<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: standing out / blending in</title>
	<atom:link href="http://planetneil.com/tangents/2008/04/07/standing-out-blending-in/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://planetneil.com/tangents/2008/04/07/standing-out-blending-in/</link>
	<description>various writings on photography, whether techniques, ideas, equipment info, or just rants.</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 06 Jul 2008 21:37:54 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Neil</title>
		<link>http://planetneil.com/tangents/2008/04/07/standing-out-blending-in/#comment-1477</link>
		<dc:creator>Neil</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jun 2008 04:22:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://planetneil.com/tangents/?p=156#comment-1477</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;Hi there Evan .. 

For me, a lens hood is essential in protecting the lens against accidental knocks and bumps.  And then of course it also helps in reducing flare.  I keep lens hoods on all my lenses at all times.

Neil vN&lt;/blockquote&gt;

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Hi there Evan .. </p>
<p>For me, a lens hood is essential in protecting the lens against accidental knocks and bumps.  And then of course it also helps in reducing flare.  I keep lens hoods on all my lenses at all times.</p>
<p>Neil vN</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Evan</title>
		<link>http://planetneil.com/tangents/2008/04/07/standing-out-blending-in/#comment-1436</link>
		<dc:creator>Evan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Jun 2008 03:00:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://planetneil.com/tangents/?p=156#comment-1436</guid>
		<description>Your blog is phenomenal. Both informative and inspirational, not to mention the photos are excellent. I will have to make a trip to the US to attend one of your workshops some day. Anyways, I noticed that you use a 70-200 a lot, which is a very large and noticeable lens (I have the Nikon version which is slightly larger still), do you use the lens hood, or leave it off to avoid looking like "the photo-geek cousin of The Terminator?"

Thanks,
Evan</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Your blog is phenomenal. Both informative and inspirational, not to mention the photos are excellent. I will have to make a trip to the US to attend one of your workshops some day. Anyways, I noticed that you use a 70-200 a lot, which is a very large and noticeable lens (I have the Nikon version which is slightly larger still), do you use the lens hood, or leave it off to avoid looking like &#8220;the photo-geek cousin of The Terminator?&#8221;</p>
<p>Thanks,<br />
Evan</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Neil</title>
		<link>http://planetneil.com/tangents/2008/04/07/standing-out-blending-in/#comment-1042</link>
		<dc:creator>Neil</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2008 08:18:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://planetneil.com/tangents/?p=156#comment-1042</guid>
		<description>

&lt;blockquote&gt;Stephen ... 

You're right that f1.8 will give you a very shallow depth of field.  But how obvious it is, depends on the image size, and in resizing for web, a lot of the subtlety is lost.  Also, keep in mind that for portraits you quite often just need the eyes to be sharp for the image to look good.

A reflection in a mirror has depth.  You can try this by focusing on various objects in a mirror - your camera will refocus every time for the difference in distance.  In other words, the bride is in a different optical plane than everything else in the room.  (This has to be, otherwise everything reflected by a mirror would be sharply in focus.)

Neil vN&lt;/blockquote&gt;

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Stephen &#8230; </p>
<p>You&#8217;re right that f1.8 will give you a very shallow depth of field.  But how obvious it is, depends on the image size, and in resizing for web, a lot of the subtlety is lost.  Also, keep in mind that for portraits you quite often just need the eyes to be sharp for the image to look good.</p>
<p>A reflection in a mirror has depth.  You can try this by focusing on various objects in a mirror - your camera will refocus every time for the difference in distance.  In other words, the bride is in a different optical plane than everything else in the room.  (This has to be, otherwise everything reflected by a mirror would be sharply in focus.)</p>
<p>Neil vN</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephen from NJ</title>
		<link>http://planetneil.com/tangents/2008/04/07/standing-out-blending-in/#comment-1039</link>
		<dc:creator>Stephen from NJ</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:30:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://planetneil.com/tangents/?p=156#comment-1039</guid>
		<description>Hi Neil,

My understanding is that f1.8 has a very shallow depth of field.  So, if you took a picture of somebody's face and focus on the nose, the nose would be in focus, but other parts of the face would (potentially) be slightly blurred from the shallow depth of field.  

But everything on the bride's face and chest are in focus!   I presume that is the case, because the mirror's surface is flat.   Thus, the bride's reflection is on the same optical plane for the camera lens, so her face and chest are in focus.  Am I correct?

--Stephen</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Neil,</p>
<p>My understanding is that f1.8 has a very shallow depth of field.  So, if you took a picture of somebody&#8217;s face and focus on the nose, the nose would be in focus, but other parts of the face would (potentially) be slightly blurred from the shallow depth of field.  </p>
<p>But everything on the bride&#8217;s face and chest are in focus!   I presume that is the case, because the mirror&#8217;s surface is flat.   Thus, the bride&#8217;s reflection is on the same optical plane for the camera lens, so her face and chest are in focus.  Am I correct?</p>
<p>&#8211;Stephen</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Neil</title>
		<link>http://planetneil.com/tangents/2008/04/07/standing-out-blending-in/#comment-1043</link>
		<dc:creator>Neil</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:20:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://planetneil.com/tangents/?p=156#comment-1043</guid>
		<description>

&lt;blockquote&gt;Ed, 

Thank you for the thoughtful reply.  That in itself is a great compliment, coming from someone with your abilities in writing and with photography. 

