Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-03-2020, 01:04 PM - 1 Like   #16
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Ontario, Canada
Photos: Albums
Posts: 791
In my opinion good portraiture at any focal length requires skill and planning and consideration of light. Even a 85mm f/1.4 that can blur the background doesn't mean you can ignore what is in the background. Two areas of extreme contrast can still create a blurred straight line that can go through someone's head and ruin the portrait. Even the out of focus area can be very distracting.

06-03-2020, 02:52 PM - 2 Likes   #17
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,113
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I don't include candids and street photography in portraiture. Event photography is entirely different.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. For me, portraiture is a subject matter category -- one that focuses on the essence of a person or people. Other subject matter categories might include architecture, landscape, birds, flowers, insects, etc.

Categories such as street, candid, studio, event, or time-lapse are largely orthogonal to the subject matter categories and refer more to conditions under which the photos are made. (We need a thread for street-bird photography with titles such as " A Smidgeon of Pigeon" or "Buddy, Can You Sparrow Dime?" )


QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
There are 1.4, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16 and 22 I'd consider useful f-stops. There's little you can do at ƒ1.4 you can' do with ƒ2. There's little you can do at ƒ22 you can't do better at ƒ16.
Agreed, there is little that you can do at one f-stop that you can't do at the adjacent higher or lower f-stops. And yet sometimes f/1.4 does look better than f/2 just as sometimes f/22 looks better than f/16 despite the diffraction.

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
If ƒ1.4 was cheap, I could see this thinking. But take the added cost to ƒ1.4 and the possible benefit, for most of us the benefit isn't worth the cost. I have my DA* 55 1.4 and do a search on my images, and I have 1 keeper taken at 1.4 out of 1200 keepers. I bought the lens because I broke my FA 50 1.7, and wanted something in the for range, and got it at a good price. But honestly, the picture I have that couldn't have been taken with another FA 50 was a test mage, just to see what it could do. Given the penalties in size and weight with ƒ1.4 lenses this is something I'd give serious thought before going down that road.
Cheap is relative. Averaged over a 10 year period of use, the new DFA* 85/1.4 costs only $4 a week -- that's one latte a week. Compared to boats, motorcycles, and RVs, photography is a cheap hobby even if one occasionally buys a high-end lens. Plus there are some 47 million people in this world with over a million dollars, so an 85/1.4 is quite affordable to the affluent hobbyist.

As for how many keepers one gets at f/1.4, that depends on the photographer and how much they enjoy (or need) the shallow DoF look for the images that like or are paid to make. Your rate was less than 1 in a thousand so f/1.4 probably makes little sense for how/what you take pictures of. For another person, f/1.4 might dominate their favorite keeper list.

F/1.4 could be a great "single-in" challenge -- finding good images that really do look best at f/1.4.

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
1.4 lenses are not "general photography" items. If you need them you need them, but for most people, they are unnecessary. Unless like I did you need a 50 ish or 85ish lens and you find something at a great price, most will find better places to spend limited funds. Whenever I'm having trouble fitting the 55 in the bag, I wish I'd bought another FA 50 1.7. It's far from a given that you will ever make us of a 1.4 lens even if you buy it. I really like the DA*55 1.4, but if was half the size at ƒ2, it would make very little difference to how I use it, and to my images.
"General photography".... LOL! Don't most photographers have specific subjects that are best shot at specific focal lengths with specific lenses?

I'm not even sure what lens would qualify. I suppose it would be something like the mild-wide-angle lenses (say 30-35 mm equivalent) favored by phones and old fixed focal length point-n-shoot cameras. Or maybe a kit lens zoom counts? At least 90% of the lenses in camera makers' catalogs would not be "general photography" because they are too wide, too long, too arcane, or too expensive. People buy interchangeable lens cameras because they don't do general photography, they do a diverse range of specific photography.
06-03-2020, 03:10 PM - 2 Likes   #18
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Alex645's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Location: Kaneohe, HI
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,526
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
IThere's little you can do at ƒ1.4 you can' do with ƒ2. There's little you can do at ƒ22 you can't do better at ƒ16.
This is true, however cost aside, I'd prefer to shoot at f/2 with a f/1.4 lens than an f/2 lens wide open.

