Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main Photography Discussion
Fast Lenses
Page <<first <prev 3 of 8 next> last>>
Sep 17, 2020 07:42:01   #
User ID
 
mas24 wrote:
That oval shaped portrait photo reminds me of a photo my grandmother had of her young son. From the late 1920's. Bokeh is disliked and liked. Fast lenses, f2.8 or faster, do have an advantage for fast action sports. As well as achieving bokeh. As a hobbyist, I would assume, that among professional photographers, that a blurry background is preferred though. For portraits. The fastest lens I have, is a Nikon f1.8 50mm, that I use for portraits on a crop sensor. And kids outdoor soccer games. I get a FOV of 75mm. Not the very best, but still adequate. A pro photographer, who owns a Nikon D750 and a D810, once told me, that a fast 135mm was his best portrait lens. His second choice was a Nikon 70-200mm f2.8.
That oval shaped portrait photo reminds me of a ph... (show quote)

FY edumacation, the very ordinary and once ubiquitous 135/2.8 has the same DoF as an “exotic” 50/0.95. What does that tell you about marketing ?

Reply
Sep 17, 2020 07:55:05   #
Architect1776 Loc: In my mind
 
billnikon wrote:
I will not speak for others but on my portraits the face was in focus. However, there are times when selective focus is preferred. Bokeh is a tool, and as a tool when correctly used it is effective. Creative photographers will continue to use this technique when doing professional portrait photography.
In the portrait of your grandmother, most likely what you don't see is a neck support behind her neck to help hold her head steady during the long exposure process, also most portrait photographers of the day used a very small aperture to assure sharp images.
I will not speak for others but on my portraits th... (show quote)


I agree it is a tool.
My point in the discussion is it way over used and to extremes.
I ha e nothing against shallow DOF.
What I want is real thought before it is done just because you can.

Reply
Sep 17, 2020 07:57:41   #
Architect1776 Loc: In my mind
 
mas24 wrote:
That oval shaped portrait photo reminds me of a photo my grandmother had of her young son. From the late 1920's. Bokeh is disliked and liked. Fast lenses, f2.8 or faster, do have an advantage for fast action sports. As well as achieving bokeh. As a hobbyist, I would assume, that among professional photographers, that a blurry background is preferred though. For portraits. The fastest lens I have, is a Nikon f1.8 50mm, that I use for portraits on a crop sensor. And kids outdoor soccer games. I get a FOV of 75mm. Not the very best, but still adequate. A pro photographer, who owns a Nikon D750 and a D810, once told me, that a fast 135mm was his best portrait lens. His second choice was a Nikon 70-200mm f2.8.
That oval shaped portrait photo reminds me of a ph... (show quote)


I am guessing in the 1918 -20 at the latest as she died of TB, I believe in 1923.

Reply
 
 
Sep 17, 2020 07:59:03   #
Bultaco Loc: Aiken, SC
 
Longshadow wrote:
Nice copy!

(There's a fad???)

I agree, whole face in focus.



Reply
Sep 17, 2020 08:00:28   #
User ID
 
billnikon wrote:
I will not speak for others but on my portraits the face was in focus. However, there are times when selective focus is preferred. Bokeh is a tool, and as a tool when correctly used it is effective. Creative photographers will continue to use this technique when doing professional portrait photography.
In the portrait of your grandmother, most likely what you don't see is a neck support behind her neck to help hold her head steady during the long exposure process, also most portrait photographers of the day used a very small aperture to assure sharp images.
I will not speak for others but on my portraits th... (show quote)

The posted portrait is somewhat later than the “ neck/head stabilizer” era. Exposure would be around 1 second, not the multi-multi seconds of very early processes. Notice the lifelike eyes and facial muscles. Not the cadaver-like pose of the half minute exposure era.

Reply
Sep 17, 2020 08:23:17   #
martin muller
 
Thank you for providing the link. I saved the link for future reference. Awesome work! Canon or Sony, I notice either lens is set to 2.5 or 2.8 for so many of the images examined thus far. A sweet spot for those lenses perhaps.

