Jump to content

Question for Guy and Others Feel Free to Chip In!


barjohn

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Guy,

 

I really like the look you achieve in your portrait work. I am constantly amazed and envious of how tack sharp your images are, it's as if we had two different cameras and lenses at times (well you do have the better lenses). My questions are:

 

1. Do you mostly shoot using a tripod to get that level of sharpness in the eyes?

2. What f stop do you use primarily? Are you shooting wide open or stopped down to f4 etc.?

3. I currently only have the 50 Cron and a Minolta 40. I have ordered but haven't been able to get the 28/2.8 Asph. I am thinking I should get one of the 35 Asph. I don't want to have or carry more than 3 lenses. To get the sharpness you achieve what would you recommend?

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Guest guy_mancuso

Thanks John nice to hear you like them . Let me post one or two and give you a rundown.

 

On the formal portraits which i believe you are talking about i do use a tripod but i also leave the rotation loose on the tripod in case someone moves left or right. I do focus on the eye that is first in the viewfinder , so if there facing right of me than the left eye. what also works many times if you can focus on the eye itself than find a area on the same plane . Run a line from the top of a shirt collar up which is almost if not exactly on that same plane, so sometimes you can cheat here if you just can't get the eye. one other thing i have done is fine tuned my lenses for dead sharpness at 20 ft and make sure those long lenses hit that spot and down to 7 ft. I don't care about infinity, who the hell would shoot wide open at infinity is not thinking straight almost all wide open shots are in close with a 50, 75 and 90 for more of the head and shoulder shots. most of my studio shots are at 5.6 or f8 and i will control my lights to achieve those setting and usually that is turning them down. For most corporate portraits the one eye in focus is not acceptable if that is what your shooting they want both eyes in focus. Reality here folks , you do work for a client and for many they don't like the one eye in focus stuff. i do on some things but not all. Anyway the rest is really about lighting a subject very well and maybe more than anything that is what i am very good at. Not bragging just that is my thing is light and knowing how it works. This is a workshop that i need to do badly. But now here is were i break many rules and photography is about some struture than breaking them also and i use a longer lens than maybe some folks. When i had the DMR i normally did them with a 180 f2 rocket launcher which was a effective 240mm lens. very long indeed but what i like is the compression that a long lens will do a long nose will shorten a little a fat cheek can be slimmed a little with some slight turn of the head. now on the M8 i am back to a long lens like the 135 apo , although i have used the 75 lux and 90 apo . like the Lux better since it has nicer character even stopped down

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guy_mancuso

here just a example from a 135mm apo. First time I used it for this kind of work. Nice optic for sure

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guy_mancuso

here is the 75 lux. not sure you can see a big difference between the lenses but these are months apart also

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guy,

 

Thanks for the helpful information. Based on yuor experience it the 50 Cron not long enough for portrait work? Since you are stopping down the lens is a Lux really needed or an Elmarit or Cron adequate in the longer lenses? Where you are not shooting in a studio but outside or in a home would you open up further to reduce DOF and blur the background? These shots have so much detail, even in the small size displayed on the Internet, they look great!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guy_mancuso

I still think a 50 is too short although there are no real rules here but faces do tend to say look maybe more swollen, not a great description but you kind of get the idea. I personal would start at 75mm and up . Now i think a nice lens for portraits that are not through the roof on price would be that 90 2.8 elmarit, I really liked that lens and it did have a nice character to it, not mind blowing on the MTF charts like a Cron Apo but here you want a softer feel anyway. There less than 1k and maybe a great lens to try out and see how it looks for you. Even that CV 75mm that Sean reviewed sounds like a nice lens also. These APO's are crisp and if there were women in those shots i would be taming them down some. sometimes you have to be careful what you wish for in a lens , normal stuff you may want sharp as a tack but portraits is a different ballgame.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It's a personal thing; focal length for portraits. I do use a 180 still a lot for portraits, but just to give a different opinion than Guy's...

 

To me, it often depends on the face whether I want telephoto compression or not, but my most-often used portrait lenses on the M8 are the 50 Lux and 75 Lux (and the 50, 85 and 180R on the DMR).

 

For environmental stuff and more than head shots, I actually really, truly love the 35 Lux, since that's a "normal" FOV on the M8 anyway (and mine is sharp as razor blades).

 

But you need distance or a wee bit of lens correction if you're up really close with the 35 (though way less correction than anyone else's 35! But the perspective does emphasize certain traits).

