This Labor Day weekend we explored Saugatuck, a lovely resort town on Lake Michigan, and as usual I brought along my camera. Here are the results of 2 photography experiments. For the first experiment “Soup in Saugatuck”, I took the same shot of the funny little guy with the top hat with a different depth of field. For the first image, I used a wider aperture, so as a result it has a shallow depth of field. Only the statue and a little bit of the flowers are in focus and most of the background is blurred. Compare that to the second shot, with a deep depth of field created by a narrow aperture. As a result, most of the background is sharp, in focus. Which shot do you prefer? For me, with less of the image in focus, I concentrate more on the statue. Do you agree?
For the second experiment, I worked the shot…meaning I walked around the statue of the racers and took shots from a variety of angles and with different aperture settings. I was trying to convey motion in the shot. Do any of the images succeed? Which image do you prefer–the one with more or less in focus? My favorite is the one with the pink flowers in the background. Do you agree with me that the contrast with the pink flowers and the shallow depth of field make the image in the more interesting?