giordano Posted July 26, 2009 Share #21 Posted July 26, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) De gustibus non est disputandum. How on earth does having the right eye out of focus make this a better portrait? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 26, 2009 Posted July 26, 2009 Hi giordano, Take a look here Portrait with Min. ISO setting, & Grey Filters?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
blakley Posted July 26, 2009 Share #22 Posted July 26, 2009 How on earth does having the right eye out of focus make this a better portrait? What would constitute a useful answer to that question? If I were to say "I wouldn't like it as well if the other eye were in focus", or "I have another one with the right eye in focus and it's not as good", or even "because if the other eye were in focus, the other eye would be in focus", what use would you make of those answers? Or what if I were to answer by asking the contrapositive: "How on earth would having the right eye in focus make this a better portrait?" One might as well ask of this (Hurrell) portrait of Johnny Weismuller "How on earth does having the right eye in shadow make this a better portrait? De gustibus, as I've already pointed out, non est disputandum. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigSplash Posted July 27, 2009 Share #23 Posted July 27, 2009 How on earth does having the right eye out of focus make this a better portrait? My view is that this is an excellent example of a portrait due to the following: > Excellent composition > Excellent shooting angle ....not just "straight on" like a passport photo > The lighting provides interest, by the creation of shadows rather than a bland full frontal flash > Finally and most importantly the depth of field showing a razor sharp left eye and a rapidly receding background > The lady is pretty also and I guess that helps.,,,try the same shot with Camilla! The use of depth of field is surely what portrait photography is all about ...otherwise why not use a 135mm lens (180mm on M8) and have a very flat look, with everything in razor sharp focus. ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted July 27, 2009 Share #24 Posted July 27, 2009 Because the left ear is far more important? But seriously Frank, the frame is out of balance with your eye being drawn to the cheek/temple. A chin melted into a shoulder doesnt help me either. More f/stop would have helped. As it stands the depth of field does not compliment the composition. Everything needs to work together. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigSplash Posted July 27, 2009 Share #25 Posted July 27, 2009 Because the left ear is far more important?But seriously Frank, the frame is out of balance with your eye being drawn to the cheek/temple. A chin melted into a shoulder doesnt help me either. More f/stop would have helped. As it stands the depth of field does not compliment the composition. Everything needs to work together. Ok a slightly different portrait of a 12 months old baby that I took with a 75mm (f1.4) at full aperture with a M8. I like the result because the eyes are sharp, and the rest of the picture is softened by the depth of field being so short. Personally I believe that this type of shot is where the higher speed Leica lenses excel, and differentiates compared to the competitition. I also feel that the crop factor of the M8 and a 75mm or 90 mm lens FORCES the photographer towards a picture that gets in close to the subject for dramatic effect as here. Had I have stepped back then the photo would be less close in and less interesting in my view. Frankly if I had taken the shot at f2, or f8 -f11 then there would be no depth of field and EVERYTHING would be in sharp focus...again I think this would have lost a great deal. OK this is my personal view but I am surprised that the earlier portrait of the lady was critiqued for the reasons given above. 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 Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/91661-portrait-with-min-iso-setting-grey-filters/?do=findComment&comment=974297'>More sharing options...
