"Portrait" Lens: How long?
Roger Carbol
email me directly with replies. If it's posted to this newsgroup,
I'll see it. Thanks!]
I knew it was a "mistake" when I did it, but I had to see for
myself: I took some head-shots with my 50mm lens.
The perspective effects weren't overwhelming, but just subtle enough
to poke my subconscious into thinking "I never noticed her nose was
THAT big before."
I also discovered that I *like* taking photographs of people; they
seem to have a vitality and an interest in them greater than my
mediocre landscapes, etc.
So I'm inclined to pick up a longer lens. Mostly for spontaneous
(ie, in situ, not heavily posed) portraits, but also as a "general
purpose" longer lens. I've heard lengths from 85mm up to 135mm
in various discussions. Right now I'm leaning towards the upper
end -- I think I could get quite a bit of use out of a 135.
I'm not especially interested in picking up a zoom; at least, not
at this point. I realize it would make the entire decision
unneccesary, but for various reasons, I'm inclined to get a nice
selection of primes first.
So basically I'm asking for some of the pros/cons between, say, the
85/105/135 lengths. These lens would be for a Canon AE-1; I'm
inclined to get the FD lenses if I can afford them. My main
concerns are: cost, availability (I'm buying this stuff used),
length/weight, and overall "usefulness". I'm a bit concerned
about speed, but I wouldn't call it a driving factor.
I should probably also point out that I'd likely be shooting
hand-held, or with minimal bracing. I don't *think* that rules
out a 135, but I'd appreciate any thoughts on shooting hand-held
with the longer lenses. (Yes, I *know* I should buy a tripod;
it's on my shopping list, honest.)
Thanks for everyone's thoughts!
.. Roger Carbol .. r...@shaw.wave.ca .. like you could touch it
Blusky79
100mm lens if your in the 35mm film format.
Norm Dresner
Norm D.
Blusky79 <blus...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19981001140347...@ng72.aol.com>...
h...@hcs.loc.gov
>I also discovered that I *like* taking photographs of people; they
>seem to have a vitality and an interest in them greater than my
>mediocre landscapes, etc.
[snip]
>So I'm inclined to pick up a longer lens. Mostly for spontaneous
>(ie, in situ, not heavily posed) portraits, but also as a "general
>purpose" longer lens. I've heard lengths from 85mm up to 135mm
>in various discussions. Right now I'm leaning towards the upper
>end -- I think I could get quite a bit of use out of a 135.
I have 85, 105, and 135 for my Nikons. One certainly does not
need all three! Beyond that, taste comes into play some. I don't
care for the 85. I think there's just a *hint* of the kind of
distortion you dislike with the 50. For years, before I got the
85 and 105, I had a 135 that I used for portraits. It works
great, and, as long as you're halfway sensible about shutter
speeds, can be hand held with no problems. So if you like the
135mm focal length, which, unlike a lot of people these days, I
do, I'd say get this for your portraits and then you'll have a
lens you can use for other things, too. I have also been
extremely happy with the portraits I've taken with the Leitz
135mm Elmarit.
>So basically I'm asking for some of the pros/cons between, say, the
>85/105/135 lengths. These lens would be for a Canon AE-1; I'm
>inclined to get the FD lenses if I can afford them. My main
>concerns are: cost, availability (I'm buying this stuff used),
>length/weight, and overall "usefulness".
If you can only buy one lens, I think you'll find the 135 the
most generally useful. As for buying lenses used, along with
inspection for obvious damage, iris blades working, etc., etc.,
take a small flashlight and shine it through the lens from the
back. Dealers **HATE** people who do this, because it tells you
in a hurry the lens's condition: You will be able to see
scratches, dirt, haze, and fungus clearly. If it passes this test
and all the mechanical aspects check out, it's probably OK.
(Note: *some* dust in the lens is not a problem; even new lenses
have a little in them)
These opinions are my own, not those of the Library of
Congress. Return address in header intentionally invalid. To
reply, use the address below.
Howard Sanner
hs...@loc.gov
Adrian Goerler
I vote for the shorter end i.e. 85 mm for a couple of reason:
- If you get a 1.8/85 you will probabliy be able to take free hand shots
at 1.8 and 1/60 s in contrast to 2.8 and 1/125 s thats 2 LW darker
light! The 1.8/85 is really a fast lens.
- For portraits, you might want to go for a small depth-of-field again,
the wide aperture of the 1.8/85 gives you very crips sharpness.
- Again because a 85 mm is faster, you can you it with a converter and
have a 3.6/170 still a fast lens.
A very different option is to go for a short macro lens. You might find
something very interesting a third-party suppliers like Sigma. Canon
unfortunately has only the 100/4 which is for a portrait-Tele a little
bit to slow.
Adrian
SATCHMO
work for over 20 years now, and it does a fine job. The best part is that
it can be found on the used market for under $100.00 in ex+ to mint
condition. Try www.keh.com Regards, Joe Arnold
PS : The large f /2.5 aperture allows good background focus control.
Yeti Man
effect (ok, every now and then). sometimes the light is so low you just
have to go for 1.8 (1.4).
DWA652
>- If you get a 1.8/85 you will probabliy be able to take free hand shots
>at 1.8 and 1/60 s in contrast to 2.8 and 1/125 s thats 2 LW darker
>light! The 1.8/85 is really a fast lens.
>
Just curious, do you really shoot at f1.8? I have always been afraid that at
f2 or wider any head shot or perhaps head and shoulders shot would have too
much of the face out of focus. What do you think?
Thanks,
Don Allen
dwa...@aol.com
BK2057205
I rather like the results I get with a 90MM flat field.
Bernie
Wai Lun Alan Chan
>at 1.8 and 1/60 s in contrast to 2.8 and 1/125 s thats 2 LW darker
>light! The 1.8/85 is really a fast lens.
>the wide aperture of the 1.8/85 gives you very crips sharpness.
I think it is a misconception that one must use fast lens for very swallow
DOF. I cannot disagree more. For instances, I had the Pentax 85mm f1.4
which was virtually useless at wide open because the DOF was so swallow.
I did some half-body shots with a 135mm f3.5 and shot at f5.6, the
background was almost completely blurred. Of course, how close the
background to the subject plays an important part. But "swallow DOF =
fast lens" is just not accurate.
>- Again because a 85 mm is faster, you can you it with a converter and
>have a 3.6/170 still a fast lens.
This is a tricky one. 1st, different combinations of TCs and lenses
will result in different optical performance. However, for a fast lens
like this with any 2X TC, I doubt the result will be even close to sharp
at wide open. At least I could not achieve this with my FA* 85mm f1.4
and the SMC PENTAX A-2X-S converter. I think the use of TCs is best
for supertele lenses which are simply too expensive and heavy to cover.
>A very different option is to go for a short macro lens. You might find
>something very interesting a third-party suppliers like Sigma. Canon
>unfortunately has only the 100/4 which is for a portrait-Tele a little
>bit to slow.
===========================================================
=== regards, http://yallara.cs.rmit.edu.au/~wlac/ ===
=== Alan Chan wl...@cs.rmit.edu.au ===
=== --------------------------------------------------- ===
=== Appreciate your own life, and respect the others' ===
===========================================================
Wai Lun Alan Chan
>>at 1.8 and 1/60 s in contrast to 2.8 and 1/125 s thats 2 LW darker
>>light! The 1.8/85 is really a fast lens.
>Just curious, do you really shoot at f1.8? I have always been afraid that at
>f2 or wider any head shot or perhaps head and shoulders shot would have too
>much of the face out of focus. What do you think?
Absolutely, I had a 85mm f1.4 and shot at f2.8-5.6 only. The DOF
at wider than f2.8 was just too swallow to be useful (for portraiture
within 2 metres at least).
RMHUTCH48
I use a 135 Nikon and I am very happy with it. BTW, if you have a 2x TC you
could use that with the 50 and get nice protraits. One of the nice things
about the 135 is that they are currently not very popular, and you can buy a
used one at a very attractive price. In fact, you could probably buy a fine
135 and a 2x TC for the same price as a 100 alone.
