[jsherman999]

This woman effortlessly and impressively owns the 'FF look' :

Russian Mother's Childrens images (Facebook trending)



Image above by Elana Shumilova

.

[paulh]

I spotted these in another thread and was thinking the same thing. Truly amazing photos. (I think the photographer did use a FF Canon)

[jsherman999]

I spotted these in another thread and was thinking the same thing. Truly amazing photos. (I think the photographer did use a FF Canon)

Yes, the 5DIII, and to be fair she's also using the 135mm f/2 DC in a lot of these shots, which can float any subject off to Nirvana.

[HSV]

A canon body with a nikon lens...the ultimate sacrilege!

I'm not an expert on this sort of thing, but it looks "as if" it has a fair amount of PP just by looking at the ground.

[hks_kansei]

A canon body with a nikon lens...the ultimate sacrilege!

I'm not an expert on this sort of thing, but it looks "as if" it has a fair amount of PP just by looking at the ground.

I agree.
It may be my screen, but each subest seems to have a slight halo around them.

Also, the back of the child's beanie seems to be blurred, yet the hood and scarf are not (depsite being in the same plane of focus by the looks)


I suspect a less "full frame" and more a vignette mask and some manual blurring.

I feel that while it's a touching subject for an image, the actual image itself falls quite flat. Dim colours, child's face hidden, average composition, adn of course, the distracting blur happening.

[twilight_samurai]

According to her 500px page, it's a 5D2 with a 135mm.. I'm not sure if it's an adapted Nikkor DC though as Canon makes a nice 135 f/2 as well. However, a number of the photos look like they had blur added in post..

example: 500px / swallows... by Elena Shumilova

[jtkratzer]

Looking at the ground, it's as if there is a spotlight from above, but rather than shining a light, it's the spotlight of focus. There is no complete plane across the entire frame in focus. The ground seems to be the only circular area in focus around the dog and child, everything else is blurred.


I like some of the photos, most maybe, but I just prefer the less processed look. Nothing wrong with some touch up or corrections with a raw file, but some just look unnatural. If she's intentionally going for the dreamy look beyond just a nice bokeh, she's getting that right, in my very amateurish opinion.

[Pioneer]

In my opinion, she is amazing. I love those pictures...and that dog is a great subject next to that kid! You can blur all the pictures you want, but unless you have the right elements in the picture in the first place it means nothing. She has the right elements.

[6BQ5]

I agree that these pics must have heavily post processed. That's not a big thing necessarily. It's a beautifully crafted image that I'm sure will move many people.

[Pioneer]

There have been a number of things carefully arranged in that image, and not only at the post processing phase. Just look at how perfectly groomed that puppy dog is. And the sand they are standing on looks very well groomed as well. I see no puppy prints or kiddo prints leading up to where they are standing. I don't think this lady is leaving much to chance. Like I said, those are amazing images and she is very good at what she does.

[wildman]

You can blur all the pictures you want, but unless you have the right elements in the picture in the first place it means nothing. She has the right elements.

I agree.
She's trying to be a photographer not just a copy machine.
She's trying to make you feel as well as see.
She succeeds and succeeds well.
It might be kitsch but it's successful kitsch.

[Rondec]

I saw these. Liked a lot of the photos -- seem to be throw back images to a gentler, simpler time. But, I didn't appreciate some of the post processing. Some excessive sharpening and added fog. Last photo has tons of sharpening artifacts (which I thought were primarily the domain of APS-C shooters trying to compensate for their poor gear).

Also, I think a lot of these photos would have been better with more depth of field. Understand that what stands out about these photos is not the narrow depth of field, but the subject matter, which is fairly timeless -- kids and animals.

[jogiba]

Watching her Flickr slideshow on my 30" 2560x1600 monitor was to die for !

Flickr: aleshurik's Photostream

[jogiba]

I saw these. Liked a lot of the photos -- seem to be throw back images to a gentler, simpler time. But, I didn't appreciate some of the post processing. Some excessive sharpening and added fog. Last photo has tons of sharpening artifacts (which I thought were primarily the domain of APS-C shooters trying to compensate for their poor gear).

Also, I think a lot of these photos would have been better with more depth of field. Understand that what stands out about these photos is not the narrow depth of field, but the subject matter, which is fairly timeless -- kids and animals.

We know you hate full frame cameras with a vengeance and I bet if she used a Pentax 645D you would have loved them.

[jsherman999]

I agree.
She's trying to be a photographer not just a copy machine.
She's trying to make you feel as well as see.
She succeeds and succeeds well.
It might be kitsch but it's successful kitsch.

That's the thing - I don't see it done this well hardly ever, although there a ton of people who seem to try. By this definition, Keitha McCall is very 'Kitsch' as well, yet brilliant.

(By the way, of course it's the Canon 135mm, I wrote the designation for the older Nikon by mistake.)

I've seen m43 and aps-c shots with PP 'blur' added that don't have the DOF control to handle it to start with, and it looks worse, less subtle than this. Also the natural bokeh from that lens can be fantastic... I'd like to see the unprocessed versions, but I'd bet that they hold just as much 'wow' in a different way.