[Dartmoor Dave]

mmm..... blur or a toilet block wall in a park.... I'm a natural at shitty shots.

It doesn't matter what's behind him, or how in focus or out of focus it is. You've captured him in a moment that conveys a feeling of actual connection.

[Dartmoor Dave]

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?

I think that's a really interesting and thought provoking point. Can a photo ever really capture a personality, or does it only ever capture a person's apparent state of mind at a particular moment? I don't know the answer, but I'm going to enjoy pondering it.

[GUB]

A question: Is a photograph of a human face always a portrait?

And is a photo of the sea a landscape?

No one is saying subject isolation is the end all but look at the alternative. Clackers' girl above with the yellow radiating background and the young girl celebrating presumably her birthday - Imagine them with the background (foreground) fully in focus - yuk - and imagine them without the background/foreground giving the image context - they would be nothing burgers. And according to Clackers they are f1.4 shots - ie fully utilising a fast lens.

[Dartmoor Dave]

And is a photo of the sea a landscape?

Photos of the sea in the internet age:

Sunrise/sunset? Check.
Long exposure to make the waves look like mist? Check.
Couple of rocks on the sand in the foreground to add depth? Check.

I scroll past seascapes like that so fast that they hardly even register on my eyes anymore, and I'm sad to say that I do pretty much the same with blurry background portraits these days. I know I must be sounding very cranky about all this, and I'm sorry for that. Somehow the idea of a $2000 lens that seems to exist almost entirely to make most of the frame in most of the photos taken with it a blur has really got to me. I guess it's a "straw that broke the camel's back" sort of thing.

[photoptimist]

I think that's a really interesting and thought provoking point. Can a photo ever really capture a personality, or does it only ever capture a person's apparent state of mind at a particular moment? I don't know the answer, but I'm going to enjoy pondering it.

At one level, it's true that a single image captures a single moment which thus captures a single state of mind. And yet a single state of mind can be an amalgam of feelings that modulate the person's expression, eyes, posture, etc. in different ways (e.g., a smiling face with sad eyes on an erect, commanding body posture). The result is a multidimensional glimpse of the personality.

The foreground/background environment can significantly add to the portrait. People (and their portrait photographers) can select and curate their surroundings -- a messy workshop, a wall of accolades, a tidy garden, a humble cabin in the woods. These surroundings convey other states of mind integrated over a lifetime and that adds depth to the portrait and give hints about the personality behind the eyes. (In otehr cases, the surroundings might be incidental.)

Aperture is the dial that controls the relative contributions of the face versus the surroundings to the image. Sometimes it is nice to be able to read the titles on the spines of the books behind the person to show who they are and what they think about. Sometimes it's better just to have a blurred-out bookshelf.

It is interesting to think how much of a person's personality can be crammed into a single image. It's also interesting to consider that maybe the blur of f/1.4 creates ambiguity to more strongly state that there are hidden depths beyond the single state of mind and single moment of that photograph.

[normhead]

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.

After years of studying lens charts, I can't endorse this opinion. For most non-premium lenses the best shooting aperture on APS_c and FF are ƒ4, ƒ5.6 and ƒ8. Only in premium glass does that change much.

The posted value for the FA 50 1.4 it's not excellent until 2.8 where the recorded values are 2080 and 1766 lw/ph

https://opticallimits.com/pentax/126-pentax-smc-fa-50mm-f14-review--lab-test-report?start=1

The DA*50-135 is overall a better lens right from ƒ2.8 at 50mm. where recored values were 2056 and 1910 lw/ph

https://opticallimits.com/pentax/137-pentax-smc-da-50-135mm-f28-ed-if-sdm-re...report?start=1

If you're buying 1.4 glass because you think it's better at 2.8 and beyond, but you plan to shoot 2.8 and beyond, you might be making a mistake. That blurred background may come at price to our other images. Now if you were to say you're going to buy premium 1.4 as compared to consumer 2.8 The you might have a case. Even in the DFA 50 1.4 it's designed to be really smooth at wide apertures, but if you do a lot of shooting at ƒ5.6 or ƒ8 you may not see much benefit.

[Alex645]

mmm..... blur or a toilet block wall in a park.... I'm a natural at shitty shots.

Honestly that was my initial reaction, but after awhile, I think this portrait has a lot of merits.
a) Love the square crop and his placement.
b) Love his straight-on body position and posture.
c) The way he is holding his drink is just as telling as his facial expression and his hair style.

I wouldn't be so self-deprecating as anyone undecided or open minded about a shot will devalue your work if you do it for them.
Here's an example of your same photo with just the background burned and monochrome. Love his blue suit and tie, but it was distracting me from his face.

Attached Images

 

---

Last edited by Alex645; 06-04-2020 at 11:50 AM.

[gofour3]

There has been a widespread assumption made during all the recent discussions about the new 85mm/1.4 that it's going to be a great portrait lens, and that the reason why it'll be a great portrait lens is that you'll be able to get very blurry backgrounds with it.

I remember back in the 60's & 70's when "soft" portrait shots were the rage. You could buy 85mm "soft" lenses, soft filters or just use Vaseline on your filter. Even the Pentax K85/1.8 was designed to be soft wide open for that 70's "porn" look.

Times have changed and now it's razor sharp portrait shots, with a blurry background. Ten years from now when this fad has faded, we'll be back to soft images and someone will do a remake of "Emmanuelle" ......

Phil.