Wai Lun Alan Chan
>So basically I'm asking for some of the pros/cons between, say, the
>85/105/135 lengths. These lens would be for a Canon AE-1; I'm
>inclined to get the FD lenses if I can afford them. My main
>concerns are: cost, availability (I'm buying this stuff used),
>about speed, but I wouldn't call it a driving factor.
If U like to do tight head shots, then 85mm is out already. 100mm
is really the shortest for this job IMO (or U will be too close to
your subject). 135mm to 200mm is great for head shots, but too long
for indoor. If U just want a lens for general purpose, then a 100mm
macro lens is probably the best beat.
Chas James \ Belinda Bruce
If cost is a concern a Canon FD 135mm f3.5 lens in Mint shape can be had
for as little as $65.00. Yes it's not perfect - but it is good !.
Chas.
Jack Daynes
80~200mm range. Has anyone used the highly regarded 80~200 f2.8 lens for
this type of photography? If so, what were the results?
I have the Nikon "D" version (no tripod mount) of this lens, but other
makes, including Canon and Tokina seem to get good reviews. To this
point in time, I have not taken an interest in portrait work, but that
may change someday. It would be nice if I already owned the tool!
--
Jack
;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;
/ Remove "[NOSPAM]" for email replies /
\____________________________________/
Alan...@compuserve.com
wl...@cs.rmit.edu.au (Wai Lun Alan Chan) wrote:
> I think it is a misconception that one must use fast lens for very swallow
> DOF. I cannot disagree more. For instances, I had the Pentax 85mm f1.4
> which was virtually useless at wide open because the DOF was so swallow.
> I did some half-body shots with a 135mm f3.5 and shot at f5.6, the
> background was almost completely blurred. Of course, how close the
> background to the subject plays an important part. But "swallow DOF =
> fast lens" is just not accurate.
Fast does equal shallow DoF, as you point out yourself relating your
adventure with the Pentax 85mm f1.4. All depends on distance to subject for a
given focal length or, more exactly, all depends on magnification ratio for
any focal length. For a head shot at f1.4, if you focus right, you get the
near eye in focus, and hardly anything else. This is of course not always
acceptable but can entail very interesting portraits nevertheless. This said,
85mm f1.4 (or f1.8) is more useful from further back. Compared to zooms, it
is a real competitive advantage for any available light shooting, like
concerts, theater images, indoors sports, etc. It also allows better
differential focusing than a 50mm f1.4 on subjects at 5-10m, with a very nice
blur on backgrounds. And f1.4 allows critical focusing, even if you end up
closing the lens to f5.6.
i see 85mm f1.4 (or f1.8) as a great focal length for indoors portraiture, but
prefer longers lenses outdoors, where distance is no constraint and light
usually more generous: 135mm, 180mm, 200mm are great in those conditions. If
there is only ONE to own, maybe the 100mm f2 kind is the best compromise: fast
but leaving a 'safer' distance to subject than 85mm. It is also usually
much easier to manually focus those lenses than macro lenses which have a
focusing demultiplication optimised for extremely high magnification...
friendly regards,
Alan
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Benny Kwok
portrait and macro? I just heard from someone that sigma did not make
good lens. Or should I buy canon 100mm macro? or 105mm/f2?
CClark1130
>I think it is a misconception that one must use fast lens for very swallow
>DOF. I cannot disagree more. For instances, I had the Pentax 85mm f1.4
>which was virtually useless at wide open because the DOF was so swallow.
DOF depends on aperture and distance from subject.
Church
CClark1130
>If U like to do tight head shots, then 85mm is out already. 100mm
>is really the shortest for this job IMO (or U will be too close to
>your subject).
This is very dependent on the photographer and subject. The 85mm lens can be a
great porteait lens. Some folks on here insist that they use 24mm lenses for
potraiture, tho I find it hard to believe. I do agree that the 135mm is a
little long for indoor shots.
Church
David Kohn
In fact I've taken some *very* interesting portraits with a 24mm. Of
course I had to take them from about 6 inches and the heads were quite
elongated. Good way to make someone look like a Martian.
JWMALAHY
>Has anyone used the highly regarded 80~200 f2.8 lens for<BR>
>this type of photography? If so, what were the results?<B
I have used the N90s with the 80-200 2.8 for numerous portraits...at the entire
variety of focal lengths...handheld and tripod/monopod mounted. It is
excellent. The main disadvantage is the bulk/weight particularly when
handheld.
The August 1998 issue of Shutterbug Magazine features 3 portraits by Tom
Rickles on pp 90,91 using an 80-200 zoom.
JWM
JWMALAHY
don't know why my reply wasn't posted, so here it is:
I have used a Nikon N90s with the 80-200 2.8 lens for numerous
portraits...handheld and tripod mounted...at all focal lengths and it is
excellent. Only drawback is the weight/bulk especially when handholding.
The August '98 issue of Shutterbug features 3 photos by Tom Rickles on pp 90-91
taken with an 80-200 zoom.
JWM
Fred Whitlock
we mean a photograph of a person or people and we don't limit ourselves to
the concept of the formal studio portrait, then any lens is an appropriate
lens for portrait photography. Let me illustrate the point made by the
poster below. On the website below you will see a photograph of some
children whose faces are arranged in a circular pattern. The shot was made
with a 20mm f2.8 Nikkor lens on a 35mm Nikon camera. Even though the
subjects are professional models and the client was a commercial enterprise,
the shot is a portrait. You may or may not like it but it's been used for
everything from brochure covers to advertising kiosks at our local airport
so it was a commercially successful photograph at least. So is a 20mm
Nikkor a good portrait lens? You be the judge. Good shooting.
Fred
Maplewood Photography
http://www.maplewoodphoto.com
Only Me... wrote in message <6v3pag$t1n$1...@newnews.global.net.uk>...
>Well I think anyone who even thinks that there IS such a thing as a
portrait
>lens, isn't a very creative photographer.
>
> The answer to the "How long?" question, is simply, "As long as you
want"
>I've taken portraits, and f**king good ones, with lenses from 20mm, right
>through to 600mm.
>
Rudy Garcia
(DWA652) wrote:
> >- If you get a 1.8/85 you will probabliy be able to take free hand shots
> >at 1.8 and 1/60 s in contrast to 2.8 and 1/125 s thats 2 LW darker
> >light! The 1.8/85 is really a fast lens.
> >
>
> Just curious, do you really shoot at f1.8? I have always been afraid that at
> f2 or wider any head shot or perhaps head and shoulders shot would have too
> much of the face out of focus. What do you think?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Don Allen
> dwa...@aol.com
I would hope not. At a typical "head shot" distance with a 85mm at 1.8,
if he focuses on the eyes, the nose tip and ears will be visibly out of
focus.
--
Use address below for Email replies. Address on Header is bogus to defeat AutoSPAM.
ru...@jps.net
________________________________
Rudy Garcia
The answers I have found have just served to raise a whole new set
of questions. In some ways I am as confused as ever, but I believe
I am confused on a much higher level and about more important things.
Author unknown
W Scott Elliot
macro and portrait distances. Quality of construction seems very good too.
I don't think it is any better or worse than the Tamron 90 mm or Canon 100
mm macro lenses.
Someone made another posting about the Nikon 100 mm macro lens not being
very sharp at infinity. (This is what a Popular Photography test found as
well, compared to recent tests of the Tamron and Sigma.) Nikon users might
consider Tamron or Sigma if they want better quality.
Scott
Benny Kwok wrote in message <361503EC...@ust.hk>...
Only Me...
lens, isn't a very creative photographer.
The answer to the "How long?" question, is simply, "As long as you want"
I've taken portraits, and f**king good ones, with lenses from 20mm, right
through to 600mm.
Why stick yourself in a rut? Photography shouldn't be so formulaic, and
it's depressing to realise that all these people actually thing that there's
a "correct" lens for portraiture. These people's shots must suck, big time.
Generally, 100mm (for 35mm) is considered to be the most flattering
lens, perspective wise, but God, it's so BORING!!
