[gatorguy]

I think the point is that it would be a "better picture" at f/1.8 or f/2; of course the idea behind shooting at f/1.4 is to show how f/1.4 looks like (and it's physically impossible to get the entire eye+eyelashes in focus from that distance at that angle).

Merge? I've been meaning to try that but the timing is tricky. That's where DoF bracketing would be really useful. I'm sure there's examples here but I don't know where to look.

[Serkevan]

Merge? I've been meaning to try that but the timing is tricky. That's where DoF bracketing would be really useful. I'm sure there's examples here but I don't know where to look.

Sure, but at that point... might as well shoot at f/2 or f/2.8

[gatorguy]

Sure, but at that point... might as well shoot at f/2 or f/2.8

I don't know, would the result be the same? I would assume it would be somewhat like macro focus stacking. Perhaps not.

[BruceBanner]

?

It's showing behaviour wide open with soft lighting.

You can see Shiratori's picture with the same model here but with a high contrast editorial style at f13 (you can zoom in to the catchlight and see his lighting setup):

http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/lens/k/telephoto/hdpentax-df...g/ex-pic02.jpg

?

You say soft lighting, I say poor lighting and the image overall feels flat and underexposed, she also has huge pupils, this in combination with incorrectly using f1.4 makes it hard to 'like' what's going on with the lens. The other outdoor images of the DFA85 are better, all the portrait shots feel 'amateur hour' by Pentax imo. It feels like a bunch of Pentax execs playing with the lenses and showing their work

I dunno how these togs are, they're probably very good, much better than me, but these images... are they really the best they could do to promote the lens for portrait use?

The stopped down shot is also unattractive. My cc would be;

1) for f13 the hand is out of focus still, in a portrait shot like this where the hand is part of the image we'd want it in focus
2) the hand shows a different skin tone, it's not matching with the face flesh, even looks like the model has poor circulation in the hand
3) Nail and lip makeup is not retouched and shows runoff in parts.
4) Several blemishes left when really could be dealt with easily.
5) tip of the nose is more in focus than the eye




I'm not even asking for D&B or FS work, but some very basic blemish fixes can help enormously. Again it feels like amateur hour and we have dozens of far more accomplished pentax studio shooters (Rene for example) that would instantly blow this stuff out of the water, even if the criteria was to keep PP and editing to a minimum he'd still smash this stuff out of the park.

I think the point is that it would be a "better picture" at f/1.8 or f/2; of course the idea behind shooting at f/1.4 is to show how f/1.4 looks like (and it's physically impossible to get the entire eye+eyelashes in focus from that distance at that angle). Assuming that, great photo - it showcases the lens very nicely I think. Then again I suck at portraits so I shouldn't be paid too much attention .


For what it's worth, regardless of the technicalities of chosen DOF/light/whatever, the DFA* has bokeh to die for and a very tasteful transition to OOF. In-focus sharpness is stupid good as well. This lens is a slam on the table.

And there is the thing. The picture is being criticized for being what someone else thinks it should be rather than for what it is. What better way to show how sharp a lens is wide open, and how quickly the focus falls off at 10 feet than a picture of the sort shown?
Especially when the target market is, in part, photographers who favour that look?
There is no point to saying the image would be better at f/2 simply because if it was shot at f/2, it wouldn’t be showcasing the lens at f/1.4.
If an aperture other than f/1.4 had been used, it would have been the wrong aperture for the picture.
The most that can be said is that it doesn’t showcase their preconceived notion of what a picture should look like.
The most that should be said is that they think a different subject should have been shown, perhaps a picture of a flower or rock would make them happier?
Oh wait, they did that too. How is that image helping the photographer who favours thin depth of field portraits see what the lens will do in his hands.
Shall we also dismiss the picture of the flower or the rock because it doesn’t showcase how the lens handles razor thin depth of field transitions on something photographed as rarely as the human face?
These are pictures designed to showcase specific qualities of the lens, not to be artistic award winners, as nice as they are.
These are pictures taken for the purpose of showing off In the real world what the lens designers are proud of.
Look at the picture for what it is, not what you want it to be.

Personally I think you choose the right aperture that produces the better image. In portrait use we do choose the right aperture based on distance to model, focal length, pose etc. So that once the image is finished and done with the focus is where it needs to be and captures the important parts. In this instance 1.4 was too wide for the distance, a portrait shot where the two eyes of the model has only 1/2 of one eye in focus is not great and simply stopping down or stepping back or asking the model to pose in such a way to reduce the depth of the eye could resolve those issues. There is a f13 shot as well, so why do we not get to judge a f2.8 shot (which might have worked a lot better)? If we shoot f1.4 in studio its got to be done correctly is all, this was not done correctly.

