Mean Mich

"MC" wrote:
>Dudley Hanks wrote:
>
>> While taking a few shots of Mich with the new flashes, he decided
>> to make a few faces. Here's one:
>>
>> http://www.blind-apertures.ca/images/MeanMichSmall.jpg
>>
>> Didn't quite get the focus right, but the pic has some merits of
>> its own.
>>
>
>Erm, to be quite frank everything that can go wrong with a photo has
>gone wrong.
>Subject very out of focus. Background, although more in focus, is
>horredously scruffy. Subject is underexposed. Subject nose tip cut off.
>
>What merits do you think this picture has?
>
>MC
>


I can't see it, so I can't say. But everyone who has, has
wanted a copy. It must have something that appeals at some
level ... Of course, we're not talking about pro photogs,
just ordinary folks who don't let theory and technical details
get in the way of what they like ...

Take Care,
Dudley
 >> Stay informed about: Mean Mich 

On 2011-03-08 19:55:39 -0800, Dudley Hanks said:

> "MC" wrote:
>> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>
>>> While taking a few shots of Mich with the new flashes, he decided
>>> to make a few faces. Here's one:
>>>
>>> http://www.blind-apertures.ca/images/MeanMichSmall.jpg
>>>
>>> Didn't quite get the focus right, but the pic has some merits of
>>> its own.
>>>
>>
>> Erm, to be quite frank everything that can go wrong with a photo has
>> gone wrong.
>> Subject very out of focus. Background, although more in focus, is
>> horredously scruffy. Subject is underexposed. Subject nose tip cut off.
>>
>> What merits do you think this picture has?
>>
>> MC
>>
>
>
> I can't see it, so I can't say. But everyone who has, has
> wanted a copy. It must have something that appeals at some
> level ... Of course, we're not talking about pro photogs,
> just ordinary folks who don't let theory and technical details
> get in the way of what they like ...
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley

Sorry to say so Dudley, but "MC" has it mostly right. Mich is badly out
of focus and the crop is right up on his nose. Those two issues spoil
the shot.
As far as the exposure goes, that is just nit picking.
Who cares about the background? (except that it is is in focus and Mich isn't)

You have shown us much better shots of Mich, and this time it doesn't work.
I have a feeling those ordinary folks who liked the shot are just
trying not to hurt your feelings.

--
Regards,

Savageduck
 >> Stay informed about: Mean Mich 

Savageduck wrote:

>On 2011-03-08 19:55:39 -0800, Dudley Hanks said:
>
>> "MC" wrote:
>>> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>>
>>>> While taking a few shots of Mich with the new flashes, he decided
>>>> to make a few faces. Here's one:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.blind-apertures.ca/images/MeanMichSmall.jpg
>>>>
>>>> Didn't quite get the focus right, but the pic has some merits of
>>>> its own.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Erm, to be quite frank everything that can go wrong with a photo has
>>> gone wrong.
>>> Subject very out of focus. Background, although more in focus, is
>>> horredously scruffy. Subject is underexposed. Subject nose tip cut off.
>>>
>>> What merits do you think this picture has?
>>>
>>> MC
>>>
>>
>>
>> I can't see it, so I can't say. But everyone who has, has
>> wanted a copy. It must have something that appeals at some
>> level ... Of course, we're not talking about pro photogs,
>> just ordinary folks who don't let theory and technical details
>> get in the way of what they like ...
>>
>> Take Care,
>> Dudley
>
>Sorry to say so Dudley, but "MC" has it mostly right. Mich is badly out
>of focus and the crop is right up on his nose. Those two issues spoil
>the shot.
>As far as the exposure goes, that is just nit picking.
>Who cares about the background? (except that it is is in focus and Mich isn't)
>
>You have shown us much better shots of Mich, and this time it doesn't work.
>I have a feeling those ordinary folks who liked the shot are just
>trying not to hurt your feelings.
>
>--
>Regards,
>
>Savageduck
>
>


Normally, I would agree with you, but it's not like I pointed
out this shot and said, "Hey, what do you think? Isn't this
great?"