All successful photographic styles, by pioneering photographers, have
been so because they've been different, and individual. If you want to just
follow the crowd, and produce average, but dull shots, then use a 85~ 135mm
lens for your boring old head and shoulder, off the shelf portraits, and
that's fine, if that's what you want. However, if you want to be creative,
use whatever lens gives you a good result, whether it be a 6mm fisheye, or a
1200mm mirror lens.
THERE ARE NO RULES!!!! And if you find any, break them!!
David.
Only Me...
Benny Kwok wrote in message <361503EC...@ust.hk>...
>How about Sigma new 105mm/f2.8 macro? Is it a good lens for both
>portrait and macro? I just heard from someone that sigma did not make
>good lens. Or should I buy canon 100mm macro? or 105mm/f2?
How about doing what feels right, and not giving a damn about
convention?
David
TravGlen
That is, think about a 1/3 body portrait instead of a tight, tight head
shot. I'm one of those people that much prefer a little looser portrait
shot, otherwise I'd think about one of the medium zooms, i.e. 35-100; 35-70;
28-80; 28-105; etc. This will provide you with the best combination of
"people" focal lengths. I use an old manual 40-80, and a newer AF 28-70,
since I much prefer interaction with subjects as opposed to standing a
football field away with a super zoom.
quokka
RMHUTCH48 wrote:
I wish that were true in australia ... I could either buy a Nikon 135mm for
$A600 or buy an Olympus OM1n with a Zuiko 135mm for $A160
I went for the latter :)
Only Me...
TravGlen wrote in message <6v50te$dl0$1...@news.jersey.net>...
Very nice portraits can be taken with any lens. Be creative.
Only Me...
Bill Foster-KSC wrote in message <3615d8e0...@news.idirect.com>...
>
>This is obviously a case of semantics, but I think a definition may be
>required here for my point:
>
>"Portrait: a representation of a person, especially of the face, drawn,
>painted, photographed, or sculptured."
Well, I don't know where you got that definition from, but the Oxford
Concise gives this:
"A representation or delineation of a person, esp. of the face, made
from life, by drawing, painting, photography, engraving, etc.; a likeness."
Now, if you can tell me that, the above definition someway limits me to
a specific compositional formula, I'll eat my own excrement :-)
>
>By this typical definition, a photo of a person shown standing or
>sitting or eating, etc., is not a portrait. A portrait is usually meant
>to define a head and shoulders shot, and one that is flattering to the
>subject.
Not in any definition of the word, in any dictionary I've ever read it
doesn't. Besides, just because it's MEANT to be something, doesn't mean
it's written in stone or anything. Terrence Donovan, and David Bailey
produced some wicked portraits, and a lot of them were sitting, and even
eating, amongst other things. Would you argue with Terrence Donovan, that
he's a crap photographer, just because he doesn't want to use a 105mm lens?
<laugh> Do you never think for yourself, or create anything spontaneous,
or different? Are all your portraits people sitting in studios; just head
and shoulder shots, taken with short tele lenses? I mean no offence, but
your work must be a bit stale.
What I think is happening here, is that your portraiture, is obviously
of the high street, painted backdrop, boring lighting kind. Now, I suspect
you're a commercial photographer, who churns this stuff out day after day,
and there's nothing wrong with that, but with portraits like that, I can't
tell one person's work from another's, and that clearly means that there's
no individuality there. Therefore, the photos are boring.
>
>How do you get a head and shoulder shot of a person with a 24mm lense
>and NOT get a typically unflattering image? Remember, we're talking
>about the typical portrait, not something odd, unusual or unique here.
Why does it have to be a head and shoulder shot? <laugh> People have
legs you know? <laugh> Come on..... All you shots must look exactly the
same, and you can't tell me that's a good thing, because it's not. Try
obtaining a BA in Photography with that attitude, and you'll get kicked out
of the college.
It's very easy, and you've obviously not tried. With a good distortion
free wide, if you keep all vertical level, and the camera parallel with the
horizon, there is no distortion. If there is, your lens is crap. Some of
my most successful photos of people have been shot with a 20mm Nikkor,
outside, with fill flash on camera. Now, I accept that if Mr & Mrs
Averagely Boring stop by a Photo Studio for a family portrait, they will
have a clearly defined idea in their minds, one that will probably fit
within the definitions you clearly limit yourself by. The difference here,
is that I'm producing work for myself, and you're a wage slave, producing
what others want you to produce. I mean no offence by that, but you CAN'T
be creative in that environment, because, as you said, your customers will
not pay you. This doesn't make the way you work the correct way though, does
it. After all, who's the photographer, you, or them?
Besides, I also mentioned that I use other lenses. One shot that springs
to mind, is a shot I did of a friend's daughter. I used a 300mm lens, and
shot from long way away. I used tungsten film, and had her looking into the
sunset, with the wind blowing her copper hair behind her. The tungsten
film rendered the cold easterly background a deep blue, but the warm setting
sun produced a pleasingly correct skin tone. Everyone thinks it's been
retouched because it's so striking, but it hasn't. It's a killer shot, even
if I say so myself, and I know if I asked her now, which she would prefer;
this, or a posed, boring studio head and shoulder job, she'd choose what she
got, every time. It's a full length body shot, without a studio back drop
to be seen. Does this make it a bad photo?
Why do people limit themselves with one lens? Where did this ridiculous
idea come from?
>
>If a couple walk into your studio and ask for some portrait shots, do
>you get out the 20mm lense?
I don't work in a studio, and I don't get couples asking me for
portraits. Like I said, I don't produce that dull, high street (stereo)
type of studio portraiture, as I find it tedious. Plus, why have you got
this idea that I use only a 20mm lens? I use anything from that, right
through to very long telephoto lenses. I use what I feel is appropriate at
the time, not what people tell me to use.
The point I'm making, is that you seem to think that a "portrait" can
only be produced the way you think it should be done, and that what I
produce isn't a portrait. This is clearly not so. Rankin's famous portrait
of David Bowie will illustrate this. It's taken with 16mm lens, up close,
and it DOES introduce distortion, but it's very clearly a portrait. Now
then, are you suggesting that this is wrong, and David Bowie should have
come into your studio, and have a nice, cosy, flattering head and shoulder
portrait done? I think not. The Rankin's shot kicks ass. Yours would have
just been yet another portrait, with little, or nothing to make it stand
above the crowd, as the crowd all seems to think that you MUST do this, and
you MUST do that.
>
>> Stop being so stiff. I thought us British
>>were meant to be the reserved ones here :-)
>
>Just because I no longer live in Britain doesn't mean I lost my British
>nationality, does it? So I can be stiff if I want. :)
Wow.. you said it :-) Your pictures will definitely be stiff anyway.
Regards,
David.
Steve1chsn
> Now, if you can tell me that, the above definition someway limits me to
>a specific compositional formula, I'll eat my own excrement :-)
Now that would be a portrait!
So, are you a real idiot or just pissed at the world?
Carl D. Cravens
>100mm lens if your in the 35mm film format.
While I understand that you're trying to be helpful, I find this kind of
post very unhelpful. Your naked opinion just doesn't say anything
useful by itself. So you consider 100mm to be preferable to 85 and
135mm for portrait work... but why? Without knowing your reasons for
choosing this length, why should your preference have any weight.
I think it's important to tell us *why* you choose a particular thing,
or you might as well not bother at all.
(Nearly every book I've read considers 135mm to be the "standard" length
for this kind of work, BTW.)
--
Carl D. Cravens (rave...@southwind.net)
If this were an actual tagline, it would be funny.
Chuck Hoffman
>
> 75-85mm keeps the back of the room from getting too far away.
> Norm D.
Not only that but a 100mm or longer lens can make faces look fat because
of the foreshortening effect (kinda the opposite of the "big nose" you
observed using your 50mm lens). If you like tight head shots, I think
you will be happier with an 85mm lens.
