Igor Khmelev, Thank you so much!!! In fact, it just happened that way: they didn't grab my youngest daughter's hand in time for the group jump... a sea of tears, her face all covered in dirty streaks... an insult of universal proportions)))
If the background shot weren't people, but simply a road, forest, etc., such depth of field (aperture) wouldn't raise any questions. But here, the plot involves both the "extras" and the crying girl. And we see "homunculi" in the background...))
In a real film, they would be in focus, at least enough to understand their reactions and emotions. And the photograph would only benefit from this.
In a real film, they would be in focus, at least enough to understand their reaction and emotions.
And the girl is "caught" in the frame successfully.
Yakov Trembovolsky, no matter how your "real film" is interpreted, I can say with certainty that in life, as in cinema (if the cameraman and director work together), the effect of perception depends on the change of shots. Our eyes, when focusing, simply don't bother our brains to dwell on it until we give them the necessary information. But here, it seems to me, the author simply didn't have time, or forgot, to think about the little fool. Sorry for interrupting, but overall I agree with you, and the photograph is interesting.
Here it's simpler: the author always shoots with a portrait lens at F2.0-2.5. This is a well-known trend in amateur photography: "blur the background." But while most of the author's successful shots feature a vague background (a road, a forest, a fence), this shot is precisely the kind of shot where depth is needed. And where can you get it with the usual F2.5?
Thank you all for your comments and for your attention to my work!!!)) And for the manly analysis :). In fact, the author is a fan of photographing children "as it turns out"). And here I terribly regret that I didn't check the settings. Really! I should have seen their faces... each one is a separate story, and yet, "homunculi"... too much about my beloved children;). There was no goal to shoot a "movie") Late in the evening, the next day the kids from our street were leaving for different cities... I jumped out of the kitchen, so to speak... let me at least take a group photo... They stand there and jump)) And then suddenly the youngest one became offended and tears were running down her face. I admit the aperture is my fault, but what mother would bother adjusting the settings at a moment like that? I'm already the most hard-hearted mother, probably, my daughter is going for comfort, and I'm taking the picture. And yet, this is now one of my favorite photos))
Thank you all again for your attention and kind words of support!!!)))
Here, it's simpler: the author always shoots with a portrait lens at F 2.0-2.5. It's a well-known trend in amateur photography: "blur the background." But while most of the author's successful shots feature a vague background (a road, a forest, a fence), this shot is exactly the kind of shot that requires depth. And where can you get it with the usual F 2.5?
Yakov Trembovolsky, it's a bit ridiculous to look at his latest work and conclude that "it's simpler: the author always shoots with a portrait lens at F 2.0-2.5." It's even simpler: the author doesn't bother with fashion trends at all, but simply photographs her own children as best she can and as best she can. Without regard for photography experts or critics, as is customary among us amateurs. Whenever possible, I try to keep up with the children in their games... sometimes it works out well, sometimes there are mistakes... like in this photo. It's that simple.
I hope you understand that I wasn't writing from the perspective of a critic or expert, but rather a viewer who saw the girl's PP, which was successful in every sense, and the ZP, which was unsuccessful.
I looked at the settings for the entire series. And I realized that it's not just a matter of time pressure, but also how you conceptualize a genre portrait technically. That's exactly what I was talking about. It's your right to shoot as you wish. I hope my opinion didn't offend you, and perhaps it wasn't unhelpful. I rarely write. If I didn't have the photo, I wouldn't be writing. Good luck!
Oh, come on... They post decent stuff on this topic here, you're obviously out of the loop.
But here, the plot involves both the "extras" and the crying girl.
And we see "homunculi" in the background...))
In a real film, they would be in focus, at least enough to understand their reactions and emotions.
And the photograph would only benefit from this.
And the girl is captured well in the frame.
Here it's simpler: the author always shoots with a portrait lens at F2.0-2.5. This is a well-known trend in amateur photography: "blur the background." But while most of the author's successful shots feature a vague background (a road, a forest, a fence), this shot is precisely the kind of shot where depth is needed. And where can you get it with the usual F2.5?
Thank you all again for your attention and kind words of support!!!)))
I see...))
I hope you understand that I wasn't writing from the perspective of a critic or expert, but rather a viewer who saw
the girl's PP, which was successful in every sense, and the ZP, which was unsuccessful.
I looked at the settings for the entire series. And I realized that it's not just a matter of time pressure, but also how you conceptualize a genre portrait technically. That's exactly what I was talking about. It's your right to shoot as you wish. I hope my opinion didn't offend you, and perhaps it wasn't unhelpful. I rarely write. If I didn't have the photo, I wouldn't be writing. Good luck!