To add a 205 or 203 body or not

[simonpg]

Well QG, when I first saw the image it had great appeal to me. I thought "what a lovely portrait and use of very limited DOF".

Then I read your message and I looked back at the image and thought "mmm, not sure I love what the OOF did to the white top..".

How dam fussy! It's a lovely image all round with excellent use of limited DOF and the point of focus is spot on. It conveys a lovely serenity - composition, colour, softness etc.

But yes, you make a very sound point about understanding a lens' DOF and using softness very deliberatley to avoid "just a soft image".

Thanks for sharing the image as it adds so much to your valuable comment.

 

[qnu]

Simon,

Thank you for the initial kind words, but i do know it is not a good photo.

To cluttered, no balance, weird colour patches, and, and... A typical grab shot. Very 'unfussy'.
Which ("grab", i.e. a 'make do'-shot) was why the lens was used wide open too.

Since focussing this lens is a rather difficult business, and since with DOF almost not present at all you should decide carefully where to put focus, you need time. Grab shots do not allow time, and consequently focus was (almost) pure chance. If it happens to be near the right spot, i can't take credit for that. It could have just as easy not have been.
But i digress; that's about how difficult it can be to use this lens.

It (and that's what i think it shows well) has that 'bad bokeh' thing too.

Marc,

I was trying to find the full-size scan version, and show details of the double contours, but my computer has decided it doesn't want to play along anymore.
Amazing, how much time you can spend chasing after faults in computers, without having a result to show... Time for a new one, i guess.

Anyway, i'll have to describe what it would have shown: the contours appear indeed rather soft (as they should be), nicely 'fizzling out' completely, but then reappearing again for a repeat performance, producing (just like the words suggest) a double contour. They really make my eyes water.

This thing however appears to be distance/scale related, i.e. appear in a 'zone'. Things nearer by, or farther away, do not suffer the same treatment.

 

[simonpg]

Ah yes QG, the shooter is always more critical of the result. But, alas, to this observer's eyes this is a lovely shot - all the technical merits and faults drift off into the background when the image is simply appealing as this one certainly was.

Likewise I've made images I loved for a range of reasons including technical merit, only to have observers dismiss it!