I show my pics to a fairly large number of folks by plopping
them all in a directory and sending a link to it as a whole.
Then, I wait for comments. Unlike Usenet, I don't ask for
comments on specific pics.

This is the one that folks singled out, going so far as to ask,
"How'd you get that effect?"

I've submitted one from the same lot to the SI M mandate,
which I'm hoping Bowser will add, even though it was late. I
think you'll note that it is technically, if not pretty good,
then, at least, not too bad. Most will agree it is "head and
shoulders above this one, yet it didn't get much in the way of
comments from the test group.

I think the thing about "Mean Mich," judging from the comments,
was that it gave the impression of an attacking dog. Being
out of focus, some substituted quick movement in their minds.
The clipped nose just adding to that impression.


For me, I wouldn't have kept it had it not been for the larger
than normal interest.

Take Care,
Dudley
 >> Stay informed about: Mean Mich 

On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 02:57:57 GMT, "MC" wrote:

>Dudley Hanks wrote:
>
>> While taking a few shots of Mich with the new flashes, he decided
>> to make a few faces. Here's one:
>>
>> http://www.blind-apertures.ca/images/MeanMichSmall.jpg
>>
>> Didn't quite get the focus right, but the pic has some merits of
>> its own.
>>
>
>Erm, to be quite frank everything that can go wrong with a photo has
>gone wrong.
>Subject very out of focus. Background, although more in focus, is
>horredously scruffy. Subject is underexposed. Subject nose tip cut off.
>
>What merits do you think this picture has?
>
>MC

It's yet another shining example of why everyone should insist that
phase-contrast-focusing should be on every camera. See how fast it is?
Screw the accuracy, all they really need is fast.
 >> Stay informed about: Mean Mich 

Schneider wrote:
>On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 02:57:57 GMT, "MC" wrote:
>
>>Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>
>>> While taking a few shots of Mich with the new flashes, he decided
>>> to make a few faces. Here's one:
>>>
>>> http://www.blind-apertures.ca/images/MeanMichSmall.jpg
>>>
>>> Didn't quite get the focus right, but the pic has some merits of
>>> its own.
>>>
>>
>>Erm, to be quite frank everything that can go wrong with a photo has
>>gone wrong.
>>Subject very out of focus. Background, although more in focus, is
>>horredously scruffy. Subject is underexposed. Subject nose tip cut off.
>>
>>What merits do you think this picture has?
>>
>>MC
>
>It's yet another shining example of why everyone should insist that
>phase-contrast-focusing should be on every camera. See how fast it is?
>Screw the accuracy, all they really need is fast.
>


I'm not so sure the type of focus played much of a role in
this one.

It was the last pic in a series. He'd been sitting pretty
while I took about 15 or 20 shots, then decided he'd had
enough and wanted to play. The focus had already been locked
when he moved suddenly as the shutter was clicked.


Given that I have picks of Mich taken at about 1/640 sec that
weren't capable of completely stopping him, he can move pretty
quick, so there's a good chance that we're looking at a combo
of out of focus and movement blur. He was sitting pretty
close to the backdrop, and the camera was only a couple of
feet in front of his nose. Only a slight forward movement
would have thrown off the already locked in focus.


Take Care,
Dudley
 >> Stay informed about: Mean Mich 

Dudley Hanks wrote:
> While taking a few shots of Mich with the new flashes, he decided
> to make a few faces. Here's one:
>
> http://www.blind-apertures.ca/images/MeanMichSmall.jpg
>
> Didn't quite get the focus right, but the pic has some merits of
> its own.
>
> Any comments appreciated.
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley
>
Mitch,
A few years ago my eyesight started failing big time.
As a consequence, I hardly ever shoot in Manual Focus mode anymore.
I simply could not focus as well as the auto focus mechanism in the camera.
If you had shot Mitch in auto focus mode, he would very likely have been
spot on and the picture would have had more merit. Cropping is more of a
personal choice sort of thing, but focus is not.
Bob Williams
 >> Stay informed about: Mean Mich 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Mean Mich 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Mean Mich 