--
Chuck Hoffman
Mac Breck
pinch. In 35mm format, every book I've read says 85mm to 105mm. Just stay
6-7 feet away fro a natural perspective and use the focal length to frame
the shot you want. At 6-7 feet, you'd get tighter than a head shot.
100-105mm gives the head shot. 85mm is head & shoulders.
Mac
Carl D. Cravens wrote in message ...
Mac Breck
down to f/5.6 at 6 feet with a 105.
The f/1.8 or faster also gives you easier focusing and viewing. A brighter
viewfinder is a joy, and makes it easier for you to work quickly, and catch
fleeting expressions.
Mac
DWA652 wrote in message <19981001224422...@ng-fb1.aol.com>...
Mac Breck
way you can call attention to the eyes.
Mac
Yeti Man wrote in message <3057-361...@newsd-124.bryant.webtv.net>...
It depends how far away you are, and sometimes you acctually want that
effect (ok, every now and then). sometimes the light is so low you just
have to go for 1.8 (1.4).
Mac Breck
Only Me...
Mac Breck wrote in message <6v5l2i$sl$1...@news2.ispnews.com>...
>What books are you reading??? 135 is too long, barely acceptable in a
>pinch. In 35mm format, every book I've read says 85mm to 105mm. Just stay
>6-7 feet away fro a natural perspective and use the focal length to frame
>the shot you want. At 6-7 feet, you'd get tighter than a head shot.
>100-105mm gives the head shot. 85mm is head & shoulders.
SAYS WHO!!! Who says it's too long? I really can't believe this
thread. DO you all think that there's a right, or wrong way to photograph
people? So, if it says so in a book, it must be right, is that the deal
here? What if it just looks great in the viewfinder? Is that not enough?
Do you have to get permission from a book first, to see if you have the
right lens fitted? <laugh> Wow.... Sheep everywhere... (bleat)
Just do what works, at the time, on the day, to get you the photo you
envisaged in your mind. I can just imagine some of you lot at work...
"Ooh, ooohh!!! (panic) What lens should I use? This is looking really
cool, but I can't use a 135 for a portrait, can I?"
Just shoot film, and concern yourselves less with such bullshit as this,
and your photography will improve 100% I assure you.
David.
Only Me...
Steve1chsn wrote in message <19981003093756...@ng18.aol.com>...
>
>> Now, if you can tell me that, the above definition someway limits me to
>>a specific compositional formula, I'll eat my own excrement :-)
>
>So, are you a real idiot or just pissed at the world?
Yes, I'm a real idiot, and I'm only pissed at people who try to
formulise photography into boring, restricting little clichés, that stifle
people's creativity. Oh.. that's you I suppose, so I'm pissed at you :-)
What's your problem anyway?
David
Jack Daynes
===============================
Mac,
The tip you've offered about focus on the eyes seems very good to me. Keeping in
mind the DOF rule of 1/3 in front, 2/3 behind, this would also seem to allow
most of the facial features to be in focus (true?)
Not being a "portrait" photographer at this time, I'll try to remember this tip,
should I have the opportunity ... Thanks!
--
Jack
;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;
/ Remove "[NOSPAM]" for email replies /
\____________________________________/
Mac Breck
with all forms on conventional wisdom, and jump screaming on everything.
From personal experience, I find the 85 to 105 mm range to be optimum for
flattering portraits of people. Of course, I'll take your's with an 18mm at
9 inches. The resultant image would be a fitting depiction..
Only Me... wrote in message <6v5tp2$mto$3...@newnews.global.net.uk>...
TravGlen
tight head shot portrait, simply because it compresses the features too
much. In other words, it places your ears right across from your nose. This
is sort of the opposite of what a 50mm will do; a fifty will place your ears
about a mile behind your nose. But again, by remembering the simple rules of
portrait you can take a perfectly acceptable and flattering portrait by
using the 1/3 body method. This would necessitate placing the subject
farther away than normal, and would also compress the distance between the
subject and the background (sometimes useful, especially in an exotic
locale.) I've seen very good full figure body shots of models done with a
500mm reflex. Of course, from some distance away.
Only Me...
Mac Breck wrote in message <6v616k$1m2$1...@news2.ispnews.com>...
>Thank you overreacting flame master. I can always count on you to disagree
>with all forms on conventional wisdom, and jump screaming on everything.
>
You're welcome
David
Andreas Nicklass
> > The most important thing is that both eyes are in focus. I usually stop
> > down to f/5.6 at 6 feet with a 105.
> The tip you've offered about focus on the eyes seems very good to me.
> Keeping in mind the DOF rule of 1/3 in front, 2/3 behind, this would also
> seem to allow most of the facial features to be in focus (true?)
Where does this damn 'rule' come from? There's no optical law
that requires front and back DOF to be 1/3 and 2/3. In fact
the ratio differs significantly from 1:2 in most circumstances.
Take the example above (focal length: 105mm, focusing distance:
6 feet, aperture: f/5.6). There the DOF stretches from 1.77
inches in front of the focus plane to 1.87 inches behind this
plane.
The dof data for other apertures are:
f/2.0 f/2.8 f/4.0 f/5.6 f/8.0 f/11. f/16.
-0.64 -0.90 -1.27 -1.77 -2.50 -3.38 -4.80
+0.66 +0.92 +1.33 +1.87 +2.71 +3.79 +5.66
To get the ratio of this 'rule' you have to stop down to f/65.
Andreas
Stéphane Leman-Langlois
We're simply discussing which focal length gives the more "natural" look,
and once you know that, well, you're free to disregard it at will. This is
just basic knowledge, not absolute law.
Bill Schaffel
Bill S.
Fred Whitlock wrote:
> Aha! Finally someone provided the right answer. Asssuming that by portrait
> we mean a photograph of a person or people and we don't limit ourselves to
> the concept of the formal studio portrait, then any lens is an appropriate
> lens for portrait photography. Let me illustrate the point made by the
> poster below. On the website below you will see a photograph of some
> children whose faces are arranged in a circular pattern. The shot was made
> with a 20mm f2.8 Nikkor lens on a 35mm Nikon camera. Even though the
> subjects are professional models and the client was a commercial enterprise,
> the shot is a portrait. You may or may not like it but it's been used for
> everything from brochure covers to advertising kiosks at our local airport
> so it was a commercially successful photograph at least. So is a 20mm
> Nikkor a good portrait lens? You be the judge. Good shooting.
>
> Fred
> Maplewood Photography
> http://www.maplewoodphoto.com
>
> Only Me... wrote in message <6v3pag$t1n$1...@newnews.global.net.uk>...
Jack Daynes
Andreas,
The 1/3 -2/3 "rule" may be imprecise, but it probably can be helpful to keep us
aware that there is more room behind the focal plane than in front. I appreciate
the table you presented. Will these ratios hold up for other focal lengths? Will
they change as the distance to the subject changes?
Bernard
> Yes, I'm a real idiot, and I'm only pissed at people who try to
> formulise photography into boring, restricting little clichés, that
> stifle
> people's creativity. Oh.. that's you I suppose, so I'm pissed at you
> :-)
>
> What's your problem anyway?
This reminds me of a certain Fred Goudal.... What do you think, Steve?
Bernard.
Andreas Nicklass
> > > The tip you've offered about focus on the eyes seems very good to me.
> > > Keeping in mind the DOF rule of 1/3 in front, 2/3 behind, this would also
> > > seem to allow most of the facial features to be in focus (true?)
> >
> > Where does this damn 'rule' come from? There's no optical law
> > that requires front and back DOF to be 1/3 and 2/3. In fact
> > the ratio differs significantly from 1:2 in most circumstances.
> >
> > Take the example above (focal length: 105mm, focusing distance:
> > 6 feet, aperture: f/5.6). There the DOF stretches from 1.77
> > inches in front of the focus plane to 1.87 inches behind this
> > plane.
> >
> > The dof data for other apertures are:
> >
> > f/2.0 f/2.8 f/4.0 f/5.6 f/8.0 f/11. f/16.