Neil vN&lt;/blockquote&gt;

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Ed, </p>
<p>Thank you for the thoughtful reply.  That in itself is a great compliment, coming from someone with your abilities in writing and with photography. </p>
<p>Neil vN</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ed Verosky</title>
		<link>http://planetneil.com/tangents/2008/04/07/standing-out-blending-in/#comment-1035</link>
		<dc:creator>Ed Verosky</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2008 01:42:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://planetneil.com/tangents/?p=156#comment-1035</guid>
		<description>Neil, well said.  I tend to be blunt with my personal opinions, so I'll say this:  Pure photojournalism doesn't exist in wedding photography.  

It's a marketing ploy and often an excuse for photographers who aren't comfortable interacting, directing, and who need a reason for why they didn't get a particular shot, or didn't get it right.

Candid shots can most certainly happen.  Unplanned moments can be captured.  But, the idea that a hired photographer can covertly cover an entire wedding properly without being noticed is silly. What is really the point of that anyway?  To more accurately capture a ceremony and celebration?  To get those tender quiet moments without interfering with the "reality" of the day?

I agree with your methodology.  If you have become a part of the day, THEN your presence is more natural and unobtrusive.  The photographer can be a solid fixture and friend.  This makes it even more possible to accept him in his role, forget he is there at times, and respond to him when appropriate.

Imagine the lucky bride who's photographer can casually walk up to her during a free moment, and say, "I found a great spot where we can take a really great picture, would you like to try it?"

Much better than the idea of huddling off to the edge of the action all day long with a telephoto.  Or being invisible enough for the bride to come looking for you.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Neil, well said.  I tend to be blunt with my personal opinions, so I&#8217;ll say this:  Pure photojournalism doesn&#8217;t exist in wedding photography.  </p>
<p>It&#8217;s a marketing ploy and often an excuse for photographers who aren&#8217;t comfortable interacting, directing, and who need a reason for why they didn&#8217;t get a particular shot, or didn&#8217;t get it right.</p>
<p>Candid shots can most certainly happen.  Unplanned moments can be captured.  But, the idea that a hired photographer can covertly cover an entire wedding properly without being noticed is silly. What is really the point of that anyway?  To more accurately capture a ceremony and celebration?  To get those tender quiet moments without interfering with the &#8220;reality&#8221; of the day?</p>
<p>I agree with your methodology.  If you have become a part of the day, THEN your presence is more natural and unobtrusive.  The photographer can be a solid fixture and friend.  This makes it even more possible to accept him in his role, forget he is there at times, and respond to him when appropriate.</p>
<p>Imagine the lucky bride who&#8217;s photographer can casually walk up to her during a free moment, and say, &#8220;I found a great spot where we can take a really great picture, would you like to try it?&#8221;</p>
<p>Much better than the idea of huddling off to the edge of the action all day long with a telephoto.  Or being invisible enough for the bride to come looking for you.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Neil</title>
		<link>http://planetneil.com/tangents/2008/04/07/standing-out-blending-in/#comment-1034</link>
		<dc:creator>Neil</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 2008 19:12:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://planetneil.com/tangents/?p=156#comment-1034</guid>
		<description>

&lt;blockquote&gt;Hi there Stephen ..

Thank you!

I needed a shallow depth of field, so I settled on f1.8
The lens was the &lt;a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/457680-USA/Canon_1257B002_Normal_EF_50mm_f_1_2L.html/BI/2096/KBID/2822" target="_new" rel="nofollow"&gt;Canon 50mm f1.2&lt;/a&gt; - a beautiful optic. 

Neil vN&lt;/blockquote&gt;

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Hi there Stephen ..</p>
<p>Thank you!</p>
<p>I needed a shallow depth of field, so I settled on f1.8<br />
The lens was the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/457680-USA/Canon_1257B002_Normal_EF_50mm_f_1_2L.html/BI/2096/KBID/2822" target="_new" rel="nofollow">Canon 50mm f1.2</a> - a beautiful optic. </p>
<p>Neil vN</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephen in NJ</title>
		<link>http://planetneil.com/tangents/2008/04/07/standing-out-blending-in/#comment-1030</link>
		<dc:creator>Stephen in NJ</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 2008 03:37:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://planetneil.com/tangents/?p=156#comment-1030</guid>
		<description>Hi Neil,
That first picture is incredible.  You positioned yourself quite nicely in that tiny triangle between the bride's arm and veil to blur out the subject but keep the mirror's reflection sharp.  It is a good picture to represent this blog entry.

Was your lens opened wide on that one?  (f2.8?)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Neil,<br />
That first picture is incredible.  You positioned yourself quite nicely in that tiny triangle between the bride&#8217;s arm and veil to blur out the subject but keep the mirror&#8217;s reflection sharp.  It is a good picture to represent this blog entry.</p>
<p>Was your lens opened wide on that one?  (f2.8?)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