The same is true at the other end where I'd rather shoot at f/16 with a lens that closes down to f/22 than f/16 with a lens that has that as its minimum aperture.

I understand this is not the context of the quote, but just wanted to share a different reason why IF I can afford the faster lens, I'd prefer it. In situations where I don't care about DOF, I can expect decent sharpness at f/4 or f/5.6 instead of f/8 or f/9.5.
06-03-2020, 08:28 PM   #19
GUB
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
GUB's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wanganui
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,735
QuoteOriginally posted by Alex645 Quote
This is true, however cost aside, I'd prefer to shoot at f/2 with a f/1.4 lens than an f/2 lens wide open.

The same is true at the other end where I'd rather shoot at f/16 with a lens that closes down to f/22 than f/16 with a lens that has that as its minimum aperture.

I understand this is not the context of the quote, but just wanted to share a different reason why IF I can afford the faster lens, I'd prefer it. In situations where I don't care about DOF, I can expect decent sharpness at f/4 or f/5.6 instead of f/8 or f/9.5.
I agree that it a technical gain to stop down your lens down one click from open . But the f2 lens wide open has the advantage of a round aperture which can smooth the oof compared to the artifact of iris blades affecting the blur.

06-03-2020, 09:48 PM - 5 Likes   #20
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Otis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis Fan
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 16,394
I think an 85mm f1.4 is a real weapon for the photographer. Here I used it in a crowded street, I'm being bumped every now and again by people crossing the intersection, but Holly doesn't give this away with her expression, and the lens gives the necessary isolation in an ugly environment to get the intimacy required. The Pentax will be a superior lens to the Sigma I own.



Obviously an 85mm is great at any event, too:



But the truth is, and Dave's link reinforces it, interesting portraits are possible at any focal length. My Sigma 35mm Art here, for instance. It opens up to f1.4 to get a dreamy background.



And landscapes can be shot at any focal length. In particular, a longer length doesn't push back and minimize distant scenery, and leaves out empty sky or distractions either side of the tree or building you want, or whatever. The 85mm would be great for landscapes or still life or whatever.

Last edited by clackers; 06-03-2020 at 10:09 PM.
06-03-2020, 09:56 PM - 7 Likes   #21
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 15,903
QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
An 85/1.4 lens makes an excellent portrait lens in the same way that a 24mm lens makes an excellent landscape lens. Some (but not all) portraits benefit from an 85mm focal length and the option for subject-background separation enabled by larger apertures. Similarly, some (but not all) landscapes benefit from a 24 mm focal length.

Those statements don't imply that all portraits need 85/1.4 or that all landscapes need 24mm. There are many examples of portraits and landscapes that need wider or longer lenses than these "excellent" lenses.

Thus, we can say that some lens makes an excellent _____ lens even if only a fraction of those _____ photographs need that lens.
I kind of think 85mm is a great landscape focal length.

