Before we started, Andrew and I considered where there was ‘nice’ light within RMIT and as a result found ourselves on Level 5, Building 10 near the windows facing Bowen St. The light available was soft and diffused due to an overcast day, while surrounding buildings contributed a bounce. The space itself contained mostly soft, neutral coloured furnishings that absorbed light and allowed for moody shadows. This setting provided additional benefits as we could take advantage of the distance of available backgrounds outdoors i.e. buildings on the other side of Bowen St.
When the images are side by side you can appreciate our attempt to achieve similar composition, so it appears on screen as if we were ‘thinking’ of the other. Andrew’s off centre framing of my profile, the negative space and shallow depth of field provides an interesting ambiguity. While the long depth of field in the shot of Andrew feels more literal/stable. Although the overall style due to DOF is very different, the quality of the soft, low level light on our faces connects us and I particularly like the way the light wraps quickly into shadow. I appreciate even in an exercise (and while analysing shots of ourselves) we are able to respond to the technical differences in the images and produce context or meaning.
Although this exercise seemed straight forward, it provided great insight into the effects of DOF! I was immediately out of my comfort zone working with shorter focal lengths and small apertures. It also felt unfamiliar to capture a greater depth of field with so much detail while framing a person in a mid-close up. However working to these techinical specifications and upon reflection it is clear the power DOF has on the viewer’s interpretation of the scene. As a side note, why does this level of detail often heighten our sense of its digital medium? What films capture this greater depth of field without looking artificial? The wide vistas in Dances With Wolves comes to mind…
Another valuable insight and one yet to be resolved, is why the focus on Andrew appears soft. Since I am confident the focus was accurate in camera, further investigation is required. Robin’s suggestions were very helpful, in particular the potential for an issue with back focus (one I’ve experienced on the XR3 before). Of course there is still room for the error to simply be a bad focus on my part! So I will make the effort to reshoot this in order to narrow in on the culprit – round 2 findings to come.