messing around with my camera playing with DOF [pic]
 

Took a small break from shooting to try to learn my camera better and not waste money taking mediocre pics... one of the biggest things I've been working on is DOF as I think it makes or breaks a shot... what do you guys think?

http://18ish.com/wp-content/uploads/...antha-268c.jpg

Nice closeup.

Yes looks nice :)

Would love to see a pair of hot long toed feet like that :)

not bad :thumbsup

Nice shot, Jon :thumbsup

Those meat flaps are killer :1orglaugh

as a viewer/surfer/porn buyer, these DOF are worthless to me. i know peeps like to copycat that dean capture dof stuff but it's really over-rated and simply a way for the photog to show off.

2c

Personally, I like it. I'm not the target customer but I do appreciate good depth of field in a picture, the devil's in the details. I know not everyone digs it though, I've seen people look at a picture that I would consider good shit and say, "I don't get it, why are parts blurry?" Probably good to have a mix of different apertures in your shoot so you appeal to everyone.

You decided to do a DOF picture on a crappy looking pussy? Really?

again, as a viewer/surfer/porn buyer, a way to satisfy both goals- an artisitic, technical shot that has all important parts in focus- figure out how to take that same close-up with everything in focus.

That would be conventional wisdom. But playing with depth of field can produce images that make customers hornier if done right. And that means sales and rebills. Its just another tool.

Indeed hot close-up,also great action in the blur too :)

Hot juicy vagina :thumbsup

I don't think that DOF makes or breaks a shot - but I do think it's an important element. DOF is a tool within the photographers tool box. Learning to control it is important to your growth as an accomplished photographer. People who don't understand or appreciate DOF are simply uneducated about the art and science of photography.

Regarding the picture - I love the DOF but not too crazy about how you cropped off the girls face in the background : /

Here's a screencap from a recent video I shot with the very delicious Sunny Leone. I've used DOF to bring the viewers eye to the area of the screen where I want him to look. The face for me in this shot is not as important as the pussy area - that's why I decided to throw the face out of focus. Cinematographers use this technique all the time in the movies to draw attention to things that they want to emphasis.

http://www.deancapture.com/sunnyclip.jpg

wet and nice pussy!!:)

actually it's my view as a solo girl pron collector. and as i move more and more into shooting my own stuff, this is something i've thought a lot about. i've posted a few threads about the dof shot in porn.

when i look at it all with my boner in my hand,i realize that i can blur out any part of the picture i want when i am whacking off to whatever other part of that image is getting me off. the dof shots limits my ability to fully fantasize as a consequence. in that way, porn differs from cinema- we don't need to fully suspend reality, the viewer is emotional enough at that point in time to blur out the non-important and focus on the important.

i could be wrong, just my angle after thinking about it and trying to decide its value in my own productions.

I think DOF can enhance a picture, when you're specifically trying to emphasize something, in this case, a vaginal cavity. Not everything needs to be in focus, but throwing shit out of focus for the sake of doing it, without a real reason, seems silly to me. Concentrate on getting the color and light right first. Was this taken with auto white balance?

looks hot !

nice shot!! where you actually that close or its a lens close up?

With all due respect, using DOF is not "showing off". Using DOF is taking control of your work and using that tool to tell your story. If you don't like looking at pictures with parts shot out of focus - that's one thing. But to say that people who use DOF only use it to "show off" - well, that's a ridiculous statement.

That's interesting.

i don't find it ridiculous at all. fact is photogs copycat your style. imo, you were the one who made this type of shot popular with those who try and emulate your style. they see a dean dof shot and think they must do a dof shot, with little regard to the context or audience or what it takes to put together such a picture, let alone video.

thus the original pic having 1/2 a head shot and a crazy tight dof. it's hard to get this shot right, especially with a camera lacking dof preview. but here we are discussing dof as a porn shot.

Wow, a lot more feedback than I was expecting... I'll respond to everyone with my thoughts... and by no means was I trying to copy anyone's work - I definitely respect Dean as a photog but I really haven't looked at too much of his work to be able to copy it.

