jaapv Posted July 19, 2012 Share #41 Â Posted July 19, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Still it could fairly convincingly be argued that a portait lens is whichever lens one uses for a portait. Whatever definition one elects to give that term.A bit of an anthropic argument, thus rather irrefutable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 Hi jaapv, Take a look here For portraits? Lux asph 50 or elmarit 90 M. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lars_bergquist Posted July 20, 2012 Share #42  Posted July 20, 2012 Petzval, I think, computed what he could compute with the science and the technology of his own day. And photography in his time also meant largely 'studio portrait´.  Personally, I am not the least interested in portraiture, formal or informal. I am interested in a person's way of interacting with other people, or his/her environment. What others may call the result is not my concern.  The old man, though not from Petzval's time Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlet Posted July 20, 2012 Share #43  Posted July 20, 2012 A bit of an anthropic argument, thus rather irrefutable.  Well we're discussing opinion here, at least to a large extent.  Does anyone know what focal length Martin Shoeller used for his large headshots of celebrities? I only found this article where he says he was: about four or five feet away. I’m not that close because I’m using a fairly long lens to make sure that the face is not being distorted. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianv Posted July 20, 2012 Share #44  Posted July 20, 2012 Petzval, I think, computed what he could compute with the science and the technology of his own day. And photography in his time also meant largely 'studio portrait´.  Kingslake makes the statement "The name 'Portrait Lens' is now a misnomer since the Petzval type is no longer used for portraiture". "Lenses in Photography", 1951. From that, I assume the Petzval lens was specifically intended for portraits.   The Old Man from the Age of Having Respect for the Experts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted July 20, 2012 Share #45  Posted July 20, 2012 The 'Petzval Gun' had the f.o.v. that could be fairly well corrected with the means available in Petzval's time. That f.o.v. was sufficient for a studio portrait and that was o.k. because this accounted for the bulk of photography in those days.  So we do not disagree. Joseph Petzval's breakthough was not in what he computed, but in the bare fact that he did compute – before that, lenses were not computed but designed mostly by trial and error.  Lars Bergquist, encyclopedist (retd.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vk2109 Posted July 24, 2012 Share #46  Posted July 24, 2012 I used to have to have the elmarit 90 M but wasn't too much into it... the 50LA can produce gorgeous portrait... see an example here ( without any extra light or diffuser etcc.)  Portfolio - Vadim Krisyan | Photography Gallery | Paris, New York | SmugMug  and that's taken at f/2. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted July 24, 2012 Share #47 Â Posted July 24, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Well...... I use a simple rule of thumb....... Â If you want a posed or unnatural looking portrait, stick a camera in someones face (50 or below) Â If you want a candid, natural and unobtrusive portrait, hide in the corner and stick to 90. Â I'm afraid a posed portrait usually only tells you what the subject wants you to know and often says nothing about their true character, which is fine if thats what you want. Â All the best portrait photographers have a bit of magic that gets the subject to lift the veil.... and usually show a side of the person that lifts the portrait into a different league... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted July 24, 2012 Share #48 Â Posted July 24, 2012 Famous photographers take photos of famous people. That sadly, certainly helps, in many ways. It's true that with some people you can't actually take a bad photo of them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted July 24, 2012 Share #49 Â Posted July 24, 2012 IMHO, focusing on the focal length is not the important part of the equation. It is what the photographer is trying to capture. Head &Shoulders or the person in their environment, etc, etc. What are we trying to convey? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.