DSLRUsers.com

Our school and local community had it's annual Christmas Carols night recently - I generally take images of the event and all the children having fun throughout the late afternoon and evening. It's a good time to shoot and I'm often found out on the oval taking nice portraits of the children in the soft light of sunset. Usually I'm shooting with a fairly open aperture with a nice lens for portraits - something like the 85/1.8, 105/2.8 or even 70-200/2.8 and I mostly go for the closest eye tack sharp with it blending quickly to blur in background and foreground - like the following...



However I also tried this (which when I found it in post I really liked) but would be interested to see what others thought or just to see if I'm just smoking crack... So C&C appreciated...

With this image it's more softly focused basically everywhere so that even my main subject child is enough (not too little and not too much ) out of focus - some might call this a technical error - however I like to think of it more as serendipity

The first one is lovely, but I would crop
unnecessary space left and right. The second
is good too, but I am not sure how you can
improve it or if it needs improvement.

If you hadn't have told me i wouldn't even know that it was oof or soft. It works ok i suppose cos it's not too OOF and the subject isn't looking at the camera. IMO, that sort of technique wouldn't work if it was an image like the first; which is as close to a perfect portrait as it gets.

Skin tones that just glow and perfect expressions. It doesn't get much better.

I have to admit I really like #2, the separation and the out of focus, but recognisable girl in the background really make this a top notch candid.

zafra52 wrote:The first one is lovely, but I would crop unnecessary space left and right. The second is good too, but I am not sure how you can improve it or if it needs improvement.

Thanks Zafra - it wasn't so much about improvement but rather whether it worked in any way for others besides my feeble brain

Rooz wrote:If you hadn't have told me i wouldn't even know that it was oof or soft. It works ok i suppose cos it's not too OOF and the subject isn't looking at the camera. IMO, that sort of technique wouldn't work if it was an image like the first; which is as close to a perfect portrait as it gets.

Yep - I guess it's harder to tell on the web sized version but full screen (and at 100%) it's totally obvious. I guess that was the balance - a little oof but not too oof. And totally agree that it wouldn't work for the first - it needed a different look on the subject (and probably multiple subjects). NB: These two shots were taken only a minute apart.

Matt. K wrote:Skin tones that just glow and perfect expressions. It doesn't get much better.

thanks Matt - it's easier with kids

aim54x wrote:I have to admit I really like #2, the separation and the out of focus, but recognisable girl in the background really make this a top notch candid.

Thanks Cam - my thinking too - I wasn't expecting to like it beforehand but it grew on me very quickly...

Didn't read all teh stuff Rod except this bit

Remorhaz wrote:I'm just smoking crack..

However they are both nice images and the not for the technicalities, great smiles and great subject isolation, sweet stuff.