 

You don't need that so much with the 50 Lux. Anything longer is just fine. Again, personally, I like working in closer with a 50 too.

 

Also John, what Guy isn't telling you is that his command of strobe light and shadow is making a big difference too ;)

 

PS--Guy--you're nailing that 135! I take it the mod they made to it worked A-OK!

 

This is the M8 with the 35 Lux at f3.2 and around 1/500s....

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guy

I was wondering what your thoughts are on the 90 macro as a portrait lens? I've got one ordered. I already have the 75 lux, but was wanting something I could use as a travel lens. I take all my portraits hand held and reliant on avaliable light.

 

The 50/1.4 Asph is a puzzle to me (I have the 35/1.4 Asph, 50/1.0, 50/2.0 and 75 1.4). I'm struggling with the 50 focal length on the m8 (I'm more inclined to shot with a 35mm film equivalent). Not sure what role 67mm plays in my portfolio going forward. However, I've heard such wonderful things about the 50/1.4...

 

Best

 

Murray

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guy_mancuso

Interesting i am the opposite, sort of use the 50 lux more than the 35mm , weird . But i never really liked the 50mm equivlent focal length. . Anyway i do have the 90mm Macro and i really love this lens . i just shot a whole series with it of a small computer the size of a greeting card , amazing thing too . Anyway the 90 macro was steller with it but what many folks don't realize this is a great lens outside the macro world and it is very small too. But at infinity i think without a test it is a little better than the 90 mm elmarit 2.8 what you may give up is some bokeh compared to the 90 cron f2 but if your at 5.6 it still will have nice bokeh. i'm going to try it next time i have some formals just to see how it performs. But if you have one coming than give it a try

 

 

Jamie the 90 framelines for the 135 apo actually help a lot , at least i know it is bigger than the focusing patch but smaller than the lines. I have something to judge framing with before it was really a hit or miss. So yes for a 125 dollar mod at leica i think very worth it and the 135mm apo although hard to find you can still get one at 2k or less. If you have the need to go long it is pretty damn nice and watch out wide open it is sharp.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Guy

 

Would be interested to see how the 90 macro performs in a formal setting. I bought the lens both its size and macro capability. A win-win.

 

No doubt a 50 lux is in my future.

 

Thanks Again

 

Murray

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Jamie's and Guy's examples show very well the difference between the 'formal' and informal and how a factor of 4 (135 to 35mm) can achieve interesting results that really focus on the subject. Jamie's I particularly like since I have tried the 35 and 50mm for just such effects esp with children. Note how the open lens provides a more subtle defocus than a longer lens, yet allows the subject to stand out 3D

 

Very good work on their part, and excellent treaching examples. I also know that Guy has some fantastic 'portrait work with bothe the 80 Lux R and even the 180 F2! (or was that chuck?)

 

regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guy_mancuso

Here is another 135mm, trying to pull the airport up right behind him. really bad light day

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloody Hell! I had a whole text with images prepared before and got called out to shoot some drains. Now I will have to just summarize. Not going to re-write.

 

I agree with Jamie & Guy in the early part of this thread, but I often find outside 'controlled conditions', that Guy mostly showed, (he has since posted the outside shot) one can achieve good quality with the M8 anywhere. Guy's pic quality owes a lot to his control of light, but his choice of lens is not always possible on location in, say, a shoebox boardroom. Working on the fly one often finds shorter is more convenient in some situation, even thogh I prefer 'long' for portraits. I do find the 50 Cron on the M8 a nice workable lens (60 something!) in an office situation. Examples attached below. On Friday I was called in urgently to shoot a CEO, in a hurry. While there, I "sold" portraits of 5 other staff, but had to move around from office to office to facilitate the shoot.

 

Using one light and the M8 + 50 Cron I was very portable and still managed reasonable quality. Compared to Guy's three light set up mine fall short, but achieve what was desired. My pics still need work on the subjects and background which will be done when the client chooses final images.

 

I guess what I am saying is: "horses for courses" when considering lens choice.

 

The CEO

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

One of his consultants

 

Both to be cropped and backgrounds adjusted, but they illustrate what I was saying, I hope.

Link to post
Share on other sites

John--glad this is helpful. Lens perspective is a tricky thing.

 

Thought I'd throw another couple in here (still working on the mountain one, though), the soldier is the opposite of Guy's airport shot. This was in the Rockies and the mountains were pretty overbearing.

 

I used a 28mm (CV 1.9) to move the mountains backwards; the subject is the most important thing here. So instead of pulling the background in with lens compression, I'm pushing it back quite a bit.

