Nice DOF. Can I get info on what lens you used ?

Thanks

Ooops...sorry about the multiple comments. Posting issues. My sincere apologies again. Please feel free to delete this and others.

whoa....i've seen double posters, but a double nine times over !!! yikes.

Nice eye for what is otherwise an perspective most of us wouldn't have focused on....thanks.

It looks like you did the blur in photoshop. I would also like to know what kind of equipment you used.

This is really both unexpected and predictable: "I'm taking Photo 100 this quarter and we just learned about depth of field!" I wish it could have been a bit less obvious technically. The colors, though, are very nice; if you were to crop the frame square just on the verge of the focal plane, you might have come up with something really interesting and unique.

Come on, guys. Mouse over the photo to see the equipment.

Is the depth of field really that short at f/2.2? The front part of the blur does look a little Photoshop-ish.

I am with Q on this shot, although I like it better than the leaves ('cause that ain't unique).

The photo does come across as too "obvious", it looks like a blur filter on both sides of the left part of the handle. I think it might have been more interesting to angle the handle more towards the eye; it would diminish the "fade-away" of the background, but would lead to a greater focal perspective on the central item.

A DOF that shallow at F2.2? I find it hard to believe.

I think this is a cool idea for a shot, but that the blur looks a bit too photochopped.

thank you all for the comments. since everybody seems to believe that this is photoshopped i thought i'll jump in.
this photo in only slightly cropped and level adjusted in photoshop. no blurring effect in photshop. the subject is very close, the closest in the focusing range of the lens, combined with the f2.2 it produces extremely shallow DOF.

great!
the focus and shallow look strange to me!

Actually Ali, anytime you're that close to the subject and have the lens almost completely wide open you're going to get that shallow a depth of field. It's completely believable.

I can see where it might be easy to assume this was photoshopped, just because of how quickly the focus falls off on the left side. But at the same time, I don't have any trouble believing it's authentic.

Hmmmmm... It looks very Photoshopped... The reason I say this is that the foreground goes from blueered to verty sharp almost instantly- in normal depth of field, it more graduated. If you look at the bolts, above the bolts is also out of focus, yet the bolts themselves are sharp.

Maybe Canon has "Selective Focus Depth of Field"?

Great shot!

I picked up a Canon 20D last week and after digging around the homestead for some old lenses, I was pleasantly surprised when I found out that I had a 50mm f/1.8 EF lens from my old EOS A2E, which I had purchased 10 years ago. That lens is a ton of fun on the new digital SLR.

guys! its so obviously not photoshop...
i dont understand why no one can beleieve that.
?
oh well.
i like this shot sam.

This is not photoshoped. I have many photos taken with my 85 1.8 that have a very narrow DOF. The quality of the blurred areas are called "bokeh" check out these links for more info.

http://www.pathcom.com/~vhchan/bokeh.html
http://www.photo.net/mjohnston/column49/

Definitely not photoshop.

Definitely Photoshop.

Just to attest, I have the exact same lens and the exact same camera, and have taken shots with similar DOF. I just recently got both the lens and camera and it's been fun playing with them. You can get some pretty interesting shots!

I guess the reason that eveybody beleives it's photoshopped is the notch on the foreground. That makes the sudden blur effect becase we don't see the continuous flat wall.

I have take profile photos with the same camera/lens combination where the left eye is in sharp focus and the right nicely blurred. No photoshop needed.

Nice colors sam. Lovely work as always.

this building is actually right around the corner from wher i work (princess/adelaide). dude, you're around here often of late.

this was put on the building so real-estate agents have a place to put their lock-boxes as units in this building are still for sale. seems they're still clamping their lock-boxes on the natural gas equipment tough...

hi all !

looks like that dr.jidge guy writes about why he made that other site, toprightgeneric or whatever.

http://toprightpixel.uer.ca

Not impressed very generic

Every photograph distorts reality. Does it matter if it happens in the camera, or at the computer? Move beyond the technicalities and try and make out what made Sam take this photo in the first place.

Sam, The soft reflection on the metal gives it an almost a studio like feel. Nice.

I am not sure I see the point to this shot - sorry Sam. Yes, the colour is great and the image is pin sharp but what were you trying to show with this shot? It just doesn't do it for me... If there was a row of "hangers" then I could have seen the point of playing with DOF but just one item, I am not sure it works. Also if there was a perceived contrast between new and old in that shot, may be it would have worked out better.

This just seems like one of those shots of "chairs in a row" that I am honestly tired of seeing out there.

I thought the strang thing is that the building has a handle for portability... just pick up the buiding and carry it to the next location.

very handy!

I love DDOI... one reason is because it changes. that's right. I like change.

I might have to be real here, and admit this shot does little to nothing for me. It seems a lot of things that are considered photographs these days - are actually quite generic and predictable. PLUS this photoshop and digital age has really allowed many photographers to over use the sharpening tools when shown on-line - I am certain many photos would not look half as good printed - cause you can't sharpen it that much for print...
Sorry to sound like an ass ( I just had to express)