[mee]

Wow, I'd love a 200 f2 lens, alas I won't ever have one without changing systems and I've no plans to do that.

I really like what the Nikon version has created here:

The lighting is so strong on the people and there is so much image separation in that photo that the people look copy and pasted into it from a studio shot. It is interesting

[Tas]

The lighting is so strong on the people and there is so much image separation in that photo that the people look copy and pasted into it from a studio shot. It is interesting

Follow the link to his Flickr page, he shoots with that 2/200 a lot and they all have a similar look, though I agree that the additional lighting here kind of gives the look of a composite image. The other thing to consider is his approach to PP. There are a number of images that betray the choice to reduce the luminance in his environmental portraits for all but the people. This is noticeable if you zoom into the Flickr version of the image where there's a thin line to the side of the neck of the blonde kid at the back. It's most obvious on the side of his neck between the collar and his ear. There are other examples of this too and this will affect how the light looks on the people he captures. I'd suggest too that the PP technique is applying sharpening/contrast only to the people not the subjects which makes the most sense when shoot at f2.

[clackers]

Creative portraiture. The model may not be happy with the results and the working distance might be a bit cozy, but all in the name of art, eh?

Steve

These are both taken with flash at 24mm, anyone can do it, Steve. They have completely different feels depending on whether you want creative distortion or not, I copped a good bit of distracting sun flare in the first pic, too - hazards of shooting into the sun with a huge front element.

As far as working distance goes, we have to establish good rapport to get good expressions from our subjects, and you don't get that retreating into the next room to shoot with a 200mm. You're shouting at them like a gym teacher instead of talking casually from a yard away. This sort of distance is no problem for this selfie generation. IPhones have a 28mm equivalent lens and that 'look' from only a bent arm's length away is becoming a standard!

[clackers]

The lighting is so strong on the people and there is so much image separation in that photo that the people look copy and pasted into it from a studio shot. It is interesting

He may well have done that, Mee.

It's clear that Elena Shumilova does a lot of composites.

I'm totally fine with that. Ansel Adams thought we were here to make pictures, not take 'em.

---

Last edited by clackers; 02-27-2018 at 10:39 PM.

[stevebrot]

These are both taken with flash at 24mm, anyone can do it, Steve

Thanks for the excellent examples. I was making a lame attempt at a joke. As you so handily demonstrated, perspective distortion (closer features appear too big) can be handled through proper framing and composition. I don't do much portraiture (no subjects), but I do photograph sculpture and often enough with a wide angle.


17mm on APS-C

Lighting and position provide the subject isolation and lead the eyes.


Steve

[clackers]

Thanks for the excellent examples. I was making a lame attempt at a joke. As you so handily demonstrated, perspective distortion (closer features appear too big) can be handled through proper framing and composition. I don't do much portraiture (no subjects), but I do photograph sculpture and often enough with a wide angle.


17mm on APS-C

Lighting and position provide the subject isolation and lead the eyes.


Steve

You did that one beautifully ... if you'd shot from the other side, the size of the rod's reel would be exaggerated for effect, and who cares about that? The way you did it, it's the fish.

[Lowell Goudge]

Follow the link to his Flickr page, he shoots with that 2/200 a lot and they all have a similar look, though I agree that the additional lighting here kind of gives the look of a composite image. The other thing to consider is his approach to PP. There are a number of images that betray the choice to reduce the luminance in his environmental portraits for all but the people. This is noticeable if you zoom into the Flickr version of the image where there's a thin line to the side of the neck of the blonde kid at the back. It's most obvious on the side of his neck between the collar and his ear. There are other examples of this too and this will affect how the light looks on the people he captures. I'd suggest too that the PP technique is applying sharpening/contrast only to the people not the subjects which makes the most sense when shoot at f2.

So is the image the result of a 200/f2 lense or photoshop

[Tas]

So is the image the result of a 200/f2 lense or photoshop

I believe it's a single image with PP done to not detract from what the lens can capture. I could be wrong but that's what it looks like to me. What are your thoughts?

Tas

[str8talk83]

These are both taken with flash at 24mm, anyone can do it, Steve. They have completely different feels depending on whether you want creative distortion or not, I copped a good bit of distracting sun flare in the first pic, too - hazards of shooting into the sun with a huge front element.

As far as working distance goes, we have to establish good rapport to get good expressions from our subjects, and you don't get that retreating into the next room to shoot with a 200mm. You're shouting at them like a gym teacher instead of talking casually from a yard away. This sort of distance is no problem for this selfie generation. IPhones have a 28mm equivalent lens and that 'look' from only a bent arm's length away is becoming a standard!

Great examples of using the 24mm focal length for effect. I use 28mm (on FF) for environmental portraits sometimes and it works as long as I don't have my subject too close or at the edge of the frame. I think that the important thing is to learn how to use distortion and when it is better to use a longer lens to get the "look" we are going for.

[savoche]

You might be better off getting a Pentax 67ii and the 67 105/2.4 just for portrait work.

It would be both lighter and cheaper, too.

[biz-engineer]

When I want to create lots of bokeh in the back of models, I use the DFA150-450 @ 450 f5.6, the difficulty is to talk to the model at a distance, both have to shout very loud.

[clackers]

When I want to create lots of bokeh in the back of models, I use the DFA150-450 @ 450 f5.6, the difficulty is to talk to the model at a distance, both have to shout very loud.

I think you should try semaphore, the old flag waving communication system used by navies in the past, Biz!

[clackers]

Great examples of using the 24mm focal length for effect. I use 28mm (on FF) for environmental portraits sometimes and it works as long as I don't have my subject too close or at the edge of the frame. I think that the important thing is to learn how to use distortion and when it is better to use a longer lens to get the "look" we are going for.

Yep, I think Steve's picture would've been more mundane if he stepped right back with a 50mm, it would have lost emphasis.

[Lowell Goudge]

So is the image the result of a 200/f2 lense or photoshop

I believe it's a single image with PP done to not detract from what the lens can capture. I could be wrong but that's what it looks like to me. What are your thoughts?

Tas

I don't mean a composite but were the effects manufactured in photoshop, as opposed to the real impact of 200 mm f2 shot wide opened to me it seems to be mostly the results of post processing

[pinholecam]

Agree with Clackers in that photographers like Elena Shumilova does shots like these often with a Canon EF 135/2 at f2.5.

A lot of what you see is also the result of using post processing.
Its really not likely that the lens "draws over" the subjects that nicely/properly at wide open with such a shallow DOF (esp for some of the group shots samples posted).