farnz Posted July 27, 2009 Share #26 Posted July 27, 2009 ... OK this is my personal view but I am surprised that the earlier portrait of the lady was critiqued for the reasons given above. There is a fundamental difference between the two portraits; the first only has one eye in focus but yours has both eyes in focus and, I believe, helps the viewer to 'connect' with the subject more readily. Imho the out of focus eye in the earlier portrait gives the appearance that the woman is staring into the middle distance, ie is engrossed in a reverie, and there is no reason to enquire "what's she looking at?". With your photo there are hanging questions: "who's he looking at?" and "what's he pointing to?" that invite the viewer to seek answers by looking for other clues in the photo. I'm not suggesting that either technique is better or worse than the other just that they offer different outcomes: one static the other fluid. Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Pope Posted July 27, 2009 Share #27 Posted July 27, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) The use of depth of field is surely what portrait photography is all about ...otherwise why not use a 135mm lens (180mm on M8) and have a very flat look, with everything in razor sharp focus. ? Everything in deep focus with an extreme tele at close range??? I seem to recall framelines being last week's discovery. Frankly if I had taken the shot at f2, or f8 -f11 then there would be no depth of field and EVERYTHING would be in sharp focus... Your understanding of DOF and its relation to both focal length and aperture is all over the place. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted July 27, 2009 Share #28 Posted July 27, 2009 The use of depth of field is surely what portrait photography is all about ...otherwise why not use a 135mm lens (180mm on M8) and have a very flat look, with everything in razor sharp focus. ? IMHO portrait photography should be about the sitter. Control of depth of field (not shallow depth of field per se) is just one of the tools at the photographer's disposal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted July 27, 2009 Share #29 Posted July 27, 2009 The idea that a portrait ought to have the eyes razor sharp and every other feature out of focus is utter garbage - as is fetishising shallow depth of field generally. Sometimes it makes a nice pictorial effect, but mostly it just lets the photographer congratulate himself on the quality of his (seldom her) equipment and focusing skills. IMHO the only reason for going wider than f/2 for a portrait that there's not enough light for the ISO and shutter speed you need. That is rubbish. The use of shallow DOF for portrait work is a stylistic preference that some people use to emphasize the subject. Those of us who use it could really care less about what you or anyone else thinks about our equipment or focusing skill. 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 Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/91661-portrait-with-min-iso-setting-grey-filters/?do=findComment&comment=974387'>More sharing options...
Guest BigSplash Posted July 27, 2009 Share #30 Posted July 27, 2009 Everything in deep focus with an extreme tele at close range??? I seem to recall framelines being last week's discovery.. Your 1st akemist.....Read what I said last week and you will see that I was not using the viewfinder lines for wide angle shots. I used the viewfinder as a pointing tool Your 2nd mistake...... What I said this week is that you can with a Telephoto at small apertures standing well away from the subject achieve an infocus picture that is very flat. Try it you will learn something about depth of field, although the photo will not be much good. Your understanding of DOF and its relation to both focal length and aperture is all over the place. I dont think so....! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigSplash Posted July 27, 2009 Share #31 Posted July 27, 2009 That is rubbish. The use of shallow DOF for portrait work is a stylistic preference that some people use to emphasize the subject. Those of us who use it could really care less about what you or anyone else thinks about our equipment or focusing skill. Brent ...I agree with you completely.....your photo speaks volumes its is in my view excellent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted July 27, 2009 Share #32 Posted July 27, 2009 You may of course prefer a portrait where only one eye (or the tip of the nose, or the second shirt button, or whatever) is razor sharp and the rest just fuzz. That is a matter of taste, and how could one argue with that? But while the fuzzists take cover behind subjective preferences when questioned, they are otherwise wont to claim that portraits with extremely shallow d.o.f. are objectively superior to those with more d.o.f. And that is an entirely different kettle of fish. Please be consistent -- one or the other, not both. And the whole argument rests on the tacit assumption that 'portrait' means 'severed head'. So Holbein's full length portrait of Henry VIII was not a portrait? Or Titian's of Charles V? A portrait is a picture that tells us something about the personality of the sitter (or, in the case of King Harry or the emperor, stander). The format is completely immaterial. Now, had Harry looked better with only one eye sharp? The old man from the Age of the Polyphoto Camera Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