Dean is a good photographer, but he didn't invent this little trick nor is he the one who made it popular. Fact of the matter is there is depth of field in every photograph. Some just accentuate it. My bg is film making and it is used all the time. The most interesting use of it is the famous shot in Jaws where the the camera dollies in on the subject while pulling wide on the zoom simultaneously.
Mostly the audience never notices it. It just is. It is just another way of highlighting something you think is interesting. That is what makes a photographer different than a happy snapper. Making interesting decisions. In our case it is done to make someone horny and the curious thing is every customer seems to know exactly what makes every man on the planet horny and it always seems to be what he loves. I have customers that only want to see close ups of metal garter clips. Plastic ones are a turn off. So, they get pictures of said clips with a hugely shallow depth of field. Different "strokes" as they say.

Make or break a shot in regards to what the individual photographer is going for... if I took a shot say of a bottle of rum next to a diet coke can (just because it's the first thing I came across in my photobucket account) and everything is in focus, then all you get from it is that it's some drunk ass taking pictures of what he's doing for the night.

You take the same picture, and accentuate depth

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v7...orjerry006.jpg

and it brings the bottle into the focus of the image, and you get that "oh ok" factor of "that's what he was going for."

I definitely fucked up cropping her face out, I did that in the actual shot... just happened like that and the picture didn't really look like anything spectacular until I went back and looked at it... I would have reshot it if I'd known it had depth like that.

LOVE that shot, crazy you did it with video, I've been taking snap-shots for years and am teaching myself how to take "good" pictures, but I'm pretty much fux0r3d on video at the moment. Haven't really had a chance to sit down with someone who knows what he's doing to be able to learn from him.

Definitely appreciate the post from you, Dean.

I was pretty close, I'm using the lens that comes with XSi kit so being too far away doesn't really help much. When I get my non-adult business off the ground and on auto-pilot I'll be picking up a few other lenses and really exploring what this camera can do.

I would have to disagree on this one Dean... part of the fanatsy is seeing sunny's look on her face while what appears to me as her getting off it gives that illusion and fantasy thats she's getting off to me looking at her thus gets me in a way connected to her if her face is not 100% focused and her pussy is all covered with toys tyhe shot is useless IMHO

I'd penetrate it,nice shot

It was taken with auto WB, yes. Everytime I try to set it myself it turns out orange or yellow. I think I need someone to show me how to do it because if I can't figure it out the first or second time I give up, and each time I try I make it worse.

It's not something that EVERY shot I take will have, but it's just nice to know I can do it. :1orglaugh

If you're shooting with flash, use the flash WB setting on the camera. Or if you really want to get precise, you can use an 18% grey card that will allow you to batch correct every image in a session in Photoshop. For the first image of every shoot you do, take a photo of this card, and when you select this part of the image with the WB tool in Photoshop, select "apply to all images"... pretty easy. But I find the flash setting default is usually just fine for most purposes. (unless you're mixing light, then you definitely need the grey card)

http://www.adorama.com/NVFR2015.html

And to everyone who gave compliments... thank you! For shots like these this is pretty much the only forum I respect enough and trust to give HONEST opinions... All other forums I'm on are apparently inhabited by super models that only fuck 12's so getting anything other than a "that bitch is beat" response is pretty tough.

I'll definitely check that link out when I'm done editing this current photoset. I've gotten decent at fixing the colors of the photo in post processing but going through one at a time is kind of a bitch.

Fuck the 18 per cent grey scale. That will just cost you fifty bucks. Its pretty simple. Daylight is 5600 degrees Kelvin. Tungstent (lightbulbs) are 3200 degrees Kelvin. Shade is 7000 degrees Kelvin plus.....
So, here is the deal. Simple to start. If you are shooting inside, set your camera to 32K. If you are shooting outside set your camera to 56K. Don't touch the auto white. It will fuck up you piccies. When you see the results, play with them. I leave my white balance at about 6500K and it makes flash and daylight look really warm and appealing. Simple advice and trust me you will never fuck up again.