> >
> > -0.64 -0.90 -1.27 -1.77 -2.50 -3.38 -4.80
> > +0.66 +0.92 +1.33 +1.87 +2.71 +3.79 +5.66
> >
> > To get the ratio of this 'rule' you have to stop down to f/65.
> The 1/3 -2/3 "rule" may be imprecise, but it probably can be helpful to
> keep us aware that there is more room behind the focal plane than in
> front.
For me the existence of the hyperfocal distance is reminder enough
for this tendency of the DOF.
> I appreciate the table you presented. Will these ratios hold up for other
> focal lengths? Will they change as the distance to the subject changes?
This table is specific for f=105mm and a focusing distance of
six feet.
A general rule is, that in the macro region front and rear DOF
are almost identical. The deviations from that rule are smaller
than 10% as long as M/F (the ratio between magnification and
aperture number) is larger than 0.7mm/f (f: focal length).
With portraits you often are within this range as you can see
from the table above.
With decreasing magnification and increasing subject - film
distance the rear DOF becomes larger than the front DOF. At
a focusing distance of about f^2/(F*0.1mm) you hit the point
where the ratio is indeed 1/3 to 2/3.
Andreas
Only Me...
Stéphane Leman-Langlois wrote in message ...
>I don't understand why you're getting your underwear in a bunch over this.
>We're simply discussing which focal length gives the more "natural" look,
>and once you know that, well, you're free to disregard it at will. >
Hmm.... Surely a 100mm does NOT give a natural look at all. The most
natural lens, is one that best emulates the eye, and a 100mm is not that.
It's merely convention that dictates that a 100mm is a "portrait" lens, as
it flattens the facial features slightly, as this is regarded as
aesthetically pleasing. If it's natural you want, use a 50mm. I wonder
why the 50 never became a portrait lens then? The thing with this portrait
lens business, is that everyone disagrees with one another, and do you know
why? It's because we all have a different idea about what's flattering.
For instance, my girlfriend is Chinese, and, to be quite frank about it, has
a flat face (Oh, how I hope she doesn't read this :-)) When I shoot her
with a longer lens, it;s not as flattering. She looks a lot better with the
long end of my 35~70, maybe slightly shorter. Does this mean that it's an
Asian portrait lens? <laugh> Of course it doesn't. Someone with a huge
nose would probably benefit from a 135, maybe longer. This is what I'm
trying to say. How can you have a standard, when you're dealing with the
most diverse subject there is: The Human form. Get stuck in a rut, and
you're in trouble. Be prepared to use other lenses. Also, who said a
portrait means head and shoulders? What do you think?
David
Steve1chsn
>This reminds me of a certain Fred Goudal.... What do you think, Steve?
>
>Bernard.
If he didn't put that little smiley at the end I might have thought he was
serious.....
------------------------------------------------------
steve vancosin --
Mac Breck
I usually focus on the nearest thing I want to be in focus, and the farthest
thing I want to be in focus, and then just make sure both fall within the
depth of field marks on the lens I'm using (or looks sharp with the depth of
field preview lever pressed in). It's done on a case by case basis, and
obviously varies with f/stop and focal length.
Mac
Andreas Nicklass wrote in message
<1dgc647.oir...@psc-5399a-8.bmi.net>...
>Jack Daynes <"jackd1[NOSPAM]"@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Keeping in mind the DOF rule of 1/3 in front, 2/3 behind,
>Where does this damn 'rule' come from? There's no optical law
>that requires front and back DOF to be 1/3 and 2/3. In fact
>the ratio differs significantly from 1:2 in most circumstances.
>
>Take the example above (focal length: 105mm, focusing distance:
>6 feet, aperture: f/5.6). There the DOF stretches from 1.77
>inches in front of the focus plane to 1.87 inches behind this
>plane.
>
>The dof data for other apertures are:
>
> f/2.0 f/2.8 f/4.0 f/5.6 f/8.0 f/11. f/16.
>
> -0.64 -0.90 -1.27 -1.77 -2.50 -3.38 -4.80
> +0.66 +0.92 +1.33 +1.87 +2.71 +3.79 +5.66
>
>To get the ratio of this 'rule' you have to stop down to f/65.
>
>Andreas
W Scott Elliot
not be too relevant to portraits.
I would think that the "most natural look" would be the lens which takes the
picture from the distance at which we normally look at the subject.
If the only time I see my self is in the bathroom mirror when I'm shaving in
the morning, a picture taken at that distance might appear most natural to
me. Maybe a 28 mm lens would have the same perspective.
Similarly a friend who normally speaks to me at close distances might find
the 50 mm to give a similar perspective, of if they have more casual
conversations, a 100 mm. The neighbour across the street probably sees me
most often in the perspective of a 400 mm lens. All of them are "natural"
perspectives.
The wider lens gives a view from a more intimate distance while the longer
one is more formal. Maybe a close friend would feel more comfortable with
the perspective of a wider angle lens, while we would prefer to present a
strange with an image taken from further away.
Also, we probably prefer the perspective we consider most flattering. Some
people may prefer to see some features emphasized while others have features
they would rather have minimized.
As a result, no lens will be the perfect portrait lens for all people and
all purposes. Chose the one that give the appropriate emotional impact for
the situation.
Scott
Sergey Zhupanov
<sel...@direct.ca> wrote:
<snip>
>Similarly a friend who normally speaks to me at close distances might find
>the 50 mm to give a similar perspective, of if they have more casual
>conversations, a 100 mm. The neighbour across the street probably sees me
>most often in the perspective of a 400 mm lens. All of them are "natural"
>perspectives.
I don't think that's quite correct. Consider that across the street
when looking through 400mm lens, you only see a (very) small part
of the picture you would see if you we looking across the street
without using the lens. Therefore, I would say that using different
focal length lenses for portrait, but changing your distance to the
subject so the picture contains the same "view" of the world (i.e.,
the same objects), keeps the perspective the same.
Put another way, unless your neighbour is spying on you with a
set of binoculars, they do NOT see as as though through a 400mm lens,
but rather as through a (roughly) 50mm but at a greater distance.
Your argument however could be used to show that the neighbour is used
to seeing you as being very small, and your close friends are used to
seeing you as being huge :-) I don't know what it proves though :-)
cheers,
sergey
Stéphane Leman-Langlois
assumed we were talking about the conventional head-and-shoulder shot. If
you do that with a 50mm it will look a bit strange. Mind you, that's only
because we don't get that close to most people in real life. When we do,
the face is indeed stretched exactly like a 50 would do. Again, the simple
point is that this would not constitute a "conventional" portrait. As for
*my* definition of a portrait, well, I'm more of an impressionist; it's not
the shape or size of the face or anything else that makes the portrait, it's
the feeling conveyed by the entire picture. I think that amounts to making
a difference between a portrait of a face and a portrait of a person, a
human body and a human individual, etc.
TravGlen
Only Me... wrote in message <6v6d7g$872$2...@newnews.global.net.uk>...
W Scott Elliot
<3617b50...@news.cis.ohio-state.edu>...
>
>I don't think that's quite correct. Consider that across the street
>when looking through 400mm lens, you only see a (very) small part
>of the picture you would see if you we looking across the street
>without using the lens. Therefore, I would say that using different
>focal length lenses for portrait, but changing your distance to the
>subject so the picture contains the same "view" of the world (i.e.,
>the same objects), keeps the perspective the same.
No, you do not get the same view by using a different focal length and
changing the distance from the subject so that the relative size of the
subject in the picture stays the same.
With a wide angle lens, you have to get quite close the subject. As a
result, portions of the subject which are closer to the lens will look
relatively large compared to portions of the subject which are further away.
The nose will look larger than the ears in a full face portrait. An extreme
example is to use a very wide angle lens and take a head and shoulders
picture from in front of and a little above the subject. The forehead will
look enlarged, giving a rather nerdy look. As focal length increases, the
relative changes in perspective are less dramatic. A picture taken with a
400 mm lens is much closer to a 100 mm than the 100 is to a 28 mm.
