Oppose - I like the idea of this picture, we have too few Featured Food pictures, but I have to agree with Crisco, the depth of field means half the image is very blurry. Perhaps a higher angle would help?
Mattximus (
talk)
14:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Two words:
focus stacking. This is the perfect example of something that would benefit from it. If
this ring had been photographed normally, I'd have lost focus on the rear. With focus stacking, everything is... well, in focus. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk)
15:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)reply
If you're getting this little DOF with f/11, focus stacking would help immensely. Madhu Menon's goal is photographing images for display at web resolution and in menus, both of which are very forgiving of a lack of DOF owing to the small size. We're supposed to judge FPs based on the full resolution. These are very different beasts. Furthermore, working without a background means we don't have any pleasing blur/bokeh to worry about. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk)
23:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)reply
I agree, I think for educational use, good DoF is important, although I do have sympathy with AntonO because shallow DoF can be an artistic choice rather than an accidental problem. However, just as B&W photography is popular in part because of the sentimentality of days gone by when colour simply wasn't an option, shallow DoF macro photography is to some extent a popular aesthetic because of the traditional limits of the style rather than because people don't really want to see everything sharply. Just my opinion anyway. :-)
Ðiliff«»(Talk)10:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose - I like the idea of this picture, we have too few Featured Food pictures, but I have to agree with Crisco, the depth of field means half the image is very blurry. Perhaps a higher angle would help?
Mattximus (
talk)
14:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Two words:
focus stacking. This is the perfect example of something that would benefit from it. If
this ring had been photographed normally, I'd have lost focus on the rear. With focus stacking, everything is... well, in focus. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk)
15:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)reply
If you're getting this little DOF with f/11, focus stacking would help immensely. Madhu Menon's goal is photographing images for display at web resolution and in menus, both of which are very forgiving of a lack of DOF owing to the small size. We're supposed to judge FPs based on the full resolution. These are very different beasts. Furthermore, working without a background means we don't have any pleasing blur/bokeh to worry about. —
Crisco 1492 (
talk)
23:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)reply
I agree, I think for educational use, good DoF is important, although I do have sympathy with AntonO because shallow DoF can be an artistic choice rather than an accidental problem. However, just as B&W photography is popular in part because of the sentimentality of days gone by when colour simply wasn't an option, shallow DoF macro photography is to some extent a popular aesthetic because of the traditional limits of the style rather than because people don't really want to see everything sharply. Just my opinion anyway. :-)
Ðiliff«»(Talk)10:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)reply