PORTRAITS LOVE THE 20D !

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Annika1980, Apr 1, 2007.

  1. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    Annika1980, Apr 1, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Nice!
    Charles Schuler, Apr 1, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Annika1980

    Hoover Guest

    what exactly is a portrait lens - great photos!!

    "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Got to test out my new portrait lens (the 85mm f/1.8) today with one
    > of my most willing subjects.
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76509239/original
    >
    Hoover, Apr 1, 2007
    #3
  4. Annika1980

    Lionel Guest

    On 1 Apr 2007 15:21:58 -0700, "Annika1980" <> wrote:

    >Got to test out my new portrait lens (the 85mm f/1.8) today with one
    >of my most willing subjects.
    >
    >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76509239/original


    Jeez, always the pussy shots from you. I bet the cheerleaders wouldn't
    let you anywhere near them if they knew what you were after.

    --
    W "Some people are alive only because it is illegal to kill them."
    . | ,. w ,
    \|/ \|/ Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
    Lionel, Apr 1, 2007
    #4
  5. Annika1980

    Guest

    On Apr 1, 6:21 pm, "Annika1980" <> wrote:
    > Got to test out my new portrait lens (the 85mm f/1.8) today with one
    > of my most willing subjects.
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76509239/original


    You bought yourself a super lens, Bret! Beautiful portrait of Mr.
    Divs. Lens delineation, saturation and contrast is superb. I insist
    you use this lens a lot!
    Helen
    , Apr 2, 2007
    #5
  6. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    On Apr 1, 6:51 pm, "Hoover" <> wrote:
    > what exactly is a portrait lens - great photos!!


    It is a lens that will be used primarily for portraits due to it's
    shallow DOF and wonderful bokeh. Of course, the Canon 85 f/1.8 is so
    sharp that I plan to use it for stitched panoramas as well.
    Annika1980, Apr 2, 2007
    #6
  7. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    On Apr 1, 7:19 pm, wrote:
    >
    > >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76509239/original

    >
    > You bought yourself a super lens, Bret! Beautiful portrait of Mr.
    > Divs. Lens delineation, saturation and contrast is superb. I insist
    > you use this lens a lot!



    Well, if you insist .....
    Annika1980, Apr 2, 2007
    #7
  8. Annika1980

    Alan Browne Guest

    Hoover wrote:
    > what exactly is a portrait lens


    Assuming that was a question, a portrait lens is one favoured for
    portraits. For 35mm it would be about 85 to about 135mm, but even a 200
    or 300 can do decent portraits. The 85mm (often a f/1.4) is considered
    a classic portrait lens as it gives a sense of volume without
    exagerating features and a shallow enough DOF to isolate features in
    depth (eg: eyes).

    Longer lenses are often used in location fashion shooting to both
    flatten out features and to throw backgrounds out-of-focus.

    For digital (cropped sensors) 50mm - 100mm is a good range.

    Cheers,
    Alan
    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
    Alan Browne, Apr 2, 2007
    #8
  9. Annika1980

    joe mama Guest

    "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Got to test out my new portrait lens (the 85mm f/1.8) today with one
    > of my most willing subjects.
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76509239/original


    classic example of a bad portrait (are snapshots of animals considered
    portraits?) trying to be passed off as a bokeh shot. always..ALWAYS have
    both eyes in sharp focus. that is just sloppy work, and indicative of many
    of your shots in that forum. we are so lucky to have you posting all these
    examples of your shoddy work here, even though anyone interested could just
    check your open page whenever they wanted.

    it's a good thing you didn't plunk down the extra coin for the 1.2 lens. as
    it is, you were wasting a good three hundred anyway.

    keep up the great work, salieri! someday you may be able to publish a kitty
    calendar....
    joe mama, Apr 2, 2007
    #9
  10. Annika1980

    M-M Guest

    In article <4610693c$0$5232$>,
    "joe mama" <> wrote:

    > always..ALWAYS have
    > both eyes in sharp focus



    But did you see the detail in the ear?