"MC" wrote:
>Dudley Hanks wrote:
>
>
>>
>> For me, I wouldn't have kept it had it not been for the larger
>> than normal interest.
>
>
>With all due respect, I think you may be making excuses for your
>overly-kind friends and associates. Even we, on usenet, may be
>strangers to you but we still know of your disabilty. However, if
>someone else, who did not know you or your disability, were to
>anonymously recieve that picture to look at, I would not believe they
>would view it with such enthusiasm. I am afraid, and again I say this
>with all due repect, this picture's only merit is really to show how it
>should not be done.
>
>MC


Point taken, and gratefully so.

When my daughter first described it to me as being an out of
focus shot of Mich with a mean look on his face, I didn't give
it much thought. But, after the other comments, I thought I'd
better plop it on Usenet for a more thorough critiquing.


The response has been what I expected, confirming that it is
of no great interest technically.

Still, any good artist / photographer will remain attentive to
those mistakes which evoke unexpected interest from others.
This is one of those instances. Other than leaving it on the
net for a bit longer than normal, it won't find it's way into
my keepers. But, I'll try to refine the effect as it has been
described to me. Perhaps, in the future, I may be able to
stage a similar, though better composed and executed, shot.
Although, as one person put it to me, "that's a one in a
million pic. Good luck recreating it." (There's no
accounting for preferences.)

Take Care,
Dudley
 >> Stay informed about: Mean Mich 

"MC" wrote:
>Dudley Hanks wrote:
>
>
>> Given that I have picks of Mich taken at about 1/640 sec that
>> weren't capable of completely stopping him, he can move pretty
>> quick, so there's a good chance that we're looking at a combo
>> of out of focus and movement blur. He was sitting pretty
>> close to the backdrop, and the camera was only a couple of
>> feet in front of his nose. Only a slight forward movement
>> would have thrown off the already locked in focus.
>>
>>
>
>Any blur here does definately not include motion blur. Even if he
>moved during the exposure he would have been frozen by the flashes you
>said you were using. If flash can freeze a popping balloon it will
>certainly freeze any movement a dog can make. Sorry, but I think we
>are just looking at good old fashing lack of lens focus.
>
>MC
>


I'll have to defer to you (and the others on the group) for
that.

I was using the flash more for feature shaping than because of
a lack of existing light. So there might have been an ambient
exposure (at 1/60 sec) as well, but I can't determine that
myself.

But, given that it was f/4.5 and only a few feet in front of
the lens, as noted earlier, any forward motion would have
messed up the already locked in focus. So, I don't think we
can blame it on the AF system.

Take Care,
Dudley
 >> Stay informed about: Mean Mich 

Dudley Hanks wrote:

> I can't see it, so I can't say. But everyone who has, has
> wanted a copy.

That's no longer true.

BugBear
 >> Stay informed about: Mean Mich 

On Mar 8, 7:35 pm, Dudley Hanks wrote:
> While taking a few shots of Mich with the new flashes, he decided
> to make a few faces.  Here's one:
>
> http://www.blind-apertures.ca/images/MeanMichSmall.jpg
>
> Didn't quite get the focus right, but the pic has some merits of
> its own.
>
> Any comments appreciated.
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley

It is a bad picture, but I have to admit it does have some appeal to
me.
 >> Stay informed about: Mean Mich 

otter wrote:
> On Mar 8, 7:35 pm, Dudley Hanks wrote:
>> While taking a few shots of Mich with the new flashes, he decided
>> to make a few faces. Here's one:
>>
>> http://www.blind-apertures.ca/images/MeanMichSmall.jpg
>>
>> Didn't quite get the focus right, but the pic has some merits of
>> its own.
>>
>> Any comments appreciated.
>>
>> Take Care,
>> Dudley
>
> It is a bad picture, but I have to admit it does have some appeal to
> me.

He looks wicked mean, just that the awful background is crystal clear.
 >> Stay informed about: Mean Mich