RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

The comments to donmabry's question on The Best Portrait Lens (April 26, 1831:41) illustrate one great thing about photography - how personal it is.
Several commenters recommended certain lenses because of their good bokeh. If I see any kind of bokeh in my portraits, I have failed as a craftsman. I consider every part of my subject as equally important, therefore all must be in sharp focus. (I like a spray-painted canvas backdrop, that won't look in focus no matter what.)
I believe most portraitists do prefer nice bokeh, and of course your philosophy is as valid to you as mine is to me, I certainly do not imply that mine is right, or best.
My favourite lens for nature and scenic photography is a 105/3.5 Schacht Travegar, on a bellows. Why? 16-18 diaphragm leaves - great bokeh!

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

RWR, welcome to the Hog.
We are all entitled to march to our own drummers, after all, it's all music!? As many here will say, they shoot only to please themselves, and only themselves, so nothing anybody says is important to them.
It's also easy to develope our own beliefs in a vacuum, and not be aware of accepted practices. And indeed, if we need to ONLY please ourselves, nothing else really matters.
RWR, I've been shooting for as long as many here, and knew less than many, and more then a few(maybe). But three years ago I embarked on a professional college photography curriculum. Part of that study was completing the prerequisites for the pro classes.
Long story short, my personal philosophies have started to slowly be tweaked into what are acceptable practices in the photography industry, irregardless of my prior personal beliefs. It's been a long road, but what I have learned has certainly made me many times more than 100% a better photographer. Though my goals are probably much different than your own, what I know now, as opposed to just after 50 years of shooting is eye opening.
Though others may disagree or agree with you, the proof is always in the pudding. And the industries flavor in pudding is dynamic. The flavor prefered yesterday, may change today. And it may not be wrong, but it will be up to you to make it accepted. There are such a thing as styles. One starts to break the rules by bending them as far as they will bend first, but one must know the rules first, then shatter them into organized chaos. That's called pushing the envelope.
RWR, good luck with your philosophy and photography. ;-)
SS

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Portraiture is an odd beast to say the least.

As SS says, to each his/her own. Caveat: If you work for a client, this is not what 'YOU' like but what the client likes and expects.

Compared to the client's expectation the rest is just BS.

amehta Loc: Boston

I agree, when I am taking pictures of people or on "assignment" regardless of the money involved, someone else is involved and it is important that they like the pictures too.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

You pretty well said it all, SS. I should have added that I do very little portraiture, and only for family and friends. No doubt some were disgusted with the results but, if so, they pitied me enough not to tell me so (I have a great family and great friends).
Mostly I've photographed to please myself, though while working for the Department Of Defense I did some product shots and documented some of my research projects, and my penchant for sharp focus has always held me in good stead. (I guess- at least the government hasn't rescinded my indefinite camera pass).
Each style is as individual as the personit, and if one is satisfied with his/her style, it cannot be wrong.
Thank you for your kind input, as well as the other responders. All make very valid points.
P.S. I have a few years on you, SS. Got hooked when a neighbor went away to college and gave me his "Roy Rogers" box camera. Took 620 film. The very first picture I took was of a brand new 1954 Ford driving by the house, when I was 11 1/2. Didn't have a clue what I was doing, but I panned it, the car was sharp against the blurred background. Come to think of it, I wonder just how much I've actually learned since then. I just may expand my horizon!

amehta Loc: Boston

Not trying to disagree with your preference, just want to explain why I (and perhaps other photographers shooting portraits) like shallow depth of field. One reason is to isolate the subject from the background. The second is to give a three-dimensional feel to the image. I believe the two ways to give a 3D sense to the 2D photo is with shadows and with out of focus areas.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

You are right as usual. The only issue is that too often portrait clients are not aware of the incredible number of options. The gentleman I worked with (50+ years ago) made it a point to use several backgrounds and poses, occasionally with a client questioning the choices. Assured that the many shots were not going to cost extra, most clients acquiesced. Most clients chose traditional poses and backgrounds; a few were more adventurous. Two lessons were learned: (1) a true professional is always learning, and (2) those extra shots were a great way to test new lighting equipment and techniques. By the way, his portraits were expensive, but several still hang in public to this day.

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

Well said...

NOTLguy Loc: Niagara on the Lake, Ontario

Well said :thumbup:

I think the difference between a great photographer and an average photographer is knowing how to interpret and bend the rules to suit any given situation. I think some portraits look right with a clear background, and others scream out for Bokah. As they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder (and what the critics try to make everyone else believe).

Michael O' Loc: Midwest right now

For 35mm, 85mm lens gives the optimum perspective.

amehta Loc: Boston

I think we are using terms a little wrong, and that is part of the "disagreement" here.

I would phrase your point as, "Some portraits look right with a deep depth of field, while others scream out for a shallow DoF. With shallow DoF, good bokeh is necessary so the background does not distract from the subject."

I agree, especially with environmental portraits, that having a deeper DoF is important. It is simply a different style with different results.

NOTLguy Loc: Niagara on the Lake, Ontario

Thanks for the clarification, you are correct.



:)

gessman Loc: Colorado

Not to seem disagreeable but, I believe I remember that what you are saying about "optimum perspective" depends on the nature of a particular shot, "shot" meaning either a head shot vs. a full body shot, vs. an environmental portrait, etc. From what I've read, there is no optimum perspective other than what lens a particular shot best lends itself to and then enter the advent of "crop sensors" of 1.5x, 1.6x, and 2x as in the case of 4/3rds units. Beyond all of that, seems like I recall most in-studio portrait shooters with film preferred something around 135mm.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

You make some excellent points, perhaps you can help me out here. What looks best to me where there is out-of-focus detail in the background, and what I consider good bokeh, is an easy, almost imperceptible transition from in-focus to out-of-focus, the smoother the better. I noticed this probably before I was in my teens, decades before I heard it defined. In the case of my preferred portrait set-up - an indistinct backdrop 5 feet or so behind the person - the image goes abruptly from in-focus to mush. My perception is that the bokeh characteristics of the lens is immaterial. But I've been wrong more than I care to admit.
I've probably done less than 500 portraits in my life, including 3 weddings and a couple of dance routines, a small fraction of my total work, so pretend to no expertise in this field - I offer my view as one I had not heard expressed before, that has been satisfying to me.
I welcome any and all comments and criticism.

amehta Loc: Boston

Having a smooth increase in the out-of-focus characteristics is part of the bokeh characteristics of the lens. I often shoot portraits with such a wide open aperture that the eyes are sharp but the ears are already a little out of focus. Or in extreme cases, only one eye is in focus. If your image goes abruptly from in-focus to mush, that is because of the settings you are using. If the backdrop is smooth enough and not lit, then the lens bokeh does not matter. In many situations, we don't get that much control over the backdrop. In the last wedding I shot, the woodwork was part of the backdrop, and I did not want it distinct.