Shooting Wide Open

[Genn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I second opinion of Thorsten.  I do not think, it is wise to purchase Leica M, and Summilux, if you are not shooting wide open (i.e. f/2.8). In case of Cron - best position is f/4. This is a sweet spot for Cron 35 mm ver.IV  King of Bokeh.  This statement is valid for all situations when there is a need to separate object from surrounding, including landscape. 

 

However it is difficult enough to shoot wide open. 

 

On the other hand, I remember story that Lewis Baltz  did his project around 1975 with 50 mm Simmilux at f/5.6..f/8, just because this lens was much mush sharper at this position that any other lens at that time. 

 

Thus it's all about a choice of hammer to do a job. 

Edited February 7, 2018 by Genn

[Jeff S]

No that's cool.

 

I couldn't really care about reading or PM'ing. He just does what he does for the reasons he does them and that's cool. If you like it you like it and if you don't you do something else.

Sure, I agree with your view, which is why I HAVE debated him. Unfortunately you’re debating me, too, on what he said.

 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Paul J]

If someone is really saying that you should only buy a Noctilux to shoot wide open and everything you should shoot should be wide open, then that is just one person's opinion and personally I think it's the most ridiculous argument on the forum I have heard.

 

My Noctilux is by far my most used lens but it gets used wide open sparingly but when I do I really like it. If you are using it every single time, IMO, it gets to the point where it just becomes a cheap gag or making something look beautiful for the sake of it, in the Hallmark sense ad like all those old post cards of sunsets. But at the same time you have to use it a lot wide open to know where and when it's applicable. I own an APO-Summicron too but it's not to shoot stopped down, it has an entirely different rendering.

 

The only reason I would occasionally choose to shoot the summicron over the Noctilux that is relevant to Bokeh is for the more notchy aperture and bokeh balls you get with the Noctilux at f2 and in some situations that might by distracting. But I certainly wouldn't buy a whole other lens for it. I usually shoot my Noctilux at f2-5.6 ish and use 0.95 when it's relevant. I shoot it at f8 and f11 too though. There is a perfectly good aperture wheel on the lens which works just like every other aperture wheel.

 

If all you want to do is shoot a particular shot that suits wide open rending then that is your choice. Everyone shoots differently for different reasons.

Edited February 7, 2018 by Paul J

[Ko.Fe.]

People need to focus on other things rather than "HCB" and old school guys all the time. HCB made wide open portraits when he didn't need to anyway.

 

There are plenty of successful photographers still living shoot wide open portraits very successfully. The world doesn't exist in the past. 

 

Wide open portraiture and any other use is perfectly acceptable and relevant and is fine if you want to do it.

 

Just care less about what others think.

 

 

Sure. Shooting wide open isn't about bokeh either.

 

.

I just can't find anyone yet to learn from and admire among current portrait photographers. I'd rather walk to museum and look at Rembrandt and Picasso to learn about portraiture. 

From what I have seen, wide open, shallow DoF portraits are nothing special...

[a.noctilux]

.

I just can't find anyone yet to learn from and admire among current portrait photographers. I'd rather walk to museum and look at Rembrandt and Picasso to learn about portraiture. 

From what I have seen, wide open, shallow DoF portraits are nothing special...

 

I love Picasso's portraiture, even NOT wide open .

 

From Google:

https://www.google.fr/search?q=Picasso+portrait&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjMqsb0uZTZAhUEPsAKHayyDIoQ_AUICigB&biw=1575&bih=888

Edited February 7, 2018 by a.noctilux

[ianman]

From what I have seen, wide open, shallow DoF portraits are nothing special...

You may want to to a search on "Jane Bown".

[bpftc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

.

I just can't find anyone yet to learn from and admire among current portrait photographers. I'd rather walk to museum and look at Rembrandt and Picasso to learn about portraiture. 

From what I have seen, wide open, shallow DoF portraits are nothing special...

 

I guess the reason I even posed this question in the first place is because I think shallow depth of field IS something special.  The new cellphone cameras take great pictures, but the thing they cannot do and probably will never be able to is create a shallow depth of field.  For me, the ability to better isolate the subject from the background is what led me on the journey to Leica in the first place. 

[Ko.Fe.]

You may want to to a search on "Jane Bown".

 

 

Jane Bown is as classic as Yousuf Karsh. And of course, I have books of both and know about Bown's technique from her own words in the book.

No f1.4 or f2 for portraits. She didn't even bothered to have any Leica at all. 

[M11 for me]

Lets hope that he will anser himself. Anyway, he has many street life pictures wide open.

[M11 for me]

Sorry this thread has progressed a lot in the meantime. I meant Overgaard with his Noctilux wide open.

[Jeff S]

If someone is really saying that you should only buy a Noctilux to shoot wide open and everything you should shoot should be wide open, then that is just one person's opinion and personally I think it's the most ridiculous argument on the forum I have heard.

 

My Noctilux is by far my most used lens but it gets used wide open sparingly but when I do I really like it. If you are using it every single time, IMO, it gets to the point where it just becomes a cheap gag or making something look beautiful for the sake of it, in the Hallmark sense ad like all those old post cards of sunsets. But at the same time you have to use it a lot wide open to know where and when it's applicable. I own an APO-Summicron too but it's not to shoot stopped down, it has an entirely different rendering.