There are a few reasons why the 85mm (or it's equivalent FOV in other formats) is considered the goto lens for portraiture. These things have to be taken in context though, and the context is when the idea of using this field of view came about.
The Hollywood glamour era of photography (late 1920s to sometime in the 1960s) was all about head to 1/2 length pictures of movie stars. It was a style pioneered by George Hurrell, though he certainly did not limit himself to it.
This FOV, and I say it this way because the 35mm camera was not of much use to portraitists, who would have been using large plates, and long lenses with a FOV more or less equivalent to the 85mm on the smaller format.
Anyway, this FOV gave a nice rendering of the face, flattening features slightly, but not turning them into the photographic equivalent of a pancake. It also gave sufficient room from subject to camera to allow for the very large lights that were used in those days to be situated around the subject.
A master portraitist might have half a dozen or more lights on the subject and a few more on the background.
The whole shallow depth of field that is favoured by traditional portraitists is really accidental, and comes from the technical limitations of the equipment in use in the Golden Age of glamour portraiture. Longer lenses on large plate cameras were not especially fast, but on an 11x14 plate camera, a wide open aperture of f/8 or f/11 gives pretty shallow depth of field. The lights were bright and hot, the film was slow, and getting as fast a shutter speed as possible to limit subject movement was important.
So, lenses were used wide open to compensate for the slow film and the fact that only so much hot light could be thrown at a human being before they started to cook.
And so the tradition of the shallow depth of field portrait was born.

Last edited by Wheatfield; 06-04-2020 at 10:29 AM.
06-03-2020, 11:51 PM - 1 Like   #22
GUB
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
GUB's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wanganui
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,735
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
I think an 85mm f1.4 is a real weapon for the photographer. Here I used it in a crowded street, I'm being bumped every now and again by people crossing the intersection, but Holly doesn't give this away with her expression, and the lens gives the necessary isolation in an ugly environment to get the intimacy required. The Pentax will be a superior lens to the Sigma I own.



Obviously an 85mm is great at any event, too:



But the truth is, and Dave's link reinforces it, interesting portraits are possible at any focal length. My Sigma 35mm Art here, for instance. It opens up to f1.4 to get a dreamy background.



And landscapes can be shot at any focal length. In particular, a longer length doesn't push back and minimize distant scenery, and leaves out empty sky or distractions either side of the tree or building you want, or whatever. The 85mm would be great for landscapes or still life or whatever.
Nice one Clackers - these define what a portrait lens is about.

06-04-2020, 12:05 AM - 3 Likes   #23
Veteran Member
noelpolar's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Goolwa, SA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,310
mmm..... blur or a toilet block wall in a park.... I'm a natural at shitty shots.

06-04-2020, 12:41 AM - 4 Likes   #24
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Otis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis Fan
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 16,394
QuoteOriginally posted by noelpolar Quote
mmm..... blur or a toilet block wall in a park.... I'm a natural at shitty shots.
If you couldn't get the aperture wide enough, get him to come much further away from the wall, Noel, and you much closer to him. You can get bokeh with almost any lens if you get this ratio right, although the framing might have to be much tighter.

If you say, well, that's where he happened to be standing, that's not good enough, we're photographers, even if amateur ones. We make the picture better, not just accept circumstances!

Is this a family function? Tell him if he doesn't come forward three metres you're going to want that twenty bucks you lent him. That background's darker than he is, so it'd be pretty good if it was abstracted.

Last edited by clackers; 06-04-2020 at 12:54 AM.
06-04-2020, 01:47 AM - 3 Likes   #25
sbh
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
sbh's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Black Forest, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 848
Good discussion and thanks for the link. Some great images there.

Imho there is a wide variety and no "one truth". Portraits with other elements in the frame do provide context, I think we all agree. I personally think that this often describes the situation rather than personality. When I want to "see" the person, I look him/her deep in the eyes and want to see what happens with the facial expression. Humans can read the slightest variations. So for the personality aspect, I'd tend to remove as much as possible to leave the bare human to communicate and let the eyes speak. Adding more objects can be a distraction.

Otoh when we add additional context we can still see the pose and facial expression. But is that personality or rather the emotional state/attitude about that particular moment?

There is always the underlying question of the purpose and what we want to achieve with the photo. I think neither is more or less true or wrong in general. They are just different approaches.

Regarding the background blur... It's a tool that we an utilise or not. It can alter the foreground and background in various degrees. It can have a strong visual effect and is hard to master. Perhaps that's the reason why people are fascinated by it – just a guess.

