"Did we just become best friends?!" CC welcome.

[STiZzle2010]

My wife and I are dog sitting for her mom, and this is the first time that my son has interacted with an animal outside of our cat. It's so cute to watch them play!

CC welcome.

f/3.2, 1/200th, ISO 250, 50mm, flash fired.

JMH_0050 by Hebee's Visions, on Flickr

[Manfred M]

Your son looks quite curious. The main issue with this image is that your depth of field is WAY too shallow and the foreground (another way of referring to the dog) is out of focus. Compositionally, we can generally get away with things in the background being out of focus. Things in the foreground, not so much.

[STiZzle2010]

I see exactly what you mean, thanks! Lesson learned for next time.

[Shadowman]

Nicely captured.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Josh,

Another heart-warming picture, well done.

The main issue with this image is that your depth of field is WAY too shallow and the foreground (another way of referring to the dog) is out of focus. Compositionally, we can generally get away with things in the background being out of focus. Things in the foreground, not so much.

In this specific case; I think the expression on your son's face makes this work even with the dog being so out of focus, although Manfred's point is valid.

It occurs to me that if you were to re-shoot the same scene with a view to getting a better version simply using a narrower aperture, say f/11 instead of f/3.2, that might still not achieve all we'd like.

Assuming camera is Canon APS-C (and using that 50mm lens), the Depth of Field (at 3 feet shooting distance) is only about 2 inches at f/3.2, this grows to something over 6 inches at f/11, but to make the most of that, you'd need to set focus at a point in space between your son and the dog.

If you just focus on your son's face (and use say f/11), because of the way Depth of Field 'works', you'll get a sharper background too, which is no benefit whatsoever, and only a slightly sharper dog.

How do you focus on a 'point in space'?

a) AF on your son, then give a small manual adjustment to the focus ring, or
b) AF on your son, hold that focus distance, then physically move yourself (and camera) slightly further back by an amount that equals approx. half the distance between your son and the dog

b) is a variation on the 'focus and recompose' technique

You may need to experiment with settings* to get the best from these techniques, especially with moving subjects and fleeting moments - but from what we've seen, you're doing well.
* there are other camera settings that may defeat what we're trying to achieve here

Of course, iso and/or flash power will need to be increased to maintain the correct exposure while using that narrower aperture.


While my assumptions and figures may be out (by some margin), I hope the general principles help you achieve a better result when DoF really matters (e.g. shooting at close quarters, as you are here).

Good luck, Dave

[mugge]

Johs, the expression on your son's face is priceless.
Cheers Ole

[STiZzle2010]

Hi Josh,

Another heart-warming picture, well done.



In this specific case; I think the expression on your son's face makes this work even with the dog being so out of focus, although Manfred's point is valid.

It occurs to me that if you were to re-shoot the same scene with a view to getting a better version simply using a narrower aperture, say f/11 instead of f/3.2, that might still not achieve all we'd like.

Assuming camera is Canon APS-C (and using that 50mm lens), the Depth of Field (at 3 feet shooting distance) is only about 2 inches at f/3.2, this grows to something over 6 inches at f/11, but to make the most of that, you'd need to set focus at a point in space between your son and the dog.

If you just focus on your son's face (and use say f/11), because of the way Depth of Field 'works', you'll get a sharper background too, which is no benefit whatsoever, and only a slightly sharper dog.

How do you focus on a 'point in space'?

a) AF on your son, then give a small manual adjustment to the focus ring, or
b) AF on your son, hold that focus distance, then physically move yourself (and camera) slightly further back by an amount that equals approx. half the distance between your son and the dog

b) is a variation on the 'focus and recompose' technique

You may need to experiment with settings* to get the best from these techniques, especially with moving subjects and fleeting moments - but from what we've seen, you're doing well.
* there are other camera settings that may defeat what we're trying to achieve here

Of course, iso and/or flash power will need to be increased to maintain the correct exposure while using that narrower aperture.


While my assumptions and figures may be out (by some margin), I hope the general principles help you achieve a better result when DoF really matters (e.g. shooting at close quarters, as you are here).

Good luck, Dave

This is invaluable information, thank you! DOF is definitely something that I need to study. I feel like I have been shooting by trial and error for so long that now, all I can focus on is trying to learn the technical aspects. Photography is something that I truly enjoy and in the process, my wife and I get some great photos to cherish which is a win.

Thank you once again for your feedback and guidance!

[IzzieK]

Another cutie though I prefer the other versions you took of your son...I do not like his too shiny eyes from here...

[jcuknz]

The boy is so POWERFUL in the image I don't give a tinkers about the OOF dog.... one can take 'rules' too far.
Though a crop off the left so that it leaves the same amount of clearance either foot would maybe passify the critics.

[jcuknz]

The boy is so POWERFUL

[STiZzle2010]

Thank you for your comments everyone!

Izzie, he has lots of catch lights due to the window behind him as well as my flash. I do not mind them as they show life in his eyes to me. I respect your opinion and appreciate your feedback as well!