[BarryE]

At one level, it's true that a single image captures a single moment which thus captures a single state of mind. And yet a single state of mind can be an amalgam of feelings that modulate the person's expression, eyes, posture, etc. in different ways (e.g., a smiling face with sad eyes on an erect, commanding body posture). The result is a multidimensional glimpse of the personality.

The foreground/background environment can significantly add to the portrait. People (and their portrait photographers) can select and curate their surroundings -- a messy workshop, a wall of accolades, a tidy garden, a humble cabin in the woods. These surroundings convey other states of mind integrated over a lifetime and that adds depth to the portrait and give hints about the personality behind the eyes. (In otehr cases, the surroundings might be incidental.)

Aperture is the dial that controls the relative contributions of the face versus the surroundings to the image. Sometimes it is nice to be able to read the titles on the spines of the books behind the person to show who they are and what they think about. Sometimes it's better just to have a blurred-out bookshelf.

It is interesting to think how much of a person's personality can be crammed into a single image. It's also interesting to consider that maybe the blur of f/1.4 creates ambiguity to more strongly state that there are hidden depths beyond the single state of mind and single moment of that photograph.

There's a difference between an environmental portrait where the subject, say, poses with a guitar. Hey, that person's plays a guitar and therefore an idea of the sitter's personality starts to be drawn. Add in a mass of body art and the personality assumption grow. Take the props away and a single frame is just a fractional capture, which on it's own can never capture a persons personality. However, if a series of shots have been taken and a dialogue between photographer and sitter has occurred (or if the sitter is known), then a single frame, might, capture the personality in one of the frames. In comparison a portrait painter typically engages the sitter over many sittings, sometimes over months, getting to know them and slowly building the painting to reflect the sitter's personality. Even an alla prima portrait engages the sitter, albeit for one sitting, but still there's the opportunity to reveal aspects of the sitter's personality. So without the dialogue and without many shots, a photo is unlikely to capture the personality.

We as the viewer can of course make assumptions. Think of a single frame taken of the lumberjack in Monty Pythons lumberjack song and the wrong conclusions that are likely to be made

[stevebrot]

There has been a widespread assumption made during all the recent discussions about the new 85mm/1.4 that it's going to be a great portrait lens, and that the reason why it'll be a great portrait lens is that you'll be able to get very blurry backgrounds with it.

What makes for a great portrait lens is one that allows you to make the shot in the available space while allowing for the comfort of the subject. Focal lengths at or about 85mm* have proven useful in that regard, but pleasing bokeh has often been (historically) a side effect, rather than a goal, of design. I own both the Jupiter-9 85/2.0 (in two mounts) and the Pentax-FA 77/1.8 Limited and while both are known for the quality of their OOF blur, that is not my first thought if I use either for a portrait session.

And it's not just an assumption that people are making about this new lens. It's something that comes up again and again all over the internet when people talk about portraits. A portrait has to have an out of focus background. Creamy bokeh is all that matters. Who cares if the subject looks utterly bored and has got one eye closed? Just look at that awesomely mushy background!

The whole bokeh worship is a royal pain IMHO. I own several lenses that reputably excel in that area and several others that have decent blur and which are not cult favorites (rolls eyes). There are other elements to rendering.

I also agree that there is much more to a compelling portrait than subject isolation (the intent of blurring the background) or perfectly focused eyelashes. The link to the Portrait of Humanity site illustrates that nicely. Thanks for sharing.


Steve

* Historically anything between "normal" at 55-58mm and about 135mm.

[stevebrot]

From a practical point, using razor thin dof for a portrait creates many missed shots. The frustration of an exquisite expression that captures the sitters character only to find the focus was missed is a big risk. Better to err on the side of safety and close down a bit. So why a f1.4?

Ya think? 85mm at f/1.4 and 4 ft for a head shot only allows a half inch DOF a situation that does not improve significantly* until at least f/5.6. Who truly needs eye in focus with nose, ears, and most of lips blurred? Assuming, of course, that one can nail eye focus.


Steve

* Ironically DOF for f/2 at 85mm is almost as shallow as at f/1.4.

[stevebrot]

Perhaps the reason why 85 mm lenses are sold as portrait lens is, that there is no other use for this focal length?
We should start a thread "Show us your non portait (and non macro) pictures shot with 85 mm".

I shoot flowers and still life with my Jupiter-9 but have also done action sports and sculpture.


Steve

[BarryE]

Ya think? 85mm at f/1.4 and 4 ft for a head shot only allows a half inch DOF a situation that does not improve significantly* until at least f/5.6. Who truly needs eye in focus with nose, ears, and most of lips blurred? Assuming, of course, that one can nail eye focus.


Steve

* Ironically DOF for f/2 at 85mm is almost as shallow as at f/1.4.

Mmmm? Did I then not go on to say something around f5.6 being better (for me) for that reason? Maybe I just thought it ...

[stevebrot]

Mmmm? Did I then not go on to say something around f5.6 being better (for me) for that reason? Maybe I just thought it ...

No contradiction intended. The figure of speech "ya think" is common over here (GMT -8) and indicates something that should be immediately obvious. I was agreeing with you.


Steve

[Dartmoor Dave]

I remember back in the 60's & 70's when "soft" portrait shots were the rage. You could buy 85mm "soft" lenses, soft filters or just use Vaseline on your filter. Even the Pentax K85/1.8 was designed to be soft wide open for that 70's "porn" look.

I seem to remember having had a keen interest in the soft focus photographic works of Bob Guccione once upon a time. Ended up with quite a collection of his shots in magazine format, in fact.