Last edited by sbh; 06-04-2020 at 02:15 AM. Reason: grammar
06-04-2020, 01:50 AM   #26
GUB
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
GUB's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wanganui
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,735
QuoteOriginally posted by noelpolar Quote
mmm..... blur or a toilet block wall in a park.... I'm a natural at shitty shots.
If you look in fact there is a distinct difference in sharpness between subject and background that gives this shot good depth and character. (Click on it to the link) You achieved it because you were at f1.8 - a fast lens. The background doesn't have to be a soft blob - in this case it would be distracting. There is just enough differentiation here to please the eye.
06-04-2020, 02:11 AM   #27
GUB
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
GUB's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wanganui
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,735
QuoteOriginally posted by sbh Quote
When I want to "see" the person, I look him/her deep in the eyes and want to see what happens with the facial expression. Humans can read the slightest variations. So for the personality aspect, I'd tend to remove as much as possible to leave the bare human to communicate and let the eyes speak. Adding more objects can be distraction.
I felt a lot of the images in the link Dartmoor Dave gave us actually lacked these qualities.
06-04-2020, 02:23 AM   #28
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Alex645's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Location: Kaneohe, HI
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,526
QuoteOriginally posted by GUB Quote
I agree that it a technical gain to stop down your lens down one click from open . But the f2 lens wide open has the advantage of a round aperture which can smooth the oof compared to the artifact of iris blades affecting the blur.
The new Pentax DFA* 85mm f/1.4 has nine rounded blades, so I would expect the oof to be be much better than either a straight bladed aperture or the Rokinon/Samyang 85mm f/1.4 twins that have eight rounded blades.
06-04-2020, 02:30 AM   #29
GUB
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
GUB's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wanganui
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,735
QuoteOriginally posted by Alex645 Quote
The new Pentax DFA* 85mm f/1.4 has nine rounded blades, so I would expect the oof to be be much better than either a straight bladed aperture or the Rokinon/Samyang 85mm f/1.4 twins that have eight rounded blades.
I would imagine that to be a minute difference in itself. The main difference would be an 18 ray starburst against an 8 ray. And of course placement of the iris within the lens makes a difference.
06-04-2020, 05:39 AM - 2 Likes   #30
Pentaxian
Dartmoor Dave's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dartmoor, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,857
Original Poster
A question: Is a photograph of a human face always a portrait?

How about a photograph of a model taken as an advert for toothpaste, or for make-up, or for a hat? I'd argue that it's not a portrait, because it has got no interest whatever in the subject as an individual human being.

How about two photographs of the same model, taken with two different lenses both used wide open, and posted on the internet side-by-side as a bokeh comparison? I'd argue that's not a portrait either.

What makes a portrait a portrait? I'm convinced that it's something more than just pointing a camera at someone's face, and it's definitely a heck of a lot more than just showing how much "subject isolation" you can get with your favourite lens. I'm afraid to say that, for me, it's one of those squishy subjective things. If I look at a photo and feel that it gives me some sort of a connection with who that person might actually be, then it's a portrait. Otherwise, it's just a photo that happens to be of a face.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
85mm, background, cigar, context, features, filters, focus, image, jun, length, lens, meters, mm, nose, people, photograph, photography, picture, pm, portrait, portraits, portraiture, post, question, shots
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Portraiture mbieser Monthly Photo Contests 6 11-13-2019 03:03 PM
Sigma 35 1.4 Art, Sigma 17-50 for portraiture gatorguy Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 02-12-2019 07:57 PM
Expired Theme Theme: Contest #42, February, 2010 (Black-and-White Portraiture) Adam Monthly Photo Contests 8 02-26-2010 12:50 PM
Portraiture Experiment (SMC-M 50/1.4) Dubesor Post Your Photos! 6 09-17-2008 01:04 AM
Sibling Portraiture... Tokyo Style?! codiac2600 Post Your Photos! 16 04-30-2008 04:31 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:20 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top