Not having fun!

not-having-fun.jpg

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Not having fun!

  1. Oh sure… now you’re going to show us that you’re versatile too! Love the little dude with the ‘tude. It’s nice that he’s the only thing in focus (this is the kind of stuff I need to learn how to do). I like the way the light hits him too. Was this just lucky timing or did you take his candy away?

  2. Dude with ‘tude (which such a better name for this) was playing frisbee with his sis and dad on duck day in the park. As I watched, dude was on the edge the whole time (approx. 3 minutes) I took about 6 shots and then boom…POUTY PANTS…click…thanks dude.

    The focus thiny is actually easy. I used a very long lens 75-300. This super-zoom telephoto creates a very shallow depth of field. This is the same lens that created the selected level of focus in this photo. It really makes you zone in on the specific thing you are viewing. It is, in my humble opinion, the photographer’s version of leading the witness. Therefore, it works best with a lone individual or groupings like the girls. I need to put this lens down and work with my non-telephoto more. I hide behind it; stealing moments rather than capturing them.

  3. Boy does this bring back memories….

    Why do the yellow balloons beckon me so from the background like something from Stephen King’s “It”? Is the grass this green in Jersey already?

    You are ko-RECK in your assessment of my “feelings” of your photos. They make me “see” and “feel”….good stuff.

  4. Yes but MM, my photographs seem to evoke feelings of “horror” and “sickness”…I can just see my shingle hanging if I even decide to go pro- “Shrew’s Shutters, come on in and get pictures of you that will frighten you enough to make you puke”

  5. In my opinion, you go with what works. Are you sayin’ there’s more merit in the photo if you had to work hard to create the shallow depth of field with a non-telephoto lens than if you used a long lens to create the same effect? I don’t buy it. It’s the end result that matters.

    And in my defense, my horror reference in the duck photo was not reflective of my feelings about the picture. It’s just all those little eyes staring back at me.

  6. No I guess I just mean that I force you view rather than letting “pure” composition do it’s job. But I see your point…is a forced view any less legitamate? That is exactly what you would want in commercial, fashion or portrait work…does it have a place in documentary photography? I don’t know.

    As to the horror type of reactions, I just seem to be getting many of these types of comments with “everyday” things….hmmm…could there be an essay in this? The shock, the gore, the DUCKIES!

    Side note – when I origionally typed “documentary” up above, it was misspelled with a “u” where the “o” should have been. I was so tempted to leave it as “duckumentary”

  7. Duckumentary… LOL!

    I think this focus works perfectly for this image. As I mentioned with the French Schoolgirls picture I think if this whole photo were in focus it wouldn’t be as interesting.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s