Portraits

[TheBull1875]

First real attempt at portraits. Maybe tooooo fragile an ego for the critique board but I do welcome gentle feedback :-) Two totally different subjects obviously.

[rogleale]

Re: Portraits

Hi Bull,
My twopennoth - the b&w is ok but could have done without the beer bottle. The one of the beautiful girl is spoiled, (I think!), by being shot from too close, it has distorted the perspective and made her left cheek too prominent. What lens did you use, and at what distance?

Roger

[Ian]

Re: Portraits

I agree with Rog (although I think it's a wine bottle!). Also, the second one is pretty sharp while the first one is really quite soft by comparison. With the subject looking away and looking slightly coy, it doesn't help.

Focus is very important - especially to get the eyes in focus and it looks to me as if the second subject's ears are in focus rather than his eyes.

Ian

[Jocelyn Walker]

Re: Portraits

I feel the colours of the first pic are too harsh for a portrait and agree with other comments that pics taken too close! I prefer the B&W pic apart from the fact that eye's are not in focus!

[TheBull1875]

Re: Portraits

Thanks people, comments appreciated and will be worked upon for next ones. It was my 70-300 Nikor lens at 240mm. Distance was about 15 feet. I was actually trying for a pretty tightly cropped photo.

[ash]

Re: Portraits

The 70-300 is not really a lens for portraits, try and get hold of a prime 50mm they are cheap enough.
Always focus on eyes as your first priority and make sure your shutter speed is fast enough to avoid motion blur as second priority.
Third priority increase depth of field/ f stops but take into consideration second priority when doing so.
Ash.

[Patrick]

Re: Portraits

The 70-300 is not really a lens for portraits, try and get hold of a prime 50mm they are cheap enough.
Always focus on eyes as your first priority and make sure your shutter speed is fast enough to avoid motion blur as second priority.
Third priority increase depth of field/ f stops but take into consideration second priority when doing so.
Ash.

Lens choice can depend on what individual photographers are looking for, I have used my 105mm macro lens, don't be fooled by the word Macro it focuses up to infinity like any other lens. Recently at studio shoots at the club I have been using the 70mm end of my 24-70mm sigma for full length to waist length shots and my 70-200 for head shots at around the 150mm mark.
All three of these lenses are f2.8 the zoom are a constant f2.8 so can get shallow depth of field if required.

Not a fan of the 50mm lens myself but many are.

Patrick

[ash]

Re: Portraits

Yes Patrick you can use any old lens if you fancy but taking into consideration bang for your buck you can't beat a 50 mili

[Patrick]

Re: Portraits

Yes Patrick you can use any old lens if you fancy but taking into consideration bang for your buck you can't beat a 50 mili

When I owned one I never used it always wider or longer, that's my style I suppose.
By the way I never use any old lens it is always considered before shooting.

Patrick

[TheBull1875]

Re: Portraits

All taken in and thanks for the advice.I ave a 18-105 zoom as well that came with the camera (D90) but shall look around for a non zoom 50mm.

[Patrick]

Re: Portraits

All taken in and thanks for the advice.I ave a 18-105 zoom as well that came with the camera (D90) but shall look around for a non zoom 50mm.

I should save your money, if the 18-105 gives sharp results then use it at 50mm, roughly equivalent to 80mm full frame.

In our 35mm film days (applies these days to a full frame digital camera) the ideal focal length lens for portraiture was considered to be 105mm. Using a 50mm would be fine for full length, head & waist shots, but for close up head shots like the pictures you posted could lead to some unflattering distortions of the face and ladies might not like that.
As i said in my post I use a 24-70 f2.8 and at the 70mm end that's pretty close to the 105mm lens on full frame. The f2.8 is constant, if you are not clear about what that means, it's that the F2.8 applies at all focal lengths of the lens through the the zoom range.
It makes for a heavier lens in that the front class is larger and they are also more expensive in my view will worth it.

If you look at my post "talking portrait" they were all but one taken with the 24-70 the remaining colour shot around 100mm (160mm full frame equivalent) on the f2.8 70-200 also constant aperture.