F1.4 with a Takumar 50mm;



You can see the eyes are in focus, nose is not, ears are not, the eyes. That's typically important in portraits.

And side on;



One eye in focus, the other not. Arguably I could have stopped down to f2 in either of these to produce a better shot.



This shot at F8, I'm not looking for bokeh now, I want texture and details in the hair and skin of the subject.

Point being, if you use 1.4 you better be on point, its tricky stuff and I know I have messed up many wide open shots due to the razor thin DoF.

Meh... just unimpressed with what Pentax themselves put out for this lens from a portrait standpoint, done more harm than good. They should just have stuck to the still life and landscape stuff imo.


Ok... I am now ready for the next wave of attacks

[Sandy Hancock]

It's a sample shot to demonstrate the output of the lens. Photoshopping blemishes would be misleading and pointless.

[BruceBanner]

It's a sample shot to demonstrate the output of the lens. Photoshopping blemishes would be misleading and pointless.

Yeah look, I get that point, I just see studio work from that perspective to being an oxymoron, it's one of those genres where clean up can be incredibly important to whether the image succeeds or not (that's before even getting onto lighting in well). Human faces are abundant with subtle communication and messages, stains on teeth, strands of spit.. ew. They could have tackled those few points I made (as well as use lighting better and more flattering) and no one would be the wiser, as it stands it just falls over imo. As I said, I'm not suggesting advanced D&B/FS, just basic things that left undone just makes the image feel very amateurish. This poor girl wants to die



This image looks like its a few stops under exposed to the point I can't really take away any appreciation of the lens;



(I have marked with a green tick all the other images that look pretty good, I just feel these portrait images clash with the marketing intent).

Meh.. we're all entitled to our opinions, it all feels like a rushed amateur job. If all the images had to be SOOC we could have done better than this, eyes properly in focus, lighting better, mood better, clean up hair and pay attention to spit and other things and retake the shots if basic stuff has gone wrong. The non portrait stuff looks great the portrait stuff brings the excitement of the lens down imo.

I'm not put off by it, I hope others are not, it will be the best 85/1.4 on the market (at that price point) I am sure no doubt. Sandy, I look very forward to seeing your gorgeous family snapped with this lens in which you will put these togs to shame I am sure

[clackers]

4) Several blemishes left when really could be dealt with easily.

This sort of rubbish from you again, Bruce.

You cannot just postprocess everything away, we want to see the effect of the lens, not Photoshop! She may even have had to apply her own makeup because of these coronavirus times, everything is a compromise.

I have said this before ... MTF charts are the performance standard, not anyone's photos.

You can see the contrast, microcontrast and whether the bokeh or aberrations get funky, by position in the frame. They are independent of subject, photographer and postprocessing. That's what they're for.

[dbs]

It is not on the Australian Ricoh website ......yet....are they waiting for the 12 th when the next shipment is due.

Or ... is it not coming to OZ

[clackers]

It is not on the Australian Ricoh website ......yet....are they waiting for the 12 th when the next shipment is due.

Or ... is it not coming to OZ

Give 'em a ring, Dave ... (03) 9823 1555

[carlb]

You know.........as hard as I've tried, I just can't imagine that as Robert Capa lined up to take a shot of an infantryman on a Normandy beach, he was thinking "well I hope that his eyes are in perfect focus and that there's nice bokeh".

[clackers]

You know.........as hard as I've tried, I just can't imagine that as Robert Capa lined up to take a shot of an infantryman on a Normandy beach, he was thinking "well I hope that his eyes are in perfect focus and that there's nice bokeh".

I would've thought it's not one or the other, Carl.

You can have both good gear *and* good photography skills, right?

[BruceBanner]

You know.........as hard as I've tried, I just can't imagine that as Robert Capa lined up to take a shot of an infantryman on a Normandy beach, he was thinking "well I hope that his eyes are in perfect focus and that there's nice bokeh".

Haha! Yeah ok... portraits come in different shapes and sizes, difference is in a studio with controlled lighting and no guns aimed at you... you might think a better technical shot could be feasible

[dbs]

Give 'em a ring, Dave ... (03) 9823 1555

Hi Clackers

Way out of my price range ..... if I win lotto .... well
Just strange it is not listed yet on the Aus Ricoh site .

Dave

[Zygonyx]

I can tell you there are no noticeable differences between f/1.4 and f/2 as far as MTF perception is concerned with DFA* 85/1.4 new lens.

[clackers]

Hi Clackers

Way out of my price range ..... if I win lotto .... well
Just strange it is not listed yet on the Aus Ricoh site .

Dave

Listed here, mate. They say not in the country until 30/6.

Pentax-D FA* 85mm f/1.4 ED SDM AW W/C 22890 | Ricoh Australia

As for affordability, do you still have both kidneys?