The longer lens has more apparent foreshortening of the background. Take an
upper body portrait with mountains in the background. With the 50 mm lens,
you look as if you are bigger than the mountains. With the 400 mm lens, you
look as if you are right in the mountains, assuming you use an aperture
small enough to keep everything in focus.
Other than with wide angle lenses, the differences in perspective of
changing focal length are very subtle. I think the emotional impact is more
subliminal than a conscious decision that, "Oh, the nose looks bigger than
the ears, I must be close."
I suggest that you take the same face only shot with your widest and longest
lenses and compare them. You should be able to see the difference.
Scott
Alan...@compuserve.com
"Only Me..." <dg...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Well I think anyone who even thinks that there IS such a thing as a portrait
> lens, isn't a very creative photographer.
> The answer to the "How long?" question, is simply, "As long as you want"
> I've taken portraits, and f**king good ones, with lenses from 20mm, right
> through to 600mm.
> it's depressing to realise that all these people actually thing that there's
> a "correct" lens for portraiture. These people's shots must suck, big time.
There are reasons to the 'portrait lens' concept that go far beyond what you
call "formulaic" or "rut" or "rules". Those reasons are related to the
cultural importance we give to the facial features of a person as
determinant to the perception of a personnality or to the perception of
beauty. These features are usually observed at a given distance, with a given
perspective from a given point of view. There are variations there of course,
but these are not essential.
Many people, viewers, models and photographers, desire to capture on a
picture this dominant way of perceiving each other. And there are techniques
that help photographers respond to this perfectly valid desire. These include
most of the elements discussed by photographers when debating "portrait
lenses" (distance to subject, perspectives, differential focus, etc). There
is no reason to state like you do that "these people's shots must suck, big
time". That is a pretentious and unfounded statement.
Of course there are other ways of "viewing" each other. We sometimes want to
define the other person in relation with his/her activities (professional at
work, artist in activity, runner and the field, etc). Those "contextual
portraits" require other techniques (large depth of field, wide angle of
vision, etc). Some of us are on the contrary fetichists, in the sense that
they define a person by a small portion of the body or by a single face
feature. An eye or a hand becomes a portrait. Again, other techniques answer
to that desire.
> Generally, 100mm (for 35mm) is considered to be the most flattering
> lens, perspective wise, but God, it's so BORING!!
'Distorting' a face with a 20mm pointed from under the chin might be exciting
once. On the 3d image, it will be just as 'boring' and 'formulaic' as what you
call 'head and shoulders'. Furthermore, it has ALL been done before !
> All successful photographic styles, by pioneering photographers, have
> been so because they've been different, and individual. If you want to just
> follow the crowd, and produce average, but dull shots, then use a 85~ 135mm
> lens for your boring old head and shoulder, off the shelf portraits, and
> that's fine, if that's what you want. However, if you want to be creative,
> use whatever lens gives you a good result, whether it be a 6mm fisheye, or a
> 1200mm mirror lens.
Define "good result". The dominant way we portrait ourselves and the others
is far from having to be "average and dull". The interaction between model,
photographer and viewer will be successful or unsuccessful, and that part of
the success is not handicaped by using a culturally dominant way of
perceiving each other. Success or failure of a portrait is not related to the
usage or not of "pioneering" styles. "Eye catching" does not always equal
"successful" and is very often gimmicky. A GOOD formal traditional portrait
is just as difficult to produce as any other GOOD image. The techniques to
enable the production of such portraits are multiple. The "portrait lens"
debate is a valid one, and not the only one, when discussing those
techniques.
> THERE ARE NO RULES!!!! And if you find any, break them!!
That statement is demagogic in the sense that it justifies anything. Some of
what you call "rules" are very useful tools to help people communicate. In
order to "break" them, you must have mastered them to the point you can
demonstrate the inadequacy of their response to the questions they pretend
solving. Photography is a discipline that deserves consideration. Whatever
way you personnaly enrich the long history of photography is welcome. Now
that you have stated your superiority, you will pobably have to demonstrate
it with other means than words. I am very curious....
Alan
Brussels/Belgium
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Only Me...
Alan...@compuserve.com wrote in message <6v9r05$nn4
>
>That statement is demagogic in the sense that it justifies anything. Some
of
>what you call "rules" are very useful tools to help people communicate. In
>order to "break" them, you must have mastered them to the point you can
>demonstrate the inadequacy of their response to the questions they pretend
>solving. Photography is a discipline that deserves consideration. Whatever
>way you personnaly enrich the long history of photography is welcome. Now
>that you have stated your superiority, you will pobably have to demonstrate
>it with other means than words. I am very curious....
Hmm... you appear to be turning my "no rules" speech into a rule or
something :-) I just wish people could see the possibilities of other
images than those we normally associate with a "portrait", not go around
breaking rules constantly. If you did that, then it would just become
another standard way of doing things, surely. Sometimes, it's just
refreshing to see something new, and unless it's done to death, it's a good
thing.
As for my work: I'm working on a website now, but progress is slow. I
may get another to do it for me. If anyone is interested, I'll post the URL
when it's completed.
David.
Mac Breck
snip
>No, you do not get the same view by using a different focal length and
>changing the distance from the subject so that the relative size of the
>subject in the picture stays the same.
Right, you only get the same view by staying the same distance away.
If you take a shot with a 24mm and a 300mm from 20 feet, and crop/enlarge
the 24mm shot to match the area covered by the 300mm shot, they'll look
identical (except for grain, of course).
>Other than with wide angle lenses, the differences in perspective of
>changing focal length are very subtle
There are NO changes in perspective by changing focal length. Perspective
changes with distance to the subject, not focal length.
Mac
Alan...@compuserve.com
"Fred Whitlock" <a...@cl-sys.com> wrote:
> Aha! Finally someone provided the right answer. Asssuming that by portrait
> we mean a photograph of a person or people and we don't limit ourselves to
> the concept of the formal studio portrait, then any lens is an appropriate
> lens for portrait photography. Let me illustrate the point made by the
> poster below. On the website below you will see a photograph of some
> children whose faces are arranged in a circular pattern. The shot was made
> with a 20mm f2.8 Nikkor lens on a 35mm Nikon camera. Even though the
> subjects are professional models and the client was a commercial enterprise,
> the shot is a portrait. You may or may not like it but it's been used for
> everything from brochure covers to advertising kiosks at our local airport
> so it was a commercially successful photograph at least. So is a 20mm
> Nikkor a good portrait lens? You be the judge. Good shooting.
Fred,
These are very nice images on your page. But the circled kids picture is NOT
a portrait for me. It is a colourful, graphic setup of kids faces that does
not give any hint as to who these kids are, what their personalities are,
what their lives are or even what their activity was at the moment the
picture was shot. It is completely neutral. It does not say anything other
than whatever the advertisement might suggest at the end of the chain. It is
well done, light, and I congratulate you for its commercial success. But it
is NOT a 'portrait' for me. I doubt that even the parents of the models
consider this image as a 'portrait' of their kids (you might have an answer
on that). Few advertisements featuring people work as 'portraits', and
understandably so, once they are taken out of the advertisement's context.
And even if you argued that my point of view is an isolate one, that my
understanding of 'portrait' is overlimiting, that type of "ring of heads"
setup has already been used hundreds of times in advertisements, record
sleeves, etc. It is no more no less gimmicky than what was grouped under the
'head and shoulders' stigma by Mr OnlyMe in his post. How many times can you
"sell" such a setup ? Do you really think this is what the enquiring poster
had in mind when starting this thread ? Or what the other posters that
contributed to this thread had in mind ?
Please do not take this as criticism against your images, which are of very
high quality, but as a contradiction to the logic arguing that one MUST break
the 85-135mm "barrier" (as argued by the poster you were supporting) or seek
originality for originality's sake in order to make interesting portraits...
Friendly regards
Alan
Brussels-Belgium.
Alan...@compuserve.com
"Only Me..." <dg...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Hmm... you appear to be turning my "no rules" speech into a rule or
> something :-) I just wish people could see the possibilities of other
> images than those we normally associate with a "portrait", not go around
> breaking rules constantly. If you did that, then it would just become
> another standard way of doing things, surely. Sometimes, it's just
> refreshing to see something new, and unless it's done to death, it's a good
> thing.