I see all this talk about "DOF shots" and all I'm thinking is "what the fuck are you talking about?". I think what you're referring to is shallow DOF taken with a lenses with a large aperature and large sensor, versus the "deep DOF" that you would see with a camera shooting with a small sensor and small aperature.

For the record, although Dean is a great photographer, and his work is fantastic, this isn't something Dean invented or even made popular. Canon and Nikon have a whole range of lenses and cameras who's whole purpose is allow a more shallow DOF.

I see several of you mentioning that you think images taken with a shallow DOF are unnatural, or something that surfers are not savvy to. Shallow DOF images actually mimic the human eye. Put your finger in front of your eye at a far distance, and take note of the background. Now, move your finger in front of your eye at a close distance. Do you see the background become more blurry? This is exactly what the lens does. This isn't a "trick" or a "novelty"... this is just how lenses work... both the lenses in your camera AND the lenses in your eyes.

Sorry to say....you don't quite get it. Your brain corrects for a lot of things. Depth of field, white balance, focus. None of this is a problem for your eye because it has the fastest most sophisticated processor on the planet...your brain. All we can do is play with it in two dimensions. Your brain will make blue light or yellow light look white. Your brain never sees depth of field. Your brain doesn't care. We have a limited tool called a camera and we try and trick the brain. When you get this concept, it will make much more sense.

Well, I do get it... I've been a photographer for many years now. There's a bunch of dudes in this thread that don't get that specifying "DOF" doesn't mean anything without specifying "deep" or "shallow".

Sort of like specifying "speed" without saying "fast" or "slow".

OK, I will buy that...

Good idea with the DOF, but I think you're looking at it in the wrong way. Seems like you're trying to say DOF works as long as it's a close up shot and the DOF is some naughty bit.

Or maybe you just chose a very very bad example. Your image's DOF is the top half of her lips? Ok, why are you showing us just the top half of her vagina? Is this shot for tophalfofvaginas.com ? Because if it's not then I don't quite understand the point of the DOF in the image.

If you want to do a close up of a girl sticking a toy in her vag. Then should the DOF actually encompass the toy and her vag? Know what I mean? Dean Capture pretty much provided an example of EXACTLY where the DOF is if you're trying to do a close up of a vag w/ insertion. Because his image as a whole is a canvas of the entire scene, however the DOF is specifically just the vag+toy.

One of the first things I learned in this biz is that not everyone enjoys the same thing.

Personally, I disagree with you and Dean. I could care less that the chick's head was cropped off. I don't even know if it was because I wasn't looking at that. I liked it.

you see, everyone has a different pov. I kinda agree, but I really think its the face that sells to most people.

I have to agree. That shot did nothing for me. Can't see anything of value.

No argument there.

That's pretty much my understanding of it to having worked at strip clubs. There are girls that I consider to be SUPER hot that other guys wouldn't put their dick in if they were paid. Same goes with porn and photography even.

I remember dealing with affiliates that did not like the free content we gave them because they didn't think the chick was hot enough. :1orglaugh

Then that would be their problem. The tail should never wag the dog. Everyone loses.

Pretty much what I told them.

right on....

LOL. I tell people that if they don't like it, don't fap to it. I don't like watching fat black chicks fuck skinny white guys but someone is ferociously beating their meat to it and running their card for it.

Actually, what I would tell them is that no matter how off the wall you think something is, I bet you I can find an adult store that has a sectioned devoted to it.

:1orglaugh First, I didn't post that picture so that people can comment on how much value it has for them or how useless it is. It's "one frame" - from a 15 minute movie. If you see the whole movie, you'd see everything that you want to see. This "frame" was posted as an example of shallow depth of field. It does not represent every single frame in this movie.

Secondly, Sunny has one of the most beautiful faces in the business. But I don't feel that it's necessary to have it in every single frame of the movie and certainly not "in focus" in every single frame of the movie.

And lastly, and most importantly, there's no way to produce content that is of value to everyone. No matter how I shoot it - somebody will not like it. Luckily, I won't be losing any sleep over it :thumbsup