Old Iron 2: 6 PM, over cast with a 50 MPH wind, had to hold on to the tripod. No PP, right out of the Canon 60D. Manual ISO 100, 1/1600 sec, F1.8, Canon 1.8 50MM. Too much DOF, what...

RacerDan Loc: Virden Illinois

6 PM, over cast with a 50 MPH wind, had to hold on to the tripod. No PP, right out of the Canon 60D. Manual ISO 100, 1/1600 sec, F1.8, Canon 1.8 50MM. Too much DOF, what else is wrong? In a junk yard with no way to get a better background.

I love this old iron, just need some help coming up with better picture. Thank you for any direction.

as old as me

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

RacerDan wrote:

6 PM, over cast with a 50 MPH wind, had to hold on to the tripod. No PP, right out of the Canon 60D. Manual ISO 100, 1/1600 sec, F1.8, Canon 1.8 50MM. Too much DOF, what else is wrong? In a junk yard with no way to get a better background.

I love this old iron, just need some help coming up with better picture. Thank you for any direction.

Yes- I think the DOF is way too deep and it ruins the image. It is a great example of why the background is just as important as the subject.

Would moving to the right have placed all that clutter out of the image, or was there just as much stuff over to the left of the tractor?

Could you lay down and shoot up? That might be a cool angle and might have dropped the clutter out altogether.

The 50mph wind is interesting, but irrelevant - you still decided to take the photo. :-)

sinatraman Loc: Vero Beach Florida, Earth,alpha quaudrant

i am puzzeled why he has such deep depth offield, with an iso of 100 shot at f1,8 with a 50 mm lens.shouldn't the background be less in focus?

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

sinatraman wrote:

i am puzzeled why he has such deep depth offield, with an iso of 100 shot at f1,8 with a 50 mm lens.shouldn't the background be less in focus?

The closer to infinity, the more depth of field, even with a 50mm at 1.8.

Interesting avitar sinatraman, I like.

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

GoofyNewfie wrote:

sinatraman wrote:

i am puzzeled why he has such deep depth offield, with an iso of 100 shot at f1,8 with a 50 mm lens.shouldn't the background be less in focus?

The closer to infinity, the more depth of field, even with a 50mm at 1.8.

Interesting avitar sinatraman, I like.

Yes, I would guess he was a good 25-30 feet from the subject, so the BG should be soft (and it is) but not really way out of focus.

RacerDan Loc: Virden Illinois

yes I was 25 to 30 feet back, needed to be to get the full subject into the frame. Moving to my left cleaned up the back ground some what. The wind had laid down a bit so the focus is better but shot at F6.3 so more DOF, what F stop should I be using?

and thank you for the input.

lesdmd Loc: Middleton Wi via N.Y.C. & Cleveland

If you love the old iron enough, and you are comfortable in Photoshop you could mask out everything behind the tractor and create a whole new background. It's not that hard to do with the right tools . . .but then you have to like post processing.

RacerDan Loc: Virden Illinois

lesdmd wrote:

If you love the old iron enough, and you are comfortable in Photoshop you could mask out everything behind the tractor and create a whole new background. It's not that hard to do with the right tools . . .but then you have to like post processing.

I have LR3 and PSE8 and have done some of what you are suggesting. That is central Illinois winter work, right now with the good weather(95 degrees) I'm trying to learn more about my canon 60D, but thank you for the advice.

robert-photos Loc: Chicago

Just a a few thoughts.....

The background could be erased by getting low and shooting up or getting high and shooting down.

To me the perspective of the straight on shots is boring especially when you consider the unattractive/cluttered background(s). I don't think your intent is to shoot a full view catalog photo.

That is a nice piece of iron which should lend itself to multiple interesting photos. By getting in close and shooting partials you could decrease the DOF. Many times less (simplification) is more.

Millismote Loc: Massachusetts

please excuse my naivety, but after reading hundreds of posts I don't understand the artistic value of arranging the object in the photo off center. Not being a wiseguy here but would appreciate an explanation, not a reading reference.

Bamboo Loc: South Carolina

The rule of thirds applies to fine art, bonsai and most of the time in photo composition. Off center is simply more interesting in most cases.

robert-photos Loc: Chicago

Millismote wrote:

please excuse my naivety, but after reading hundreds of posts I don't understand the artistic value of arranging the object in the photo off center. Not being a wiseguy here but would appreciate an explanation, not a reading reference.

A Google search for "golden mean in art" will provide the education you seek. :thumbup:

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

Millismote wrote:

please excuse my naivety, but after reading hundreds of posts I don't understand the artistic value of arranging the object in the photo off center. Not being a wiseguy here but would appreciate an explanation, not a reading reference.

So you expect us to sit here and spend 15 or 20 minutes typing out an explanation that a simple click of the mouse will take you to?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thirds

RacerDan Loc: Virden Illinois

I agree that the rule of thirds improves many photos but most of what I do is try to capture history or the details of that which interest me. There fore I fill the frame with the subject and try for overall lighting. The grandkids are not handy except for sporting events and I have done about all the flowers I want to do, so it is on with the old iron.

My newest project is to capture all the old buildings and houses in my home town, wish I had done that 60 years ago when I first got into photography.

ggiaphotos Loc: Iowa

Cool! Sounds like an awesome and fun project! Looking forward to seeing some of them.