David,
Seems we do not disagree anymore. You must admit that your initial post was
much more radical than this... It is also very difficult to be "new" in any
type of creation of images these days, especially regarding portraiture. So
much has been done already. I'm happy just trying to be an adequate
photographer and conveying through my pictures the images of other people the
way I see them and the way I would like the viewers to perceive them. I have
no ambition to be recognised as an innovator or a creator in this field.
There are a few millions like me out there. And MAYBE a few hundred real
creators...
> As for my work: I'm working on a website now, but progress is slow. I
> may get another to do it for me. If anyone is interested, I'll post the URL
> when it's completed.
It will not pass unnoticed ;-)
Alan
Brussels-Belgium
Jeff Westhead
> I wonder why the 50 never became a portrait lens then?
Isn't this because if you get closer than 5-6 feet with a 50mm (say, for a head
shot) you get noticeable distortion?
Jeff.
--
Jeff Westhead -- Zoomit Corporation -- Toronto, Ontario, Canada
mailto:jwes...@zoomit.com -- http://www.zoomit.com
mailto:jeff.w...@pobox.com -- http://www.pobox.com/~jeffwe
Only Me...
Jeff Westhead wrote in message <3618DF86...@pobox.com>...
>"Only Me..." wrote:
>
>> I wonder why the 50 never became a portrait lens then?
>
>Isn't this because if you get closer than 5-6 feet with a 50mm (say, for a
head
>shot) you get noticeable distortion?
Hmm... interesting point, but we're back to this head and shoulder
thing again. Is the face the only thing that conveys personality? Alfred
Hitchcock was probably best remembered for his full length silhouette :-)
I'm not suggesting that's what a portrait should be, but.... oh, I don't
know. I just know so many people who seem to use their whole bodies to
convey there personality. Maybe I just have weird friends ;-)
Besides, if a 50 gives distortion at 5 feet, then does the eye? When
you speak to someone, do you feel that they look distorted? I'm not
suggesting that you're wrong, but rather, I'm questioning the validity of
the whole 100mm thing. It really does depend upon the subject, and the
situation the subject is in I feel.
Regards,
David.
Only Me...
Alan...@compuserve.com wrote in message <6vajq8
>
>Seems we do not disagree anymore. You must admit that your initial post was
>much more radical than this...
I don't know about that. I still strive to find something different, and
I'm still annoyed when people suggest to me that I should be using this, or
doing that. I'm sometimes irritated by those who even refuse to consider
anything controversial, or different, as I feel this is just ignorant.
>It is also very difficult to be "new" in any
>type of creation of images these days, especially regarding portraiture. So
>much has been done already. I'm happy just trying to be an adequate
>photographer and conveying through my pictures the images of other people
the
>way I see them and the way I would like the viewers to perceive them.
Indeed. There is nothing wrong with that at all. I'm not suggesting
everyone should suddenly revise their methods, but simply that there is more
than one way to skin a cat, so to speak. You're right, it IS hard to be
original these days, as so much has already gone before, and it's probably
for this reason that I feel photographers should try to develop new styles,
and ways of thinking. I feel all this sterility will dissipate soon anyway.
We stand on the threshold of a new photographic era: The next 10 years will
see dramatic changes to the way we all think about photography, and anything
new can only be a good thing, long term.
I have
>no ambition to be recognised as an innovator or a creator in this field.
>There are a few millions like me out there. And MAYBE a few hundred real
>creators...
Then that's fine as well. However, not wanting to break any new
ground, is different from developing a personal style. I think any
photographer would benefit from this. When you think about it, there is
only one way to stamp some of your personality onto your work, and that's to
do something that only you does. It doesn't have to be dramatic, but it
does have to be unique to you, and in such, will probably be against some
sort of established wisdom or other.
>
>
>> As for my work: I'm working on a website now, but progress is slow.
I
>> may get another to do it for me. If anyone is interested, I'll post the
URL
>> when it's completed.
>
>
>It will not pass unnoticed ;-)
<laugh> Not now it won't, no. When it's done, I'll post the URL, and
you can all tell me how crap my work is ;-) It may be some time though;
I'm quite busy, and often out of the country.
Regards,
David.
Only Me...
Alan...@compuserve.com wrote in message <6va97m$732
>Do you really think this is what the enquiring poster
>had in mind when starting this thread ? Or what the other posters that
>contributed to this thread had in mind ?
That's just the nature of Usenet. Threads take on a life of there own.
It's often amusing to leave it alone for a few days, just to see how all the
threads you were following have mutated into something totally different :-)
David
Jeff Westhead
> Jeff Westhead wrote in message <3618DF86...@pobox.com>...
> >"Only Me..." wrote:
> >
> >> I wonder why the 50 never became a portrait lens then?
> >
> >Isn't this because if you get closer than 5-6 feet with a 50mm (say, for a
> head
> >shot) you get noticeable distortion?
>
> Hmm... interesting point, but we're back to this head and shoulder
> thing again.
I totally agree with you, David. I was simply stating the plain fact that if
you try a close-in shot with a 50mm, the face (esp nose) will elongate
unflatteringly, which for a "standard" portrait is distortion. Shoot whatever
you want. If you like big noses, then shoot with a 20mm from 2 feet out. My
point was only that the person's face will not look "normal" if you shoot
closer than 5-6 feet with a 50mm lens.
W Scott Elliot
>
>There are NO changes in perspective by changing focal length. Perspective
>changes with distance to the subject, not focal length.
Right, but if you want to take a head and shoulders shot that fills the
frame with different focal length, you will have to change the distance.
For a similarly composed frame, changing focal length, changes perspective
because you have to change the distance.
Given the small size of 35 mm film, we usually want the image to fill the
frame, not rely on cropping the image because we either used the wrong lens,
or didn't get close enough.
Scott
Only Me...
Jeff Westhead wrote in message <36191580...@pobox.com>...
>
. My
>point was only that the person's face will not look "normal" if you shoot
>closer than 5-6 feet with a 50mm lens.
>
A 50mm will offer the same perspective as the human eye, how can you
not look normal? They DO look normal. What you mean is, they don't look
like a portrait. There's a difference.... I see your point though. I'm
just being annoyingly pedantic :-)
David.
Alan...@compuserve.com
I'll jump in here: "the 50mm will offer the same perspective as the human eye"
statement remains controversial. A search on DejaNews in this NG will confirm
this to you. But even if we admit this, you forget to take into account the
distance at which we socially remain from others (even when we do not take
pictures) as well as the size of the prints and the distance we view them at.
Let us say that in daily encounters we tend to remain at double arms length
(leaving room to shake hands) for casual meetings, much further away for
people we are not being introduced to. Much nearer of course for friends and
family whose 'social' image has been integrated by the brain a long time ago.
We do not usually encounter people nose first. We do not usually open our
eyes at "double nose" distance to discover someone's physionomy. The brain
uses all its historical and esthetical references long before you get that
close. Silhouette, body build, clothing, and above all face features
integrate at a distance to determine the image you make yourself of a person.
It needs a lot of observation and interaction after that to change that
image.
That is why I suggest that the 85-135 convention in 35mm photography might be
rooted in our culture more than as a gimmick for lazy photographers. Viewers
and subjects feel at ease with the process of taking the image (the distance
to camera) and with the final image as well. Do you really think this can be
reduced to laziness or lack of imagination ? I think the 85-135mm convention
places everyone at 'acceptable' social distances: model, photographer,
viewer, are all close enough for interaction and far enough to preserve each
other's intimacy. Disturbing that is OK if you wish to disturb. But
disturbing might not always be the main objective of portraiture as a
photographic activity.
friendly regards,
Alan
Paul cavka
>
> don't know why my reply wasn't posted, so here it is:
> I have used a Nikon N90s with the 80-200 2.8 lens for numerous
> portraits...handheld and tripod mounted...at all focal lengths and it is
> excellent. Only drawback is the weight/bulk especially when handholding.
