The Rage Against the “Beck” Grip and Grin Thread
- This topic has 69 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated Jun 20, 2008 at 11:31 pm by
.
-
Posts
-
I didn’t want to high-jack Corey’s reintroduction thread last night but I think there was some good discussion going on.
Hey Carter –
There’s no question the Beck GnG shot has been worked to death (though of course it wasn’t developed by them – they are just really good at it).
PS I like the second shot a lot but I’d adjust the white balance slightly to lose some of the reddish hues.
Zach
PS I like the second shot a lot but I’d adjust the white balance slightly to lose some of the reddish hues.
Zach
Yeah, I know, It should hopefully look better after lunch actually. Unless my monitor is severely jacked up these look like older versions than what I’m seeing at home, I think I need to re synch my FTP server thing.
I’m not really too worried about what’s in the magazines. For the most part I just think that’s what happens when bean-counters get to call too many of the shots, nothing new, surprising, or shocking about their circumstances really. (Although I do recall seeing at least one cover shot recently on American Angler that I applauded for it’s deviation from the status quo.) I just want to see some different looking stuff here and now. Matt, looking forward to the AK stuff, you guys going to have internet this year??
Matt, looking forward to the AK stuff, you guys going to have internet this year??
Well, we actually had internet last year, but it is pretty tough uploading pictures in a timely manner.
www.mattjonesphotography.com
PS I like the second shot a lot but I’d adjust the white balance slightly to lose some of the reddish hues.
Zach
I like the second shot as well. Both of the photos had that red hue to them on all my monitors. Carter- do you know what is causing that. Post production… Camera?
I feel ya’ Carter. Grip shots are very stale in my opinion and really do nothing to tweek my interest. I’m also looking for that different shot. Hopefully I will have my super wide angle lens in hand soon……and will start practicing and capturing the shots of the fish with the distorted (read huge) head, with the eyes in focus, and the fisherman just a faint blur in the background. I’m really partial to those.
The Bandito is a fresh approach but a little overboard if you ask me.
I feel ya’ Carter. Grip shots are very stale in my opinion and really do nothing to tweek my interest. I’m also looking for that different shot. Hopefully I will have my super wide angle lens in hand soon……and will start practicing and capturing the shots of the fish with the distorted (read huge) head, with the eyes in focus, and the fisherman just a faint blur in the background. I’m really partial to those.
The Bandito is a fresh approach but a little overboard if you ask me. 😉
Couldn’t agree more Drifter.
PS I like the second shot a lot but I’d adjust the white balance slightly to lose some of the reddish hues.
Zach
I like the second shot as well. Both of the photos had that red hue to them on all my monitors. Carter- do you know what is causing that. Post production… Camera?
Thanks, no, when Zach saw it earlier it was different, an earlier version, I manually resynched the FTP client I’ve got managing stuff when I went home for lunch.
Frankly I don’t know how many ways there are to present them. But without question I go for the shallow DoF shots. I typically take 1 shot at f4 and then goto f2.8 or f1.8 depending on the lens I have mounted.
Drifter Ive never used a super wide angle like a 10-20 or 12-24 but even wide open your not going to get the really heavy blur. DoF/backgroud blur (bokeh) is a product of your aperature, your focal range and distance to both target and background.
For example and appologies for reusing it but its the only really compressed shot I have online without using macro images :).
85mm at f1.8 roughly at mfd
70mm at f2.8 ( note how even the snout oof and only the eyes in focus) 1/3 front, 2/3 back
59mm at f2.8 entire fish is within the dof and the *gag* bokeh is less prevalent
46mm at f2.8
35mm at f2.8
I’m still experimenting and trying to find my goto settings and dont know if Ive found the perfect balance yet between getting the DoF I want, the background blur I want, and the angle/field of view I want. but if your going for the angler being oof you’ll likekly want greater focal range than on a 22mm. I think all else being equal Id reach for the 85mm f1.8 as often as not but I usually have the 24-70mm 2.8 mounted and dont want to change but of the 3 factors using a longer focal length ( at the cost of reduced angle of view) has a greater impact on your effective DoF and resultant background blur.
Im actually considering experimentingwith my 180 f3.5 macro. The DoF on that is super thin and the background blur is superb. The problem with that is the angle of view is so narrow, so probably not very practical. A 50mm f1.4 or f1.2 might be killer but as above in the 46mm at f2.8 you can see that the blur has really fallen off as opposed to the 70mm and 80mm shots
I’m personally wrestling with ways of keeping the anglers head in the frame but making it less snap-shot looking but that’s very nice stuff, John.
I like it Carter, but one nit I’d say is due to it being a top/down image which for me personally, I find very hard to make work. Whether they are fish/ bugs with macros photography or flowers the top/down images atleast for for me isnt the type of image that jumps out an grabs me.
/edit
you replied was I was typing.
Thanks and hope youd dont mind the additions. Put them up given the topic, mostly so people can see the effects of how changes of focal length have on the background at constant f2.8 and for reference the 85/f1.8trying to find the balance between DoF/background blur/field of view is a struggle
Thanks!
Somewhere theres probably a happy medium that allows for shallow DoF and great blur, in effect isolation of the subject, yet provides for enough field of view without forcing the photo to cut off so much of the angler. So as always its about tradeoffs.
The longer your focal length the shallower your DoF for any given f/stop
The closer you are to your subject, the shallower the dof for any given focal length/f stop.
And the further away your angler and BG is from the subject, the greater the blur to eachSo the WAs give you great fields of view but the trade off is greater DoF and thus less isolation.
The fast (f2.8 or faster) mid range zooms/primes give you great isolation, trade off is less field of viewYou could do it with PS (Gaussian Blur) but unless your really skilled it tends to be easy to spot and imo makes it worse than the original and I don’t think an editor would take kindly to it 🙂
Im heading out tomorrow to the Grand for a ful day with a group of guys. I’ll try some more 85mm f1.8s and maybe even experiment with the 180 f3.5 wide open, providing the Browns co-operate :).
J
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.