    --
    m-m
    M-M, Apr 2, 2007
    #10
  11. Annika1980

    joe mama Guest

    "M-M" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <4610693c$0$5232$>,
    > "joe mama" <> wrote:
    >
    >> always..ALWAYS have
    >> both eyes in sharp focus

    >
    >
    > But did you see the detail in the ear?
    >
    > --
    > m-m


    it's an unfortunate reality of relying on auto focusing to deliver a sharp
    image. especially in an aps-c sized format. it takes too much enlargement to
    make it viewable, and it can rarely be trusted, expecially in those dark
    canon viewfinders.

    funny how you don't run into those problems nearly as much in a true 35mm
    format, through a bright viewfinder. my canon eos 3 never has that problem
    with that lens. or my pentax gear, or my nikon gear, or any 35mm gear for
    that matter.
    joe mama, Apr 2, 2007
    #11
  12. Annika1980

    Tuli Guest

    Tuli, Apr 2, 2007
    #12
  13. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    On Apr 1, 10:23 pm, "joe mama" <> wrote:
    > >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76509239/original

    >
    > classic example of a bad portrait (are snapshots of animals considered
    > portraits?) trying to be passed off as a bokeh shot. always..ALWAYS have
    > both eyes in sharp focus. that is just sloppy work, and indicative of many
    > of your shots in that forum.


    Well crap, I guess I'll never sell that pic!

    Is this a hard and fast rule like the Rule of Thirds?
    The trouble with rules like that is that they limit what you can
    shoot.
    There is no way to get both the eyes in focus shooting @ f/1.8 unless
    I am equidistant from both eyes (the cat is looking right at me).
    But I shall remember that rule in the future. Thanks for the tip.
    Annika1980, Apr 2, 2007
    #13
  14. Annika1980

    M-M Guest

    In article <>,
    "Annika1980" <> wrote:

    > There is no way to get both the eyes in focus shooting @ f/1.8 unless
    > I am equidistant from both eyes



    You could move back or stop down. True you want your focus narrow but
    maybe this time it was a little too narrow?

    --
    m-m
    M-M, Apr 2, 2007
    #14
  15. Annika1980

    joe mama Guest

    "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Apr 1, 10:23 pm, "joe mama" <> wrote:
    >> >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76509239/original

    >
    > Is this a hard and fast rule like the Rule of Thirds?
    > The trouble with rules like that is that they limit what you can
    > shoot.


    standard cop out from bad shooters. of course rules are meant to be broken,
    but usually for effect, and good effect. hardly what i'd say was going on
    here. one slight twist to your right could have solved the problem.

    > There is no way to get both the eyes in focus shooting @ f/1.8 unless
    > I am equidistant from both eyes (the cat is looking right at me).


    the other poster already explained other alternatives. look, it's a
    snapshot, and a rather pedestrian one at that. if you really wanted to show
    the beauty of the lens, then shoot something that would have allowed for it.

    you can't post twenty things in here (incorrectly placed posts too) a day,
    and not expect any criticism. i sense you have a regular group of buddies
    that give you the proper ego massage, but that's not always going to be the
    case. did you actually post this in a relevant newsgroup as well?
    joe mama, Apr 2, 2007
    #15
  16. Annika1980

    Hoover Guest

    Question for Joe Mama are you a professional photographer? You sure pawn
    yourself off as one.

    "joe mama" <> wrote in message
    news:4610a9a8$0$503$...
    >
    > "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On Apr 1, 10:23 pm, "joe mama" <> wrote:
    >>> >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76509239/original

    >>
    >> Is this a hard and fast rule like the Rule of Thirds?
    >> The trouble with rules like that is that they limit what you can
    >> shoot.

    >
    > standard cop out from bad shooters. of course rules are meant to be
    > broken, but usually for effect, and good effect. hardly what i'd say was
    > going on here. one slight twist to your right could have solved the
    > problem.
    >
    >> There is no way to get both the eyes in focus shooting @ f/1.8 unless
    >> I am equidistant from both eyes (the cat is looking right at me).

    >
    > the other poster already explained other alternatives. look, it's a
    > snapshot, and a rather pedestrian one at that. if you really wanted to
    > show the beauty of the lens, then shoot something that would have allowed
    > for it.
    >
    > you can't post twenty things in here (incorrectly placed posts too) a day,
    > and not expect any criticism. i sense you have a regular group of buddies
    > that give you the proper ego massage, but that's not always going to be
    > the case. did you actually post this in a relevant newsgroup as well?
    >
    >
    >
    Hoover, Apr 2, 2007
    #16
  17. Annika1980

    Neil Ellwood Guest

    On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 19:23:58 -0700, joe mama wrote:

