Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
×



Details

Submitted on
February 13, 2006
Image Size
145 KB
Resolution
790×547
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
49
Favourites
1 (who?)
Comments
8
Downloads
14
×
dried up by mbroadway26 dried up by mbroadway26
I like how the leaves are hanging and placement.
Taken at Bluebonnet Swamp on February 5, 2006.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconjarrath:
Jarrath Featured By Owner Feb 14, 2006
Nice photo, i like the sharp focus and the background out of focus.
Reply
:iconmbroadway26:
mbroadway26 Featured By Owner Feb 15, 2006
Thanks, that's what I like about it as well.
Reply
:iconcalzinger:
Calzinger Featured By Owner Feb 13, 2006
I love the "not quite B&W" effect. Or is it actually black and white? There looks to be an extremely slight tint of color in the OOF area.
The DOF also seems extremely shallow. A couple of inches away from the focused leaf and you begin to see a blur. It also has a very attractive bokeh.

What lens did you use? or camera for that matter?
Reply
:iconmbroadway26:
mbroadway26 Featured By Owner Feb 13, 2006
It is black and white film, but I realized that the scans on the CD I have, have a slight red tint to them. Very subtle. So I thought anyway! lol. It was quite shallow and only a couple of inches away. Wow, good call on your part. I'm impressed.

The camera I used is a Canon EOS Rebel T2 with the original lens to it. Which is: 28-90mm.
Reply
:iconcalzinger:
Calzinger Featured By Owner Feb 14, 2006
The shallow DOF works great. I personally would have taken the shot wide open and another one stopped down a bit. Then I could just compare whether I want the completely focused subject or the very thin DOF shot. Seeing as how that was taken on a film SLR, reluctance to take the same shot with different settings is justified. It's too bad that DOF is something you can't change in the (digital) darkroom.

Do you happen to know the aperture that this shot was taken at? I was planning to get a very fast lens (Canon EF 50mm f/1.8). It's only $70, but I'm worried that the thin DOF at f/1.8 may be very hard to manage. It looks like that was not an issue in this shot. Your thoughts?
I'm also worried that the zoom might be too far. Since I have a Canon 350D (rebel xt), the focal length is multiplied by 1.6 because of the smaller sensor. Otherwise, 50mm is perfect reach on a standard 35mm film camera or full frame digital body.
Reply
:iconmbroadway26:
mbroadway26 Featured By Owner Feb 15, 2006
I don't recall what my aperture was. It was fairly bright outside, but I adjusted aperture and shutter speed accordingly.
Hmm, well it depends on what you'd use that lens for? Anything in particular I mean?
Reply
:iconcalzinger:
Calzinger Featured By Owner Feb 15, 2006
I'd likely use it as my general-purpose night lens. That doesn't make much sense given the fact that it's a prime on a 1.6x camera. I'd probably be better off with a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 since it has great zoom range and is pretty fast, but it's ~ $400. The 50mm f/1.8 II is only $70! I'm thinking of buying just because it's cheap! For that price though, I could add to my ridiculously lousy 1GB CF card and get a Sandisk 2GB Ultra II for $90.

Sucks not to have money to support such an expensive hobby. Perhaps when I get onto college and beyond I'll be able to afford.
Reply
:iconmbroadway26:
mbroadway26 Featured By Owner Feb 15, 2006
Alright, that is what I had in mind for that size of an aperture. For night use. That is quite a deal to think over.
Oh, I do know what you mean about the cost of this hobby.
Reply
Add a Comment: