Artificial depth of field ok?

[geo909]

Dear all,

I have processed this photo quite a bit.. Apart from tonal corrections, sharpenning,
etc, I have removed some artifacts that spoiled the pattern in the background and,
most importantly, added some depth of field with a little gaussian blur. The only thing
not affected is the light on the top right corner.

Do you think the depth of field effect is well made or is it obvious that it is artificial?
Was the light on the top right a good choice?

Of course, any further critique on the processing, composition, etc, would be gladly received..

Thanks a lot in advance..

Camera make     : Canon
Camera model    : Canon EOS REBEL T2i
Image timestamp : 2012:02:11 16:14:43
Exposure time   : 1/200 s
Aperture        : F5.6
Flash           : No, compulsory
Focal length    : 55.0 mm
ISO speed       : 100

[mbrobich]

You should make another one, this time add a LOT of blur to the background, re-post it below this one and we can compare. Needs more DOF bokeh !!

[geo909]

Originally Posted by mbrobich

You should make another one, this time add a LOT of blur to the background, re-post it below this one and we can compare. Needs more DOF bokeh !!

Thanks for the feedback!

Here's the new version with more blur. However I notice some halo around the lights and their stand, that I cannot remove. In general, there is something wrong... Something doesn't look good to me, but I'm not sure.. Any feedback?



That's the previous version (from post above):



That's the very original image (directly from raw):

[loons49]

From a composition standpoint, I am not sure of the story / message you are trying to portray through this image. I am all in favor or PP when it is used to enhance an already powerful or compelling image but with a poor image to start with it is a waste of time. Bokeh is best achieved through your optics and aperture and can be enhanced with PP. But on this imagge the area you are trying to defocus in PP is way too large. I also find the leaning vertical lines and the traffic lights themselves distracting. Maybe from a different angle w/o the traffic lights and converted to b&w this might have some interesting texture. Sorry that I could not find anything good to say about this image.

[geo909]

Originally Posted by loons49

From a composition standpoint, I am not sure of the story / message you are trying to portray through this image. I am all in favor or PP when it is used to enhance an already powerful or compelling image but with a poor image to start with it is a waste of time. Bokeh is best achieved through your optics and aperture and can be enhanced with PP. But on this imagge the area you are trying to defocus in PP is way too large. I also find the leaning vertical lines and the traffic lights themselves distracting. Maybe from a different angle w/o the traffic lights and converted to b&w this might have some interesting texture. Sorry that I could not find anything good to say about this image.

On the contrary, thanks for the feedback.. As for the story/message: my purpose was to expose 'human-made repetitions and patterns' (weekly assignment). However, you're right, it's not an interesting photo and there are distracting things. Maybe I do waste my time PP it after all..

[mrteacherdude]

Interesting that you mentioned the repetitions assignment. My first thought when I looked at your original post was that the image looked like it could fit that assignment. I was noticing the repetitive pattern of windows in the background as the focal point, but wasn't entirely sure of the purpose of the traffic lights other than perhaps to lead my eye into the pattern behind. But I don't think that was working for me. Looking at it from that perspective of the pattern, I was looking for that portion of the photo to be sharp rather than blurred. In the more blurred version you have posted, I find my eye drawn to the lights that are in focus and I'm not really seeing the pattern as I was previously as it is now competing quite successfully with the pattern behind.

Do keep in mind that this is just what I see, others see things differently.

[geo909]

Originally Posted by mrteacherdude

Interesting that you mentioned the repetitions assignment. My first thought when I looked at your original post was that the image looked like it could fit that assignment. I was noticing the repetitive pattern of windows in the background as the focal point, but wasn't entirely sure of the purpose of the traffic lights other than perhaps to lead my eye into the pattern behind. But I don't think that was working for me. Looking at it from that perspective of the pattern, I was looking for that portion of the photo to be sharp rather than blurred. In the more blurred version you have posted, I find my eye drawn to the lights that are in focus and I'm not really seeing the pattern as I was previously as it is now competing quite successfully with the pattern behind.

Do keep in mind that this is just what I see, others see things differently.

Thanks for the feedback!

I think it's clear to me by now that the photo is weak in many aspects and definitely
in composition. I was thinking about the three yellow lights (repetition) breaking the
background pattern but it didn't really work..

[Niresangwa]

This isn't a weak image at all. It has plenty of potential.

There are some elements that would require a re-shoot that you ought to have gotten right in the first place, but the premise is a good one...

notably the things that either aren't windows, or aren't traffic lights need to go...street lamp, flag pole, concrete facade at the top etc... could be cloned out perhaps.

As to the original question about the artificial shallow DoF...it's rarely done well, no matter how well you do it, if that makes sense.

Stick to your original thought for this and simplify it as much as possible.

[geo909]

This isn't a weak image at all. It has plenty of potential.

Ah, I don't know what to believe anymore ) But, of course, that's a great thing to hear!

There are some elements that would require a re-shoot that you ought to have gotten right in the first place, but the premise is a good one...

notably the things that either aren't windows, or aren't traffic lights need to go...street lamp, flag pole, concrete facade at the top etc... could be cloned out perhaps.

That's the (time consuming, yet) easy part, I guess.

As to the original question about the artificial shallow DoF...it's rarely done well, no matter how well you do it, if that makes sense.

So, do you think I should have a shallow depth of field in the first place (not artificial, that is)? I guess I can try some different apertures, but some more feedback would be great..

Stick to your original thought for this and simplify it as much as possible.

Will do! That spot is near my house, so it doesn't hurt to try a little more to get something
nice from it.. If it doesn't work out again, well, I'll say I tried

[Niresangwa]

Originally Posted by geo909

Ah, I don't know what to believe anymore ) But, of course, that's a great thing to hear!

Well, as with any advice on an internet forum, you need to consider the source, and your mileage will always vary. Ultimately this is your work, and it needs to mean something to you.

Whether you're doing it to apply different techniques, or just doing it because the shot was appealing at the time, it doesn't matter.

Just remember that not every shot you take has to have some deep-seated soul-stirring meaning, nor does it have to tell a story, nor does it have to satisfy arbitrary 'rules'...

...it's perfectly OK just to create an image for it's aesthetic value. Unpretentious simplicity is more than acceptable.

Originally Posted by geo909

So, do you think I should have a shallow depth of field in the first place (not artificial, that is)? I guess I can try some different apertures, but some more feedback would be great..

In my opinion, a shallow DoF would remove what I saw in the image, which is essentially using the windows as a texture, and the strong patterns they bring with then, set against the more fluid traffic lights... you also have contrasting colours which you'd lose too.

If I were shown this, and given the assignment to go back and re-imagine it, I wouldn't be considering DoF as a technical point of work, rather the lines, geometry and flow...and of course getting rid of the junk in the frame.

If I were shown this location and image and told to re-imagine it to include DoF as a primary technical aspect, I"d be lining those three lights up in some tight pattern and working a shallow DoF into that...obviously the background and windows would be discarded...

Either way don't be so hard on yourself, your work or your motivations for either.