epand56 Posted July 27, 2009 Share #33 Posted July 27, 2009 De gustibus non est disputandum. :D:D Amazing portrait. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted July 27, 2009 Share #34 Posted July 27, 2009 Mark thanks...Several people have now suggested to me that Lightroom as the way to go and as I have just about everything Adobe offers for Media EXCEPT Lightroom I guess I need to become a late adopter. I have never used Capture One that came with the camera as I am an Adobe fan on a PC (ie not a Mac). On the subject of software do you or anyone else have a software to recommend that allows still "captured" photos to be used as a slide show such that I can fade in / out photos...move them from left to right and zoom in /out.....with or without a sound track. Frank, may I add my support for using Lightroom. I am pleased you are going to download a trial version. Don't underestimate the learning curve but there are some excellent books and on line tutorials which can help you. I find Martin Evening's book excellent but there is a lot in it. It is useful to dip into even after you think you know what you are doing. Do go for raw capture. Lightroom never destroys you original file; it merely stores your various instructions as to how you wish each file to be converted. It is excellent with batch processing which saves a lot of time. Regarding white balance, I invariably take a reference shot with a WhiBal grey card which is calibrated for spectral neutrality. Usually only one shot is necessary unless the lighting values are changing quite quickly. Then, in LR, you can set the correct white balance in one batch click! Marvellous! There is much help here if you really get stuck. Regarding your question about slide shows; I rarely do this but when I had to produce a slide show for a lecture, I took advice and bought Pictures2Exe which is an excellent low-cost solution. Its main advantage at the time I bought it was that your compilation could be easily converted into an executable file which you could carry on a memory stick or loaded in a laptop computer. You can do all kind of transitions etc with quite professional results. Here is the website: WnSoft PicturesToExe Deluxe - Slideshow for PC, DVD, YouTube, Vimeo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
blakley Posted July 27, 2009 Share #35 Posted July 27, 2009 This portrait would, of course, be much better if the right eye were in sharp focus. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
blakley Posted July 27, 2009 Share #36 Posted July 27, 2009 To actually address the OP's question, a 3x ND filter allows me to shoot wide open in full sun at f/1.4 at ISO 160 on the M8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 28, 2009 Share #37 Posted July 28, 2009 What Pete and Andy say. As for what makes a great portrait: it's pointless to imagine a checklist, but if there was one, shallow depth of field - let alone unsharp ears and nose - would most certainly not be on it. In fact I can't think of a single great portrait photograph that relies on ultra-shallow depth of field. The "portraits" that do are generally better described as "studies of faces" or some such because they emphasise the photographer's technique and the subject's features over the actual characteristics and personality of the sitter. I certainly know some ears and noses that are better off unsharp... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted July 28, 2009 Share #38 Posted July 28, 2009 That is rubbish. The use of shallow DOF for portrait work is a stylistic preference that some people use to emphasize the subject. Those of us who use it could really care less about what you or anyone else thinks about our equipment or focusing skill. Beautiful picture, Brent, with DOF perfectly handled. A fine example of shallow DOF being used as a means not an end, which is the point I was trying to make. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted July 28, 2009 Share #39 Posted July 28, 2009 You may of course prefer a portrait where only one eye (or the tip of the nose, or the second shirt button, or whatever) is razor sharp and the rest just fuzz. That is a matter of taste, and how could one argue with that? But while the fuzzists take cover behind subjective preferences when questioned, they are otherwise wont to claim that portraits with extremely shallow d.o.f. are objectively superior to those with more d.o.f. And that is an entirely different kettle of fish. Please be consistent -- one or the other, not both. And the whole argument rests on the tacit assumption that 'portrait' means 'severed head'. So Holbein's full length portrait of Henry VIII was not a portrait? Or Titian's of Charles V? A portrait is a picture that tells us something about the personality of the sitter (or, in the case of King Harry or the emperor, stander). The format is completely immaterial. Now, had Harry looked better with only one eye sharp? The old man from the Age of the Polyphoto Camera Thank you, Lars. Couldn't agree more. FWIW the best portrait I ever made was with a 50mm lens from about seven feet at about f/5.6. The sitter was sharp and the background wasn't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.