>
> The August '98 issue of Shutterbug features 3 photos by Tom Rickles on pp 90-91
> taken with an 80-200 zoom.
>
> JWM
I like 85mm. Though shorter focal lenghs are being used a lot more
often these days. I also use a 50mm often for shooting 3/4. Take a look
at the portraiture the press are doing these days, wide angle shot from
much lower angles. The acceptable is broadening in portraiture. About
time.
Paul Cavka
Mac Breck
Only Me... wrote in message <6vatpo$s65$3...@newnews.global.net.uk>...
>
>
> Besides, if a 50 gives distortion at 5 feet, then does the eye?
Yes, but the brain adjusts for it, and you don't notice. It's a dynamic
situation.
The photo is static, and then the eye notices.
Mac
Phong
Only Me... wrote in message <6veb7o$1l4$3...@newnews.global.net.uk>...
>
> Then get hold of a 80~200/f4 AI-S. A great lens to use hand held. I
>love mine. One of the few MF lenses to remain in my bag, simply because
>there's no AF, constant aperture zoom that doesn't weigh a ton, and to be
>honest, no AF lens of this size is anywhere near as good. It's very sharp
>wide open, at both ends too. If you see one at a good price, get it.
>
>
>David.
I also highly recommend this lens.
I sorely missed the 80-200/f4 AIS when I switched from Nikon to Canon
several years ago.
- Phong
Only Me...
Alan...@compuserve.com wrote in message <
>
>That is why I suggest that the 85-135 convention in 35mm photography might
be
>rooted in our culture more than as a gimmick for lazy photographers
Maybe that's probably why anything outside of this "standard" seems
to be reviled? It's certainly an interesting point. If we all prefer to
remain a certain distance from one another when we meet in person, it does
stand to reason that we all prefer to offer the same perspective when we
present our images in any other way too? I've never really thought about
that.
I think this all boils down to what you're trying to achieve. I've
always tried to gain people's attention, both in my work, and in real life:
I'm a bit of an extrovert :-) I like to create images that "grab"
people's attention. Usually, the most efficient way to do this is to
present a familiar subject, in a unfamiliar way.
>Disturbing that is OK if you wish to disturb. But
>disturbing might not always be the main objective of portraiture as a
>photographic activity.
Indeed. Although I never wish to disturb. Obtain people's interest
would be a more politic way of putting it :-)
Cheers,
David.
Only Me...
>JWMALAHY wrote:
>>
>> don't know why my reply wasn't posted, so here it is:
>> I have used a Nikon N90s with the 80-200 2.8 lens for numerous
>> portraits...handheld and tripod mounted...at all focal lengths and it is
>> excellent. Only drawback is the weight/bulk especially when handholding.
>>
Robert Ribnitz
<pcav...@aardvark.mur.csu.edu.au> wrote:
>JWMALAHY wrote:
>>
>> don't know why my reply wasn't posted, so here it is:
>> I have used a Nikon N90s with the 80-200 2.8 lens for numerous
>> portraits...handheld and tripod mounted...at all focal lengths and it is
>> excellent. Only drawback is the weight/bulk especially when handholding.
>>
>> The August '98 issue of Shutterbug features 3 photos by Tom Rickles on pp 90-91
>> taken with an 80-200 zoom.
>>
>> JWM
>
> I like 85mm. Though shorter focal lenghs are being used a lot more
>often these days. I also use a 50mm often for shooting 3/4. Take a look
>at the portraiture the press are doing these days, wide angle shot from
>much lower angles. The acceptable is broadening in portraiture. About
>time.
>
>Paul Cavka
"Classic" portraiture lenses are 85mm, 105mm or 135mm, tohugh I have
also takjen portraits with 35mm, 50mm or even a 20mm. all depends a
bit..
RObert
Only Me...
Mac Breck wrote in message <6v5l2i$sl$1...@news2.ispnews.com>...
>What books are you reading??? 135 is too long, barely acceptable in a
>pinch. In 35mm format, every book I've read says 85mm to 105mm. Just stay
>6-7 feet away fro a natural perspective
<laugh> Do this.. do that...
Mac Breck
lens. She sees the picture and hits him with the nearest flower pot.
Now that's comedy.
Mac
Only Me... wrote in message <707eh2$8se$1...@newnews.global.net.uk>...
Only Me...
Mac Breck wrote in message <1H4W1.191$zV....@news3.ispnews.com>...
><laugh> "Only Me" takes picture of girlfriend at 2 to 3 feet with any
>lens. She sees the picture and hits him with the nearest flower pot.
>
>Now that's comedy.
People not having there own ideas anymore, and fearing to experiment,
and only believing what they read in books, now THAT'S funny. 2000,000
photographers read the same book, then go out to take the same photographs.
Hmmm.... Books are GUIDES, not absolute tomes of law. Actually quoting the
figures you've read from books says a lot about how original your
photography is. 6 to 7 feet. Is that a rule? Can I not use a 135 from 12
feet away? Is that WRONG? Will my shot be worse than yours? I bet you
that you couldn't tell me how far away a subject is in a photograph, unless
you knew, even if I told you what lens was used, so what's all the fuss
about. Why are you arguing over a few feet. At this rate, we'll end up with
some sort of international portraits standard, whereby one has to be a
certain distance from the sitter, rather like playing darts or something.
How silly.
If it looks good in the viewfinder, take the shot, and to hell with what
some nameless blurt in a book has written. It's your work, not his.
David.
Yeti Man
the way friends of mine are afraid to just use some film to test their
minds.
They will get an idea and agonize over it for days instead of just
having at it.
When they are comfortable with a scene (or accepted photographic
formula), they stand there and take 1 or 2 shots and pack it in (this
means portraits too) instead of trying anything new.
You wouldnt catch them taking pictures of just an interesting feature
in someones face (or hand or ear or.... you get what i mean).
I do the generaly accepted stuff too, but I dont just stop there.
Mac Breck
How about the 2000,000 button-pushers that let the camera CPU decide
ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING for them? I think that's worse. And I wasn't quoting
figures I've read from books. I was quoting from personal experience. I've
used a 50mm at 3 feet (20 years ago before I saw the resultant pics, and
learned). Girlfriend says "My nose doesn't look that big does it?"
Regarding the 135 at 12 ft, No of course you can use it (especially if you
want to compress a big nose). What I was saying is that in most situations
you want to stay 6 to 7 feet away IF you want to make an undistorted,
accurate recording of a person's features. If you want to creatively modify
their features (for whatever reason), then get closer or move farther away,
and use the proper focal length to maintain the image size you want.
It's possible to tell how far away a subject is, the perspective changes.
Short focal lengths will increase the feeling of depth. Long focal lengths
compress everything together (bring the background in).
The point is that 50mm at 3 feet looked OK in the viewfinder, but it didn't
look OK in the pics. Of course, she looked fine to me. You see I was
wearing the "rose-colored glasses" at the time. ;-)
Mac
Only Me... wrote in message <70aq5e$5dp$3...@newnews.global.net.uk>...
The Jackal
the 50mm lens will give the same perspective as the human eye at middle
distance. If you use it close up, then the perspective is not the same as
the human eye experiences. That's why you need a short telephoto (85 to 135
mm on 35 mm film) to take a pleasant looking portrait. With a 50 mm the
portrait looks like you are far too close to the subject. Try it!
50 mm lenses are ideal for full length or three-quarter lenght protraits.
Regards
JK
Only Me... wrote in message <6vbhru$l2u$1...@newnews.global.net.uk>...
>
>Jeff Westhead wrote in message <36191580...@pobox.com>...
>>
>. My
>>point was only that the person's face will not look "normal" if you shoot
>>closer than 5-6 feet with a 50mm lens.
>>
>
>
> A 50mm will offer the same perspective as the human eye, how can you
>not look normal? They DO look normal. What you mean is, they don't look
>like a portrait. There's a difference.... I see your point though. I'm
>just being annoyingly pedantic :-)
>
>David.
>
>
>
>