 

The only reason I would occasionally choose to shoot the summicron over the Noctilux that is relevant to Bokeh is for the more notchy aperture and bokeh balls you get with the Noctilux at f2 and in some situations that might by distracting. But I certainly wouldn't buy a whole other lens for it. I usually shoot my Noctilux at f2-5.6 ish and use 0.95 when it's relevant. I shoot it at f8 and f11 too though. There is a perfectly good aperture wheel on the lens which works just like every other aperture wheel.

 

If all you want to do is shoot a particular shot that suits wide open rending then that is your choice. Everyone shoots differently for different reasons.

So you did care about responding to Thorsten, just not by name.

 

Jeff

[Ko.Fe.]

I guess the reason I even posed this question in the first place is because I think shallow depth of field IS something special.  The new cellphone cameras take great pictures, but the thing they cannot do and probably will never be able to is create a shallow depth of field.  For me, the ability to better isolate the subject from the background is what led me on the journey to Leica in the first place. 

 

Sorry, but ...

 

Shallow DOF is something natural in LF and exists longer what Leica. 

 

Where are phones which are using dual cameras and will do object separation on the portrait. 

https://www.gadgetmatch.com/huawei-p10-plus-vs-apple-iphone-7-plus-portrait-shootout/

 

Shallow DoF is achievable with any DSLR, mirrorless camera if using tele lens and getting close for portraiture.   

F8, 200mm at one meter distance will give total object separation and very milky bokeh.  

 

Last thing I would do with any Leica is to using it for better subject isolation. Especially for portraits. 

Robust AF and face recognition will do. The reason why I switched to non AF Leica is because I'm done with f1.2, f1.4 portraits. Not worth it. IMO.

How do you take family portrait with f1.1?  

[jmahto]

I love Picasso's portraiture, even NOT wide open .

 

From Google:

https://www.google.fr/search?q=Picasso+portrait&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjMqsb0uZTZAhUEPsAKHayyDIoQ_AUICigB&biw=1575&bih=888

There is no 3D pop! Did he use high ISO?

[jmahto]

....

How do you take family portrait with f1.1?

 

Simple. Here is step by step approach:

- Know the focal plane curve shape at the distance you are photographing. (The curve is kept secret for Leica M lenses and you may have to spent an afternoon experimenting and figuring out it yourself.)

- Draw the curvy line on the floor matching the curvy focal plane.

- Ask family members to stand on the line with strict instruction not to move (they can move side to side but then may bump someone off the frame).

- Take picture.

- Chimp to see everyone's eyeballs clearly. If not the repeat the process.

- Thank me.

[Ko.Fe.]

Simple. Here is step by step approach:

- Know the focal plane curve shape at the distance you are photographing. (The curve is kept secret for Leica M lenses and you may have to spent an afternoon experimenting and figuring out it yourself.)

- Draw the curvy line on the floor matching the curvy focal plane.

- Ask family members to stand on the line with strict instruction not to move (they can move side to side but then may bump someone off the frame).

- Take picture.

- Chimp to see everyone's eyeballs clearly. If not the repeat the process.

- Thank me.

 

You lost me at the third line

 

Seven people in line is the line, not the portrait.

 

This is what I use Leica for. M-E, f6, 28mm.

 

Edited February 7, 2018 by Ko.Fe.

[jmahto]

You lost me at the third line

 

Seven people in line is the line, not the portrait.

 

This is what I use Leica for. M-E, f6, 28mm.

 

Nice shot! Looks like you have already mastered the visualization of complex focal plane moving along with approaching strangers. I will be ok if you don't thank me for my insightful steps.

[pico]

Please consider that like any other, Thorsten is describing how he works today. Please don't dis him if he eventually changes his style.

.

[ianman]

She didn't even bothered to have any Leica at all.  

My word! And she calls herself a photographer!?

[a.noctilux]

There is no 3D pop! Did he use high ISO?

 

His high ISO may be his ART or "sa sensibilité" (sorry in french).

 

While searching hard, no trace of BOKEH in his portraitures .

 

 

jmahto replied to this quote ...post #33

I love Picasso's portraiture, even NOT wide open .

 

From Google:

https://www.google.fr/search?q=Picasso+portrait&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjMqsb0uZTZAhUEPsAKHayyDIoQ_AUICigB&biw=1575&bih=888

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Runkel]

 I was reading some Thorsten Overgaard and he mentioned he always shoots wide open. His theory is, why pay for a Noctilux if you are always stopped down to f/4.  So it got me thinking, does everyone generally subscribe to this same idea? Shoot wide open whenever possible?

It seems to me that a Noctilux is something of a special case, and that while the reasoning expressed makes some sense for a Noctilux, it does not really support the maxim "shoot wide open whenever possible."  You don't buy a Formula 1 car to go grocery shopping, but nor do you redline your Toyota on grocery runs.

 

My Noctilux f/1.0 is not my only 50, and usually if I'm not going to be shooting at f/1.0 I will have a different 50 on the camera.