Depth of Field.

Good day,

i'm quite new to this site and this is the first topic. First of all let me to apologize for my (bad) english and say 'hi' to all members of this forum.

I'm writing this first topic because i'm trying, since i 'landed' on this site, to figure out what is 'good' and what is 'bad' to screeners' eyes. I take pictures for myself, yes, i like aviation photography in general but i like too to see my pictures accepted as well and in order to achieve this result i need to understand and get the 'rules of the game'. One way is to look around to others pictures and try to get an idea on what is accepted. So, why DoF? Simply because this morning i saw this (great!) picture by Bernhard Sitzwohl:  

Immediately my mind jumped on one of my last rejected picture (see attachment) and the reason was "The field of depth is too narrow for this type of shot.".

Im not used to appeal cause in general i try to discuss with the screener and try to get his point of view: for this picture i didn't replied at all to the rejection because i got the motivation as a rule, the dof was indeed narrow. But of course when i saw the picture of Mr. Sitzwohl (and i say again - superb picture!) the question raised by itself: which is an acceptable DoF for these kind of shots?

Thank you for reading,

PM

Attached photos:

I remember that toned cockpit panel. I second screened it., I just loved the overall tone and how those two hex head bolts stick out of the panel like a pair of sore thumbs!

PERSONALLY, if I were to critique the two images, I'd say that the Concorde shot has a narrow DoF but the repetition helps the overall effect as it is the same instrument four times. Your image needs a wider DoF, I'd say three instruments broad or more, that would be the Com box, the ASI and the Altimeter. the Com box is very dominant in the picture.

Basically one wants to see the whole of the panel rather than a small piece of it.

You are still within your rights to appeal the rejection Paolo, with artistic shots like this it boils down to a judgement call by the screeners. I would be more than happy for you to appeal the rejection.

NB I should just mention that while we welcome a good discussion on this subject, severely negative postings will be moderated

This post has been edited by Wallace Shackleton on 28th August 2012 - 17:25

So, do you mean my post Wallace ? If so, please explain.

I believe that one of the Moderators found it necessary to remove your post.

Very mature..

EXIF information will not show if you use the Save For the Web option in Photoshop. A Member is free to add this information in the remarks box if they wish.

The EXIF information is not available to the screeners when they screen pictures either.

Thank you all for answers.

@Wallace: the main goal for me is to try to understand the rules (if any). I don't feel the uploading as a war between me and the screeners :-) and im not that one who need to have the last word. So, no appeal at all: the target is to learn and compare is a good way to do it. This site is full of great pictures and photographers to learn from.

Paolo

Hello Paolo.

Thank you posted good discussion thread. Very impressed.

I think DoF rules that depends on what you want to express mainly.

The picture of12 equipments is the same shape on each other.

So, I think the photographer used DoF effect and focused 2-3 equipments.

Your one is also good shot.

If you did not use DoF I can feel both the PANEL and same equipment image.

Or If you could look down the panel, narrow DoF was helped for quit good effect.

Paolo, you are quite within your rights to appeal, basically by appealing you are getting a third opinion which may go in your favour, you have nothing to loose.

There are no DoF rules, it is just a matter of what looks right to the two people that happen to screen the pictures... which reminds me to sample that lovely blue grey, I'll use that as a tint some day.

I am sure that you are aware, as Toshi says photographing the panel side-on would get the whole panel on the same focal plane but I'm sure that wasn't the intention of your composition.