[selar]

Two choices, both are Pentax lenses, both of the same person at the same time, in the same pose

1.


2.

[LeFanch]

Hi,

#1 for me.

On #2, I find the "soft" effect a bit too strong.

François

[hoanpham]

#2 is not my taste.
#1 is ok. little harsh bokeh background. can also be better with little soft lighting to even out the wrinkles.

Ladies tend to dislike portraits that is too sharp due to their age, but also depends.
A portrait is not only sharpness that counts.

[Ryan Trevisol]

Definitely #1. Soft focus on a dude doesn't suit a man's masculinity, especially with your subject's ruggedness and chest hair. The first one captures a certain secure mischievous air, whereas the second one looks like a bridal portrait. So unless he's a bride (not that there's anything wrong with that!) I'd say the first one. Like was said, though the first one is a bit harsh. It's visually interesting but not necessarily totally flattering.

[sterretje]

Like 1 better; 2 is too soft.

Also I agree with hoanparm about the background.

[sajah]

Basically I agree with everyone, that the first one is better but still too harsh / sharp, while the second one is too soft but maybe not bad for special effect for pretty girls. Anyway, I'm curious what's the lens used for the second one? The softness looks much like my K 50mm 1.2 which has fungus (and which might have caused the softness).

[farfisa]

I'm guessing that's the DA 70 and the FA/F/K 85 soft. Sizing them the same in the frame might've made it a more fair comparison.

I think #2 has some promise here, but I don't think the problem (if you want to call it that) with #2 is the softness, but the lack of contrast and possibly underexposure.

Looks like a cool too there--I a little PP would go a long way there!

Of course, this is all IMO, but that's what forums are for, right?

Just a couple quick variations to keep a bit more of the man's ruggedness. Just curves for contrast and different saturation adjustments.

Attached Images

   

[Pentaxor]

I would choose neither. one is just too strong and one is too soft. something in the middle however would be best.

[paperbag846]

I would choose neither. one is just too strong and one is too soft. something in the middle however would be best.

Agreed.

[MPrince]

I think number 1 is much better, though the busy background and harsh bokeh detract from the image. That can be fixed, though, with masking and gaussian blur:

[Ryan Trevisol]

^ Try that at 50% opacity and I think you'd have a winner. That just looks too shopped.

[Lowell Goudge]

I am in the same position as Pentaxor and MPrince.

From the Bokeh in picture 1, it appears you were stopped down considerably, it could have been done at a wider aperture to get better foreground to background separation while still keeping the image sharp.

I also think shot wide open on image 1 would have been better in terms of soft, than image 2. Get the eyes perfect, adn let it soften away from the eyes.

[GeneV]

I would choose neither. one is just too strong and one is too soft. something in the middle however would be best.

Make that 3 of us.

[MRRiley]

I would choose neither. one is just too strong and one is too soft. something in the middle however would be best.

Make it 4... but then you've already figured that out... I don't find the overall pose effective either...

[RioRico]

Shall I be harsh? Both the originals suck. Both of the remakes are better. But posed portraits show poses, not portrayals. Posed portraits generally suck. I should know; I've done a zillion of them over the decades, and they generally suck. They mostly say nothing but, "Here I am!" and not, "This is WHO I am!" Look up Philippe Halsman and his guidelines for portraiture: The Added Unusual Feature, The Unusual Technique, and The Missing Feature. See this [ The Portraitist ] and see differently. That's my cruel advice.