Reply
Sep 17, 2020 08:25:13   #
jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY
 
"Beauty is in the eye..."

Different people like different things.

Reply
 
 
Sep 17, 2020 08:46:42   #
JJS Loc: SE Michigan & SW Florida
 
ronpier wrote:
I never cease to be amazed when I view her work. I spend a lot of time trying to get sharp images and her work is anything but sharp, simply astounding.



Reply
Sep 17, 2020 09:20:26   #
photoman022 Loc: Manchester CT USA
 
It's not exactly on topic, but I took my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 out for two days of shooting at f/2.8 exclusively. It's a good macro lens, so I shot up close with great results; I also shot landscapes (nothing spectacular in my part of Connecticut, but it was an experiment) and, honestly, I can't tell what's in focus and what's not on many of the photos. I changed the focal point on three photos of the same subject; it was a blurry mish-mash.

I would never shoot a portrait at f/2.8, except as an experiment (see above); my preferred setting is f/5.6 (don't ask me why, I just find it's a good setting for the flash and ambient light); I shoot f/11 or f/16 when I want to minimize the ambient light.

Reply
Sep 17, 2020 09:29:49   #
kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy
 
When I was a teenager more than 50 years ago I saw, a wonderful feature in one of the photo mags of the day showing the work of one famous portrait photographer of the day who shot street portraits with a 11x14 Deardorff view camera, and I found the extremely shallow DOF delicious and I still do. You may want to see the full head in focus but others have different tastes just as valid as yours, and the continuing attraction to shallow DOF to emphasize certain areas of a photograph is certainly testament to the fact that the technique is not a passing fad, no matter how much you seem to wish for some reason that it was.

Reply
Sep 17, 2020 09:32:31   #
frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.
 
Architect1776 wrote:
I have with interest observed the "Bokeh" worship and the razor thin focus worship.
I saw a new f1.2 lens introduction photo were the model's eye was the only thing in focus.
It got me to thinking how after we get over this Bokeh and thin focus fad how many of the current photos will become a dated joke like homes of the 80's are Architectural jokes now.
I personally like to see the whole face in focus not just the eye and ears etc. all fuzzy.
The photo of my grandmother to me beats an eye only in focus and will be timeless after the eye only is relegated to a silly fad and an embarrassment.
I have with interest observed the "Bokeh"... (show quote)



I have never heard of "eye only in focus", but, "focus on the nearest eye". When the eyes are not in focus it is just wierd looking. The whole face should be in focus. I don't think this is, or will be a fad.

Reply
 
 
Sep 17, 2020 09:40:43   #
mas24 Loc: Southern CA
 
User ID wrote:
FY edumacation, the very ordinary and once ubiquitous 135/2.8 has the same DoF as an “exotic” 50/0.95. What does that tell you about marketing ?


Interesting to know. I've never seen a 0.95 lens. The fastest lens I saw on a camera was a 85mm f1.2L Canon.

Reply
Sep 17, 2020 09:41:06   #
Blair Shaw Jr Loc: Dunnellon,Florida
 
joer wrote:
.

I like fast lenses not because of the shallow depth of field but because they focus better in low light. They really pay off in early morning or late evening.



Reply
Sep 17, 2020 09:41:47   #
Architect1776 Loc: In my mind
 
frankraney wrote:
I have never heard of eye only in focus", but, "focus on the nearest eye". When the eyes are not in focus it is just wierd looking. The whole face should be in focus. I don't think this is, or will be a fad.


????

Reply
Sep 17, 2020 09:43:42   #
bleirer
 
I enjoyed Marc Levoy's lectures on photography on YouTube. He said the practical limit will be f .7 based on the angle of the light and other factors over my head. So we won't rest until it is at the limit. Of course these will be big heavy lenses. I wouldn't mind having fast glass, until then lens blur in Photoshop can dial it in pretty fairly if used subtly.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 8 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.