 

BTW--there's the beauty of the correction of all this M glass. Yes, you could correct this a bit (and I will before I print it), but honestly, for such a typically wide lens you don't see the normal bulgy hands, etc...

 

The 28 is perfect for full-length stuff too, or for a couple (so I use it a lot!)...

 

FWIW, all the ones I posted are natural light... no time for strobes (and sometimes the light is just right anyway)

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

And when I really want to make someone appear like they're separate from the background, I'll use something even wider. This is a crop from the Elmarit 24mm. See how the hedge recedes back? With a tele--or even a normal FOV--it wouldn't so much.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

John--glad this is helpful. Lens perspective is a tricky thing.

...

 

FWIW, all the ones I posted are natural light... no time for strobes (and sometimes the light is just right anyway)

 

It's instructive to look at the examples in these threads. Guy's indoor stuff has great frontlighting, catchlights in the eye, no shadows under them, and still models the whole face structure. Outdoors, your waterfall guy and Guy's airport man are both squinting, perhaps because you each posed them facing the sun so that you had it over your shoulder. And their eyes are somewhat shaded. The soldier had the easiest time, as it looks like it was an overcast misty day and his face is well lit, but without sparkle (which can look artificial) in his eyes.

 

I really like open shade for solving the squint problem, and often providing really nice soft overall frontal lighting. I'll edit in one of my own from another thread in a few minutes, but can you share examples? Weddings in gardens might provide some.

 

cheers,

 

scott

 

edit: Here's one taken under a light canopy in a beer garden. The eyes are a bit shaded (oh for the ability to wave my hands a bit under the enlarger...), the 35mm focal length seems kind to face and hands, and the detailed background has been rendered more or less like a stage background coarsely detailed, thanks to the asph bokeh (probably f/2.8 or 4.0).

 

And here's another, taken under a tree (not with the M8):

 

42785252.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guy,

Sorry to be so late joining this discussion.

I've found your comments and those of Jamie and Erl very interesting.

From your many posts I realise that your selection of lens is very careful. I have a 75 'cron and thought I recalled that at one stage you too owned one, but noted you use the 'lux in your discussion. Given that you suggest stopping down to 5.6 or 8 what is the look you get from the lux rather than the 'cron with this type of portrait?

 

Erl, were your office shots simply using the internal office fluorescent lighting we find commonly in Melbourne?

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

John,

 

interesting thread, I agree we could use more threads like this one.

 

Erl, I like your light, well done indeed, with just one fixture! Though the 50 is a little to short for this subject distance if you ask me. The faces look a bit stretched... I guess the fact that both the man and the young lady look up to the camera doesn't help either... Just my 2 cents...

 

Guy and Jamie are showing quite clearly what effect can be obtained from using wide angle or short tele. The background can be manipulated to help tell the story. And as Jamie says, keep some distance when you're making portraits with shorter lenses.

 

This photo was taken in my living room, where I'm testing my small portable portrait studio. It was taken with the 90 mm f2.0 pre asph.@ f8.0 1/125. Nice lens for portraits, just a little too long in confined spaces; the distance between the subject and the black background is IMO too short. Therefore too much light from the 3 Metz 54's falls on the black background and it becomes grey. Using a 75 mm would have been better here. The distance between the subject and the background could be increased to keep the background black.

 

BTW no tripod...

 

Cheers,

 

Peter

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Scott, if you want to 'dodge' a section it's very easy - assuming you use Photoshop. Just lasso the area with a reasonable amount of feathering - say 30 pixels - and then add a curves or levels adjustment layer to lighten the selected area.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Scott, if you want to 'dodge' a section it's very easy - assuming you use Photoshop.

 

That's the point. I try to have a purely C1 workflow. As a result, I can do a lot with C1 and don't know Photoshop very well, not well enough to get batch efficiencies out of it or to handle a lot of shots in a session. I was hoping Lightroom would get the local corrections integrated into a high quality RAW developer, since they absorbed RawShooter people, but they didn't get that far yet, as far as I hear. I'm afraid my free copy of LightRoom will need a paid upgrade before I can dodge and burn within it.

 

I guess I will have to learn. There is a lot of work in the image processing literature (SIGRAPH etc.) on automating high dynamic range and mosaicing, and some of that work shades over into driving quite powerful local corrections with a sort of sketch interface that I would love to see in products, but it is taking a long time to happen.

 

scott

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...