How do you think this picture taken

fortwodriver

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Looks like a gold reflector was used and this was shot wide open using the huge (and difficult) 85mm 1.2. Shot in the early evening. Pretty classic lighting.

A lot of the main subject on that photo is actually out of focus... some might say it's "romantically out of focus".
I've seen his portraits before... his style always has a soft, dreamy quality to them.
 

Rudy

Mu-43 Top Veteran
The EXIF says it's shot at f/16.
If that's true then the blurr would be fake.
Rudy
 

LovinTheEP2

Mu-43 Top Veteran
If you ask me, it's a take on the long focal lens, ultra shallow multi image panorama technique a wedding photographer did (bernizer sp??). Ends up with ultrawide fl with sub 1.0 aperture in the end. Exif is meaningless in these photos. Its a stack of many images.
 

spatulaboy

I'm not really here
I'm not sure he's using Brenizer technique. He wouldn't be able to capture the falling dirt since it's a multi stitched shot... This looks like a single shot take.

As a portrait shooter I can say this is not as difficult to achieve as some believe. Obviously he is shooting with a fast lens 85/1.2, but the important part to look at is the background. He's choosing his backgrounds carefully, most of these portraits are done in a very open environment (field, road, etc). This really clears up the background and creates an illusion of extra blur/bokeh. I use this trick sometimes too (I'm not saying you can achieve this look on m4/3, but it works on different levels with each format).
 

LovinTheEP2

Mu-43 Top Veteran
I'm not sure he's using Brenizer technique. He wouldn't be able to capture the falling dirt since it's a multi stitched shot... This looks like a single shot take.

As a portrait shooter I can say this is not as difficult to achieve as some believe. Obviously he is shooting with a fast lens 85/1.2, but the important part to look at is the background. He's choosing his backgrounds carefully, most of these portraits are done in a very open environment (field, road, etc). This really clears up the background and creates an illusion of extra blur/bokeh. I use this trick sometimes too (I'm not saying you can achieve this look on m4/3, but it works on different levels with each format).
Earlier I had a lot off my cellphone, now on the computer the blurring is definitely not lens boken in that pay dirt still. Extremely abrupt lower left hand corner straight line blurring finish. Similar setup in Nebraksa Boy photo and Contrast.

Id say he uses multiple blur layers in PS. Increases Saturation and decreases clarity a bit and then split the prefocus and backfocus to muted tones and applies blur.. Overall, I find the effect pretty harsh when compared t Elena approach and others but he has a nice eye for composition and light.
 

spatulaboy

I'm not really here
Earlier I had a lot off my cellphone, now on the computer the blurring is definitely not lens boken in that pay dirt still. Extremely abrupt lower left hand corner straight line blurring finish. Similar setup in Nebraksa Boy photo and Contrast.

Id say he uses multiple blur layers in PS. Increases Saturation and decreases clarity a bit and then split the prefocus and backfocus to muted tones and applies blur.. Overall, I find the effect pretty harsh when compared t Elena approach and others but he has a nice eye for composition and light.
You might be right I did not examine the photo very closely, however with large aperture lenses the DOF can be quite abrupt. In either case I'm not a huge fan of this 'extreme isolation' look, just not my cup of tea. A lot of people love this look though.
 

robbie36

Mu-43 All-Pro
Look HERE and see that the sharpness of the horizon is vastly different on a related shot with the same indicated lens and aperture.
I also feel the background bokeh is fake. It certainly looks fake. The give away is that there is no fall off to the bokeh. 3 inches behind the subject is just as blurry as 3 miles. You can make out the horizon but not the stones 6 inches behind the subject.
 

lightmonkey

Mu-43 Veteran
I also feel the background bokeh is fake. It certainly looks fake. The give away is that there is no fall off to the bokeh. 3 inches behind the subject is just as blurry as 3 miles. You can make out the horizon but not the stones 6 inches behind the subject.
yep, its the immediate-background that gives it away. we know that the zone of focus is not symmetric around the plane (the children)...
 

RDM

Mu-43 All-Pro
The EXIF says it's shot at f/16.
If that's true then the blurr would be fake.
Rudy
The EXIF I see shows it was shot at f/1.2 and ISO 200.
I think you might be misreading the Exif data, or something, because I also see it say f 16 is used when I look at the exif data. I see this :

Filename - 2048.jpg
ImageWidth - 3797
ImageLength - 2878
BitsPerSample - 16 16 16
Compression - 1 (None)
PhotometricInterpretation - 2
Make - Canon
Model - Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Orientation - Top left
SamplesPerPixel - 3
XResolution - 300
YResolution - 300
PlanarConfiguration - 1
ResolutionUnit - Inch
Software - Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
DateTime - 2014:03:10 21:12:27
ExifOffset - 308
ExposureTime - 1/1000 seconds
FNumber - 16
ExposureProgram - Aperture priority
ISOSpeedRatings - 200
ExifVersion - 0230
DateTimeOriginal - 2013:10:19 18:18:55
DateTimeDigitized - 2013:10:19 18:18:55
ShutterSpeedValue - 1/1000 seconds
ApertureValue - F 16.00
ExposureBiasValue - -2.33
MaxApertureValue - F 1.24
MeteringMode - Multi-segment
Flash - Flash not fired, compulsory flash mode
FocalLength - 85 mm
SubsecTimeOriginal - 15
ColorSpace - sRGB
ExifImageWidth - 3797
ExifImageHeight - 2878
FocalPlaneXResolution - 1600.00
FocalPlaneYResolution - 1600.00
FocalPlaneResolutionUnit - Centimeter
CustomRendered - Normal process
ExposureMode - Auto
White Balance - Manual
SceneCaptureType - Standard

So yes based on the exposure settings and it looks like it was sunny out. Time stamp indicates it was taken close to sunset, it looks like (what are those kids doing out still.. its dinner time ? lol :tongue:).
I am almost certain it's heavily shopped for that effect we see.
A naturally thin DOF would have the OOFA gradually get blurrier going away from the area in focus.
I personally don't like it , but some might and I guess do.


Macro lens! The kids are only an inch tall!:biggrin:
lol :laugh1: that's a good one
 
Top