IMAGE: Green treefrog, Hyla cinerea, in Florida

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Nature Photography Image Critique : One Thread

Nikon N70, Vivitar 100mm macro. Fuji Sensia II 200, F11, Built in flash for fill, handheld.

This shot was taken in a pine hammock in Central Florida during the recent (winter and spring) heavy rains. Many more of these guys are there to be found, and I plan on shooting many more shots of them on future rolls. I know that it is a bit shallow, but how much of a problem is that for this particular image? Thanks in advance for your replies...

--Joe

-- Joe Cheatwood (cheatwoo@ufl.edu), July 20, 1998

Answers

Don't worry about the DOF, that goes with the territory, and works quite well. I also like the pattern in the background, the colours and the lighting. But do try to give the little frog some room to breathe, This image would work much better if the frog was higher in the frame and more to the right.

--Elbert

-- Elbert-Jan Achterberg (achterberg@northernlight.nl), July 21, 1998.


On the contrary: DO worry about the depth of field! IMO it is not enough.

But then you will start to worry about aperture diffraction as well... Above f11 expect more DOF but less resolution, which is indeed visible at f16/f22 that I use often. It is ironic: just when you have overcome the trade-off DOF vs. movement-blur by using electronic flash you get this... But for macro photography I am quite willing to trade a little sharpness for a 'deeper' field: it looks much more natural.

And, as Elbert-Jan mentioned, free the animal from the picture-frame, as this is primarily an animal portrait and not an artistic study "green leaves with frog"! :-) !

Great to be able to get back to such subjects, when you are able to really 'get to know them' during the seasons!

Greetings,

-- Albin Hunia (hunia@dlg.agro.nl), July 21, 1998.


I like the shallow DOF. It directs my eyes directly to the frog's eye. And I can concentrate on it. Here you are, frog. Mainly for this reason, I think it's a great shot. (My only weak complaint is the frog's front leg being cropped.)

-- Jana Mullerova (jam@terma.com), July 21, 1998.

Very nice shot Joe. As already mentioned, would be nice if the forelimb wasn't cropped. I think the DOF for this shot is perfect. I agree with Jana, that the eye is the big accent here and the DOF used accents it nicely.

-- Paul Lenson (lenson@pci.on.ca), July 21, 1998.

This is clearly a matter of opinion, but I think a bit more depth of field would be better. However, since this is already shot at f11, I am not sure how much more you can get with f16 or 22. Moreover, the frog need more room down below and there is too much "dead" space on top.

-- Shun Cheung (shun@worldnet.att.net), July 21, 1998.


I'll put in another vote on the "shallow-DOF-works-in-this-shot" side of the debate. Emphasizes the frog's eye and "face" nicely, as others have said.

It's a matter of taste, though. Nice sharpness for a handheld shot.

Pat

-- Pat Dorsey (p-dorsey@nwu.edu), July 21, 1998.


Shallow? Problem??? That's what makes this picture great!

-- (andreas@physio.unr.edu), July 21, 1998.

Great shot, Joe!

The shallow DOF makes the guy's face just jump right out of the photo. :>

To nitpick, I'd like it if the foot wasn't cropped out, and I feel there should be more "white space" to the right so that he's looking into the frame... Otherwise it's super!

Keith

-- Keith Clark (ClarkPhotography@spiritone.com), July 21, 1998.


Joe,

Since I've discovered that the monitor I was using was not fully using the grey scale I took another look. You know, on my bad monitor it looks better. The colours are darker and more saturated. Digitally underexpose it a little and it's really nice.

-- Paul Lenson (lenson@pci.on.ca), July 21, 1998.


Just one more remark on the DOF aspect: Increasing the DOF by stopping down is not really an option, the frog is a couple of cm's long and the best DOF you can hope for at this magnification is about 0,5 cm. If you want the entire frog in focus make sure the camera is parralel to the frog. This obviously limits your freedom to compose and IMO often leads to dull images

-- Elbert-Jan Achterberg (achterberg@northernlight.nl), July 23, 1998.


Joe, I'll try to keep my tongue out of my cheek (and my foot out of my mouth) on this one. I agree with the others who think DOF is not a problem. You nailed the focus on this guy's eye, and got the catchlight as well. I also like the palm frond background - great shot. p.s. I got the 10K pig.

-- One-pig Pete (peter.may@stetson.edu), July 24, 1998.

Hi Joe,

Most of the time I'm not particularly fond of macro images, but I like this one. What I don't like about macro is that often it goes beyond focusing attention on the subject to where it isolates the subject from its environment. For example, with most macro flower stuff you can't tell if it was taken at the Walmart garden center or the back trails of a national park. However, your image seems to merge the frog with its environment and at the same time it focus attention on the frog. It may be quirky, but this image makes me think of the movie "Predator". Good Job! Larry Korhnak

-- Larry Korhnak (lvk@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu), September 10, 1998.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