ideas why?

Bram boy Loc: Vancouver Island B.C. Canada

winterrose wrote:

A snap from the archive.

A different take that the definition or prominence of a subject is not necessarily reliant on its size in the frame.

Nikon D3, Nikon 70-300mm VR @ 116mm, 1/500", F11, ISO 640.

this proves one thing , that a $6000 camera takes no better pictures than a
$1100 camera .

winterrose Loc: Kyneton, Victoria, Australia

Mogul wrote:

Golly, Rob, finally a chance to take a legitimate shot at you and there's not much to say.

Seriously though, it appears that the sense of movement on the right side is less than that on the left side. Any ideas why?

Maybe I should I save up for a better lens?

Seriously, it was probably because the fellow on the left was approaching whereas the other was standing.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

winterrose wrote:

Maybe I should I save up for a better lens?

No, seriously. Is it just my perception or did you move or zoom in such a way as to cause it?

Never mind. Your second statement explained it.

UPDATE: NO. At 1/500", you should have stopped all motion - unless he was running really fast!

winterrose Loc: Kyneton, Victoria, Australia

Bram boy wrote:

this proves one thing , that a $6000 camera takes no better pictures than a
$1100 camera .

I wouldn't put money on it.....

Graham Smith Loc: Cambridgeshire UK

winterrose wrote:

A snap from the archive.

A different take that the definition or prominence of a subject is not necessarily reliant on its size in the frame.

Nikon D3, Nikon 70-300mm VR @ 116mm, 1/500", F11, ISO 640.

I like this Rob. The woman, being the only sharp/in focus object, the viewers eye immediately latches onto her. My test of a picture is whether I look at and move on or pause and study, I studied. Then I wondered if it was the guy with the camera she was looking at, or does she know you?

Graham

Rolenz Loc: Tripping around Oz

Mogul wrote:

Golly, Rob, finally a chance to take a legitimate shot at you and there's not much to say.

Seriously though, it appears that the sense of movement on the right side is less than that on the left side. Any ideas why?

Having a stab at explaining the difference. I like this style, have played with this a bit. Possibly, zooming, has caused the camera to move to the right, fractionally, depending zoom method, twisting the barrel. The reason I offer this, the gazebo behind the moving man has a degree of movement at the top as well, evenly spaced on that side of the shot. This movement, camera, may have been very slight to cause this. The smaller movements tend to have better effect/appeal. Like this image, well presented, IMHO.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

This is one STRANGE effect. I can read the QuikShade label on the dark canopy and see other details like Local Organic Coffee (whatever that is) near the center, but the entire life of the picture is blurred. I have seen Ross and other artists do this with oil, acrylics, even spray paints, but never with a photo.

Rolenz Loc: Tripping around Oz

Mogul wrote:

This is one STRANGE effect. I can read the QuikShade label on the dark canopy and see other details like Local Organic Coffee (whatever that is) near the center, but the entire life of the picture is blurred. I have seen Ross and other artists do this with oil, acrylics, even spray paints, but never with a photo.

Not surprising, the centre of the photo, the focus point around the lady in "pink' is the area that the focus pull has occurred from. Depending on the amount of pull as to how great this effect is, a small amount of zoom movement will give a small spread. If you look at the person pushing the pram, one leg is starting to blur, the other is in focus. That is how effective this style can be. Moving the camera while pulling the zoom will distort the image on a different angle. Fun and confusing. Maybe. Behind this Lady the people etc are blurring as well.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

Rolenz wrote:

Not surprising, the centre of the photo, the focus... (show quote)

It just makes me dizzy and gives me a headache. I'm sooooooooo confused!