I agree that the noise/gloomy blurryness looks consistent with the fashion period being depicted, which adds to the photos overall appeal. Film grain of the time has a somewhat different structure (someone whoe blog I follow is obsessive about that detail), but at these relatively small sizes one gets a similar effect. Both these and the photos of Sadie yesterday seem very appropriate to the fashion style
( ... )
For clarity, in both photos I mentioned I do like the pose of the model, and the way they've "relaxed into the frame". I'd just have moved the steps. (And since the steps are somewhat non-trivial to move, just for a photo, the more realistic option is to consider asking the model to move a touch to the left/right, and/or moving the camera to match.) It is, however, very much an artistic choice. And it sounds like you got the result you wanted.
I saw an experienced photographer point out recently that if lens design had started now -- with our pretty insane by historical standards ISO levels (100-400 was "high" for most of the 20th C; these days 1600-6400 is "high") -- then there may never have been a technical reason to create lenses with really wide apertures (f/1.8, f/1.4, f/1.2, f/1.0, f/0.9), the focus would have gone into "a bit higher ISO". (For both the original technical reason was "acceptable shutter speed in low light".) But now, as you say, that "shallow depth of field" option has become part of the visual language
( ... )
So I uh deleted Joy's comment by accident. It said:
Re: Atmospheric Wow. This is how it goes for me when taking a photo "stand there, smile, click" and when looknig at a photo "this is pretty, wow!" You guys make me both giggle, cos it is just a little bit kind of arty and pretentious,(which is code for people who don't know anything being annoyed by people who do know something talking about it in special code) but also makes me realise that there is SO much more to this then I am even aware of, and it makes me appreciate you Sarah even more! Thanks for being so wonderful and generous!
I'm not sure I remember ever introducing the two of you, but should the opportuntity arise, I will be sure to do so.
Comments 6
Reply
Reply
Reply
I saw an experienced photographer point out recently that if lens design had started now -- with our pretty insane by historical standards ISO levels (100-400 was "high" for most of the 20th C; these days 1600-6400 is "high") -- then there may never have been a technical reason to create lenses with really wide apertures (f/1.8, f/1.4, f/1.2, f/1.0, f/0.9), the focus would have gone into "a bit higher ISO". (For both the original technical reason was "acceptable shutter speed in low light".) But now, as you say, that "shallow depth of field" option has become part of the visual language ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Re: Atmospheric
Wow. This is how it goes for me when taking a photo "stand there, smile, click" and when looknig at a photo "this is pretty, wow!" You guys make me both giggle, cos it is just a little bit kind of arty and pretentious,(which is code for people who don't know anything being annoyed by people who do know something talking about it in special code) but also makes me realise that there is SO much more to this then I am even aware of, and it makes me appreciate you Sarah even more! Thanks for being so wonderful and generous!
I'm not sure I remember ever introducing the two of you, but should the opportuntity arise, I will be sure to do so.
Joy
Reply
Leave a comment