Peace

Could be a killer but the DOF is puzzeling Out of focus foreground just stalls the eye movement to spectacular possibilities with background. Why f2.8 at 1/5000?

I'll have to echo Rick's comments on this. I do like the choice of B&W for this scene.

Ed

DOF doesn't work for me but the image is still strong overall. B&W conversion is excellent. I assume the DOF was an intentional artistic choice to make the viewer feel as if he/she is lying on the dune looking to the distance.

Thanks for the reviews. I indeed made another exactly Photo with proper (as per rules) DOF, with f/16 and so on. But at that time I looked at it, and thought that it is very classic. I decided to break the rules of DOF and turned the f to 2.8, focused on the tip of the sand dune and decided to judge later what is better, or let us say more interesting. I will post today later the other photo with f/16. I hope you tell me which is more interesting, this will help me in my future decisions. Thanks again

Hi Raied, I do like the b&w conversion and think this was a good choice for conversion. The curves in the sand dunes are very nice. I think I would also prefer more DOF but appreciate your thinking out of the box...

Let me go against the grains (haha! Get it? ) and say I really like the shallow DOF. I love the perspective as well, but the dof makes for a dynamic, and as you said, less classic, image. Very nice! The B+W works really well, also...

I have to give it you. OOF contrasting with in-focus in this way works surprisingly well. Maybe it's the subject or the B&W, but I definitely like the effect.

Hi Raied,

I'm thinking of other work by you I've seen in seeing this, providing for me a context or basis upon which to contemplate and interpret it. Within that context, this is like a dreamscape. "In dreams begin responsibilities", as Delmore Schwartz wrote in his story, yet perhaps responsibilities requiring allegiance to something beyond "acceptable sharpness of focus".

When our eyes see something like in your image, while we may perceive it as all in focus at once, it often isn't; the eye assembles a set of images in fractions of a second with changes in focal length of our eyes and the brain / mind reconstructs all that as "reality".

The same is true of dynamic range. The eye can discern about 16 bit-depth while our monitors can display about 8; 256 versus 64K. And as much as this has to do with focus, it has more to do with dynamic range, I think; light and shadow, how they form leading lines off into the distant dunes, hills, and mountains, echoed ultimately by the lines in the clouds.

My take-away from this, Raied Alani, has something to do with freedom, I think.

I would love to hear what you, as the artist, intended by it.

ISO 160, f/16, 1/200sec

Hi John
It is indeed that when we create something, we try to reflect our inner needs. I always try to follow the rules, and do things as they should be done according to the rules. But......always at the end I like to break at least one of the rules, and see "what will happen?" .
I think you said it right.... it is a need of freedom
P/S: I maybe soon try the HDR...

Raied,

I think this works. For me, I have this little guideline and it goes something like this: If you're going to do something, do it, and make it obvious. In other words, it's clear to me that you chose your depth, focus point, etc. to accomplish something. It's clearly not a case of you just screwing up your focus. Make sense? It's like when we have to cut off a tree or a rock or a mountain - if you're going to include something in your composition, include it - or exclude it, otherwise it looks like an accident or something you didn't intend, but just didn't pay attention too.

I think this is very effective. The repost btw, I find my eye bounces up and down in the frame because everything is in focus. Good thinking I say and good execution.

Lon