The typographer

[The amateur]

Back in March 2013, I used flash to take pictures of people who were willing to be photographed at my request.
I used two flashes with a remote trigger and enough patience to place them in position in order to try to get the results that I found most interesting. A bit of trial and error.

After these 11 years I no longer use flashes at all, preferring natural lighting, favoring dimly lit, mysterious areas in some way.
This photograph of a typographer was obviously taken with his permission and as was my habit and still is, I print the photograph in A5 format and I am happy to offer it.

As always, I am open to your usual constructive criticism. Thank you !

[DanK]

Excellent!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The amateur]

Thank you for your comment Dan.

Looking closely, I noticed that the focus is not perfect as one would expect, especially in the eyes, which is where I would have liked it to be.
It was back then a high-end camera and lens, but it didn't focus on the eyes yet, as that feature wasn't yet available on the market.
Maybe today I would do a better job, who knows.
-
One of these days I will post a crap photo because I do them often, believe me !

[DanK]

Hi Antonio,

At this small size, I can't see whether the eyes are completely in focus. I like the composition and lighting.

About focusing on eyes: this has been a big issue for me because I take a lot of candid photos of kids. With my old DSLR (Canon Mark 5D Mark IV), I generally shot these at f/4.5 or even narrower to give myself a little room for error and to get the entire head in focus. My current camera, a Canon R6 Mark II, is entirely different. If I tell it to use the entire frame for focal points and to track people, it will almost always focus on an eye if it can find one, and if not, it will focus on a head. It usually works very well, although I just printed one where the head was at an angle, and the camera grabbed the eye further back by mistake.

Dan

[The amateur]

The one I was using for the typographer was a Canon 5 with a 24-70 f/2.8 !
Still in the house. What for ? Oh well... it has no commercial value so I keep it.
It is just part of a small collection.
Cheers !

[selig1656]

A little on the dark side and the face needs to be sharper.

[The amateur]

Thank you for your comment Raymond.

I don't see the image on my monitor very dark, that's why I left it that way. Sometimes it happens that we see it dark or light when it is fine, could it be the monitor ? Probably.
I believe that it may need more contrast on the face, but it depends a bit on the objective of the photograph and this image is only to be shared here and honestly, when it was printed in A5 format the result looked very good to me.

Cheers !

[William W]

I like the composition and the (flash created) lighting also.
The fact that he's caught looking over his glasses - and - that his hands are 'working' both add value to the story.

***

Regarding the technical comments -

The face does appear a tad soft and the eyes appear not in absolute focus.
It appears to me that the Plane of Sharp Focus is just behind the eyes.

If that image is a full frame crop, then you'd be about 4ft from the Subject, and at the Aperture F/3.5 you'd only have about 7" DoF, being about three inches in front and four inches behind - which concurs with the face, all over, appearing a bit soft.

Additionally, contrasting the appearances of the 'Room' to the 'Subject's Face', and assuming generally universal Post Production - it appears that the Ambient Exposure was about two stops, or fewer, down (less) from the Flash Exposure.

Pulling 1/100s on the Shutter was probably not that safe a choice: better to be around 1/320s in that situation, as I think that (referencing the lines of grouting in the tiles on the rear wall) you have a very small camera movement blur captured.

WW

[The amateur]

William, Thank you very much for your comment, which is excellent by the way.

Indeed, the shutter speed was too slow, which in fact caused the photo to be slightly blurry.
A pertinent and acute observation, an important fact for the overall appreciation.

At that time, I was able to work with two flashes separate from the camera with more or less skill and many mistakes along the way but sometimes it's not exactly the technical aspects that matter in an image, but what it conveys.
Which obviously doesn't mean that it can't or shouldn't be technically perfect.

I still think that today there is a slightly excessive demand for images that are increasingly perfect, sharp and detailed, when often the beauty of an image does not lie solely there.

Perhaps this can all be seen as a lame excuse for a shutter speed that was too slow, which somehow ended up ruining the photo.

But what is certain is that if I print this photo in A5 format and give it to someone, any shortcomings in the speed are actually irrelevant at that size, as they are not visible to the naked eye.

Anyway, I really appreciate your kind observation about the image I posted.

Cheers !
@ 200% in LR !

[William W]

. . . but sometimes it's not exactly the technical aspects that matter in an image, but what it conveys.
Which obviously doesn't mean that it can't or shouldn't be technically perfect. . .

Sage.

Finding the balance for every individual image is a quest in and of itself.

WW