You must log in or # to comment.
A bit of a gripe with this set. There were a number of amazing poses in this set. However, half of the picture, in nearly all of them was out of focus. I don’t understand how today’s photographers do not understand depth of field (focus). Even more so that studios like Met Art would accept workmanship of such poor quality.
I’m sure this is more of an artistic presentation choice by photographer. Petter Hegre and his photographers used to do this a long time ago for his site. The advent of autofocus and uhd cameras took away most of the artistic focus on specific body areas sadly…
Is it some sort of artistic choice?
To give it a hastily taken polaroid look?Possible, the Polaroid was a fixed focus camera, which did have nice bokeh. That said, the widest (shallowest dept of field) setting on most Polaroids was f-11, which for close up work still gives a decent depth of field. (The smallest aperture was f-64).
I have seen photos (not this set) where the model was stating at about a 15 degree angle to the camera (straight on would be 0 degrees) and one nipple was in focus and the other was not.
I personally think, my opinion only, that it is a combination of two factors. The first being auto focus. The second being the lack, except on high end cameras of a split prism or micro prism view finder.
All of that said, it also depends on what you are looking at the image on. Most of the photos of this set, when looked at as thumbnails, or mid definition, look ok. It helps that the human eye/brain smooths things out. If you are looking at this set on a cell phone sized display I think it would be fine. I however am looking at the images on 31.5" displays.
I will also admit I am totally OCD about foreground portions of the photo (the model) being in focus.