Patrick

[Ian]

Re: Portraits

All taken in and thanks for the advice.I ave a 18-105 zoom as well that came with the camera (D90) but shall look around for a non zoom 50mm.

The classic focal length for a portrait is around 100mm (135 format terms) so for an APS sensor camera like a D90 you'd be looking at around 67mm. 50mm would be OK. Nikon does a AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR 85mm f/3.5G ED VR, which is longer but should be excellent. I'm surprised there are no DX primes in the 60-70mm region for ideal portraits. There is the Sigma 70mm f/2.8 EX DG - it's a macro lens but should be great for portraits.

Ian

[Stephen]

Re: Portraits

I should save your money, if the 18-105 gives sharp results then use it at 50mm, roughly equivalent to 80mm full frame.

In our 35mm film days (applies these days to a full frame digital camera) the ideal focal length lens for portraiture was considered to be 105mm. Using a 50mm would be fine for full length, head & waist shots, but for close up head shots like the pictures you posted could lead to some unflattering distortions of the face and ladies might not like that.
As i said in my post I use a 24-70 f2.8 and at the 70mm end that's pretty close to the 105mm lens on full frame. The f2.8 is constant, if you are not clear about what that means, it's that the F2.8 applies at all focal lengths of the lens through the the zoom range.
It makes for a heavier lens in that the front class is larger and they are also more expensive in my view will worth it.

If you look at my post "talking portrait" they were all but one taken with the 24-70 the remaining colour shot around 100mm (160mm full frame equivalent) on the f2.8 70-200 also constant aperture.

Patrick

I'd agree with you Patrick, I too would save my money, I've never been a 50mm user. For many years I have used a 24-70 f2.8 and now I have gone FF I have a 24-105 f4 IS Have to say I miss the f2.8 but you can't have everything. Carrying both is not only impractical but also too much of a luxury and I have the 70-200 f2.8 anyway. The 24-105 is a superb lens though and can be a great lens for portraits, the IS is the icing on the cake

[ash]

Re: Portraits

I think you are all missing my point of suggesting the 50mm here, and thats price, I never said its the best focal length for portraits nor did I say its the best lens for portraits I was mearly pointing thebull in the the right direction to be artistic with portraiture for the least amount of money, he has a nikon d90, so the nikon f1.8 50mm is less than 100 quid and is sharper or as sharp as any nikon zoom.
18-105 will be fine in good light aslong as you are aware of the limitations of such a lens and use the long focal length to isolate your subject but this inturn means a faster shutter speed to combat motion blur which will mean higher iso which will mean poorer quality shots.
Personally if its something you want to do alot of 'Bull' and short of cash or don't want to spend anymore cash, Ide sell the 18-105 and get a 1.8 50mm.
Ash.

[Patrick]

Re: Portraits

I think you are all missing my point of suggesting the 50mm here, and thats price, I never said its the best focal length for portraits nor did I say its the best lens for portraits I was mearly pointing thebull in the the right direction to be artistic with portraiture for the least amount of money, he has a nikon d90, so the nikon f1.8 50mm is less than 100 quid and is sharper or as sharp as any nikon zoom.
18-105 will be fine in good light aslong as you are aware of the limitations of such a lens and use the long focal length to isolate your subject but this inturn means a faster shutter speed to combat motion blur which will mean higher iso which will mean poorer quality shots.
Personally if its something you want to do alot of 'Bull' and short of cash or don't want to spend anymore cash, Ide sell the 18-105 and get a 1.8 50mm.
Ash.

I don't think we are missing the piont, the 18-105 covers the 50mm if required and will be succesfull at the more desirable focul lengths as well, not to mention quirky shots at wide angle. By buying a 50mm F1.8 which lets face it at full aprture would be less than usless close up, no depth of field eyes in focus nose out of focus so would have to be stoped down to about f8 anyway. Yes they are cheap but less usfull than the 18-105, much cheaper & more veratile to stick with what he has and learn to use it well.

Patrick