Nude

[Tin Can]

Ben Rains makes very good images, his work blows my mind. Always.

Keep it up Ben!

[Jac@stafford.net]

Ben Rains makes very good images, his work blows my mind. Always.

Perhaps he can tell us why the focus is off. Intentional or not?
.

[Ken Lee]

Rude forum members get banned: for short durations at first, then permanently.

[benrains]

Is the model purposefully out of focus while the edges are in focus? Was this done with intent?

If you look a bit more carefully at the image you'll notice that the fern fronds in front of the model as well as the texture of the plaster wall behind her are in focus--aside from some softness imparted by the soft-focus lens. So, technically, she's in good focus as well.

Her lack of clear definition is because of a very slight movement on her part. If you're photographing people at speed of 1 sec and slower, you're used to that happening occasionally. I hadn't intended for her to move, although it happens, especially in poses like that one--but I ended up liking the result anyway. I think her blurriness adds a bit of life to a sort of formal pose. I was also going for a pictorialist feel, and it's fairly common to see some motion blur in the images from that era, so the result has a certain authenticity. (See Paul Burty Haviland's cyanotypes of Florence Peterson, and a decent amount of Clarence H. White's images.)

The photos I make that I think are genuinely bad I don't share!

[StoneNYC]

If you look a bit more carefully at the image you'll notice that the fern fronds in front of the model as well as the texture of the plaster wall behind her are in focus--aside from some softness imparted by the soft-focus lens. So, technically, she's in good focus as well.

Her lack of clear definition is because of a very slight movement on her part. If you're photographing people at speed of 1 sec and slower, you're used to that happening occasionally. I hadn't intended for her to move, although it happens, especially in poses like that one--but I ended up liking the result anyway. I think her blurriness adds a bit of life to a sort of formal pose. I was also going for a pictorialist feel, and it's fairly common to see some motion blur in the images from that era, so the result has a certain authenticity. (See Paul Burty Haviland's cyanotypes of Florence Peterson, and a decent amount of Clarence H. White's images.)

The photos I make that I think are genuinely bad I don't share!

I noticed the fern, I didn't notice the rear wall.

I don't think it's bad at all, others assumed that when questioning your purpose it was a criticism, but it wasn't.

Thanks for explaining, I know well the whole model is moving too much thing.

[benrains]

FWIW, I didn't think the original observation/question was rude or inappropriate. I also stopped paying much attention to what other people think of my work years ago. I'm just doing my thing according to my interests and aesthetics, and will keep doing it, and *maybe* some other people will like it too.

[Tin Can]

I looked at Ben's image first on a laptop, then I Chromecast to a 48" TV, I like it a lot, some times quick looks at images are not the best. Imagine a print. Take your time and savor images, that's what stills are very good at.

[jp]

FWIW, I didn't think the original observation/question was rude or inappropriate. I also stopped paying much attention to what other people think of my work years ago. I'm just doing my thing according to my interests and aesthetics, and will keep doing it, and *maybe* some other people will like it too.

A great way to confidently work and enjoy photography!

Some people who are good contributors and students on the forum aren't so confident, and it's in our normal interest to be err on the side of kindness and not kick them while the confidence is down.

I usually photograph kids when I photograph people, so I know too well their ability to soften their likeness with motion blur or moving an inch out of the plane of focus, but it doesn't harm the image usually.

[HMG]

Ben Rains makes very good images, his work blows my mind. Always.

Keep it up Ben!

Even more so when you look at his studio setup: http://benrains.tumblr.com/post/1124...-cozy-on#notes

Apparently you don't need a bazillion w/s of flash to make great images.

[StoneNYC]

FWIW, I didn't think the original observation/question was rude or inappropriate. I also stopped paying much attention to what other people think of my work years ago. I'm just doing my thing according to my interests and aesthetics, and will keep doing it, and *maybe* some other people will like it too.

Thanks Ben,

Here's one in super low light, I think this was FP4+ pushed to EI 200 and still I think it was a 2-3 minute exposure with reciprocity, I didn't use it as it didn't come out how I had planned, it holds new meaning to me now, though practically speaking I don't think it's all that good, but was a different time in my life and a fond memory, it's probably a 150mm or 90mm close to wide open f/8-f/11? I took poor notes then.



I also couldn't get low enough and devised this "rig" to make it work and stay stable and balanced for such a long exposure.