    > "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Got to test out my new portrait lens (the 85mm f/1.8) today with one
    >> of my most willing subjects.
    >>
    >> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76509239/original

    >
    > classic example of a bad portrait (are snapshots of animals considered
    > portraits?) trying to be passed off as a bokeh shot. always..ALWAYS have
    > both eyes in sharp focus. that is just sloppy work, and indicative of many
    > of your shots in that forum. we are so lucky to have you posting all these
    > examples of your shoddy work here, even though anyone interested could just
    > check your open page whenever they wanted.
    >
    > it's a good thing you didn't plunk down the extra coin for the 1.2 lens. as
    > it is, you were wasting a good three hundred anyway.
    >
    > keep up the great work, salieri! someday you may be able to publish a kitty
    > calendar....


    There are two sides to any question - Yours and the reasonable one.

    --
    Neil
    Reverse 'r' and 'a', delete 'l' for email.
    Neil Ellwood, Apr 2, 2007
    #17
  18. Annika1980

    Neil Ellwood Guest

    On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 22:30:26 -0700, Annika1980 wrote:

    > On Apr 1, 10:23 pm, "joe mama" <> wrote:
    >> >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76509239/original

    >>
    >> classic example of a bad portrait (are snapshots of animals considered
    >> portraits?) trying to be passed off as a bokeh shot. always..ALWAYS have
    >> both eyes in sharp focus. that is just sloppy work, and indicative of many
    >> of your shots in that forum.

    >
    > Well crap, I guess I'll never sell that pic!
    >
    > Is this a hard and fast rule like the Rule of Thirds?
    > The trouble with rules like that is that they limit what you can
    > shoot.
    > There is no way to get both the eyes in focus shooting @ f/1.8 unless
    > I am equidistant from both eyes (the cat is looking right at me).
    > But I shall remember that rule in the future. Thanks for the tip.


    Bret please remember that he has mistaken which orifice he should be
    talking from (he should have used a higher one).

    --
    Neil
    Reverse 'r' and 'a', delete 'l' for email.
    Neil Ellwood, Apr 2, 2007
    #18
  19. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    On Apr 2, 5:39 am, "Hoover" <> wrote:

    > Question for Joe Mama are you a professional photographer? You sure pawn
    > yourself off as one.


    I think he is a professional critiquer. The pay sucks but it's steady
    work.

    Having said that, I welcome his (and all) comments.
    Annika1980, Apr 2, 2007
    #19
  20. Annika1980

    Allen Guest

    Neil Ellwood wrote:
    > On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 22:30:26 -0700, Annika1980 wrote:
    >
    >> On Apr 1, 10:23 pm, "joe mama" <> wrote:
    >>>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/76509239/original
    >>> classic example of a bad portrait (are snapshots of animals considered
    >>> portraits?) trying to be passed off as a bokeh shot. always..ALWAYS have
    >>> both eyes in sharp focus. that is just sloppy work, and indicative of many
    >>> of your shots in that forum.

    >> Well crap, I guess I'll never sell that pic!
    >>
    >> Is this a hard and fast rule like the Rule of Thirds?
    >> The trouble with rules like that is that they limit what you can
    >> shoot.
    >> There is no way to get both the eyes in focus shooting @ f/1.8 unless
    >> I am equidistant from both eyes (the cat is looking right at me).
    >> But I shall remember that rule in the future. Thanks for the tip.

    >
    > Bret please remember that he has mistaken which orifice he should be
    > talking from (he should have used a higher one).
    >


    I believe that he is talking through the upper one, but because of
    unfortunate placement, the sounds from it must pass through the lower
    one to be heard. Perhaps a good cephaloproctologist could help him.
    Allen
    Allen, Apr 2, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Annika1980

    BRIDES LOVE THE 20D !!!

    Annika1980, Oct 18, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    472
    mark_digitalĀ©
    Oct 19, 2004
  2. Rob

    large portraits from EOS 20D

    Rob, Aug 30, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    305
    Ray Fischer
    Aug 30, 2005
  3. FAMILY PORTRAITS LOVE THE 20D !!!

    , Jan 8, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    285
    Tony Cooper
    Jan 9, 2006
  4. wewa
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    696
    Andre Da Costa [Extended64]
    Nov 10, 2005
  5. Annika1980

    SELF-PORTRAITS LOVE THE 40D!

    Annika1980, Jun 27, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    315
    Annika1980
    Jun 29, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page