CCC Forum

f1.8
iso400
1/125th
50mm

Feedback appreciated.

Suave by cedarsphoto, on Flickr

Rather than cite the usual responses such as the image needs to be cropped and the distracting highlights toned down, I would ask you what your intention was when you pressed the shutter. What are you saying with this picture and what is the impact which you hope to have on the viewer? Doing this self analysis is definitely one way by which you can improve your photography, as well as asking others for feedback.

From a technical perspective, the focus is on the jacket, rather than the eyes where it should be. At such a wide aperture, you will have limited depth of field so you will need to take considerable care. Phase detect AF in a DSLR tends to be quick, but is not especially accurate, so you might need to override the camera manually. Also, do you use multiple AF points and let the camera determine where the point of focus, or do you set the camera to use just a single AF point and recompose the image after focussing if necessary? In this regard, the central focussing point is normally more versatile than the others, especially on lower end models, and is the best one to use.

There is also rather more noise than I would expect at ISO 400 and a touch of noise reduction in post processing would not go amiss. I also did not much like the way that the lens has rendered the background at this wide aperture, the lights on the Xmas tree in particular. Stopping down a bit might have helped but still allowed for differential focussing between the subject and background.

Cheers for the feedback. I've cropped, sharpened and noise reduced the original image below. I must admit I didn't try any post processing at all, this is 100% as shot. I don't personally feel like it improves it but admittedly it's only one crop among many. I also personally don't find the brighter areas that distracting either (hence the decision not to touch it )



I think the question as to my motives and intentions when taking the shot are very as important as you say. The story behind this one... I went to a friend's leaving lunch at work and at Wagamama's restaurant you end up sitting next to strangers. This is one chap I ended up talking to and snapped a shot of him after we left - in effect, it's a record of that event and in a wider context, part of my attempts to improve both portraits and street photography. I deliberately chose a POV that would give him clear separation from the background (he totally "blended in" when the backdrop was Wagamama itself), went for as low a possible aperture as possible to get the xmas light bokeh effect and to get a fast shutter speed in the less-than-perfect conditions. So that effect was definitely deliberate and though I like it, I'm a sucker for bokeh

The noise is probably due to the film I used and as for the slightly-off manual focus - something I'm finding with this camera is that at 2m and beyond the focusing is usually pretty good but closer in it isn't necessarily so. When I focused this the split-prism viewfinder was bang on and pin sharp so I suspect either the camera was never 100% accurate at short range or it's just taken a couple of knocks over the last 30 years and isn't as good as when new Either that or my eye is going! Getting used to manual focus has been pretty tricky, particularly on shots where I don't have a long time to line it up. But that's part of the reason of practising.

My suspicion is that this probably wouldn't go down well in a competition.

davidc wrote:Cheers for the feedback. I've cropped, sharpened and noise reduced the original image below. I must admit I didn't try any post processing at all, this is 100% as shot. I don't personally feel like it improves it but admittedly it's only one crop among many. I also personally don't find the brighter areas that distracting either (hence the decision not to touch it )

dan2.jpg

I am not sure that I like the new crop either, but then again for me this is an image which has so many faults that a crop is not going to save it. Whilst you might not be concerned about distracting highlights, there are many who will not agree.

davidc wrote:I deliberately chose a POV that would give him clear separation from the background (he totally "blended in" when the backdrop was Wagamama itself), went for as low a possible aperture as possible to get the xmas light bokeh effect and to get a fast shutter speed in the less-than-perfect conditions. So that effect was definitely deliberate and though I like it, I'm a sucker for bokeh

OK, you have achieved what you intended and got an image which you like, although it is not a look which I find particularly attractive. A lot of people prefer a bokeh effect which is smooth - definitely not the case here!

davidc wrote:The noise is probably due to the film I used and as for the slightly-off manual focus - something I'm finding with this camera is that at 2m and beyond the focusing is usually pretty good but closer in it isn't necessarily so. When I focused this the split-prism viewfinder was bang on and pin sharp so I suspect either the camera was never 100% accurate at short range or it's just taken a couple of knocks over the last 30 years and isn't as good as when new Either that or my eye is going! Getting used to manual focus has been pretty tricky, particularly on shots where I don't have a long time to line it up. But that's part of the reason of practising.

That would explain why the "noise" seemed a bit odd. For a modern film, the grain looks quite obtrusive. Is the film out of date or been stored in warm conditions? Alternatively, the processing might be to blame. For example, the processor might have been using chemicals which had gone past their best. With film use declining and margins getting smaller, there is a temptation to save costs by not changing the developing materials as frequently as would have occurred in the past.

If you think that the focussing is out on the camera, you might be able to tweak it after it looks "correct" in the viewfinder assuming you can find the correct amount of adjustment. It will be trial and error, and entail making notes so that you can judge what worked best when you get the processed film back. It is possible that it is inaccurate across the entire focussing range, but it is being masked by depth of field, especially at smaller apertures. Looking at your "Poison" image, that does seem to be sharp either. You could do worse than ask Reg Roach at Croydon Photo Centre take a look. What he does not know about film cameras probably is not worth knowing.

http://www.croydonphotocentre.co.uk/

davidc wrote:My suspicion is that this probably wouldn't go down well in a competition.

Quite agree!