Prachtige dieren. Persoonlijk had ik ze beide liever scherp gezien ipv alleen de voorste, daar de achterste je zo mooi aankijkt. Maar dat is een smaak kwestie... mooi plaatje Paul. Great post, Mich.
This Image GRABBED my EYE. That's Why I Stopped By.
Thanks For Sharing ! Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience
I love this photo of the deer Paul, but to be honest, the deer in the background, well, his blurryness messes with my eyes way too much. I'd like to see both of them very clearly, not just one. But your camera sure works wonders. So does the photographer. Thank you my dear friend. Verena
Thank you for comments!
It's funny to read your comments about the deer in the background, being blurred. I hope you understand that when a focal lenght of 420 mm is used it is technically impossible to get both deer sharp. This photo was technically and artistically intended to have a very shallow depth of focus.
That is a technique you will find everyday when you look into a random magazine. Be it a portrait or a dish of food, you may notice that the photographer actually aims to get a very shallow DOF. The lenses used are often very expensive fixed focals with a very large aperature (f1.4 - f2.8).
If I like it myself? Well, if you look in my gallery you will find both ways. Photo's where everything is razor sharp. And photo's like this one: shallow.
It all depends on the subject. In this case I like the composition, for it doesn't give away the whole picture. There is something for your mind to chew on.
But friends, that is a personal thing and maybe tomorrow I like it the other way! What remains is the challenge: is it possible for the photographer to creat an image like this?
I mean: without blurring it during post processing on a PC.
For your interest: my wife recently published a healt book for which I shot a lot of photos of food dishes. I shot photos of those dishes which were completely sharp. You could actually see what you will be eating. And that is a technique you hardly see these days in magazines. The reactions varied a lot, serious photographers didn't like it but the publisher and the audiance did like it very much. So, who is right and who is wrong?
Thanks for your interest!
Paul