[Klaus]

Just head portaits please

[youpii]

Most of the photos in your link are "studio" like.

 

In studio, I mostly use a cheap 24-85mm zoom at F8. Unfortunately, someone has decided that 24-70mm zooms was the new standard but it's actually a bit short for me. I'd probably buy a modern 28-85mm if there were any in FE mount.

 

You're quite right to say that an expensive lens is not mandatory for a good portrait. Light is more important. Although now I'd say post processing is major too.

 

But we might get banned from the Internet for saying that. We're being brainwashed by manufacturers and review sites that more and more expensive cameras & lenses and mandatory to take good photos.

 

BTW Steve McCurry used a Nikon 105mm/2.5 for the Afghan girl.

 

On the other side, large aperture lenses are more important for outdoor portraits, to blur the background.

[Klaus]

Agreed.

 

Apropos brain-washing - honestly I believe that the manufacturers are playing the megapixel madness in order to sell more high end lenses. The number of people who really REQUIRE more than 8-12mp is very limited. Most buy 36-50mp because it's also cool to have  a car with 500KW if you can afford it. At 8-12mp, your images would be tack sharp with a lens of reasonable quality and you could go for very high ISOs without getting stressed. 

[JJ_SO]

Sorry, that's hypocritical on a lens-test site. You're part of that "industry" and this industry makes a living because we users need to fulfill some dreams from time to time - even the ones with the 500 kW cars.

 

It simply matters shit if I "need" 36 or more MP, because we can't choose bodies, AF-modules and sensors, that all comes in a package. I don't care what somebody thinks I need or what would be "enough" for me. It was a good experience and a good learning path as well to have it - soon it will go to somebody else who wants to do pictures with 36 MP and no one should judge at the beginning what this person needs or not. These 36 MP were more the "poor man's medium format camera" than a necessary evolution - but they just show what's possible and what's not. If you're happy with 8 MP, fine. Keeping a battered Nikon D3s as reference camera demonstrates enough how big the interest is in high MP at PZ. As well as not rating lenses which are in front of a 50 MP Canon - if you don't need more than 12 MP, why did you invest in that machine?

 

Most users use their cellphones anyway and make pretty good photographs with them, without thinking about lenses or other crap. They don't care about 36 MP DSLR - here we do and debate our heads off.

 

There's nothing wrong with buying what we think could be cool, but i daresay, that some of those posted portraits would suck on a big print if they were done with only 12 MP. Whereas most of these were taken with higher resolutions aka film, don't you agree?

 

Just out of curiosity, when have you been at a photo exhibition last time? How big were the prints? Were you touched or was it just some kind of eye-candy, sooner forgotten than done?

 

There's also nothing wrong with 36 MP at low ISO for lots of details and downsampling to 12 MP at high ISO and still being a lot better than any standard 12 MP body by default. To say the industry is doing one thing to sell more other products is at the moment only logical. Okay, Canon goes the other way and offers with the 5D Mk IV a camera at standard of 2012 with UHD I card, crippled 4K video but at 3500 $ - whereas Nikon goes to China for lens production and raises the prices anyway although the lenses are cheaper made.

 

Speaking of portraits: I'd really like to put some samples here, but I even more like to keep the trust of my "models" who didn't sign to be published. I actually don't think it's worth the effort to make the cheap vs. expensive camera+lens test. A high price camera doesn't make great pictures just by itself and cellphones are cheap yet delivering great portraits, so the evidence is already clear.

 

But the general tendency to centered portraits imo has more to do with "where are reliable focus-aids or AF-focus-points" than with composition.

[Ayoh]

Depends on the portrait style. A face close up can be done with any reasonable semi-telephoto lens, however a body portrait in an environmental context is more challenging and personally to me, more interesting. Here greater depth of field control and fast lenses with limited aberrations becomes useful. To be honest I find that highly cropped head shot portrait style presented in the link to be boring and the supposed skill of some of the photographers to portray the character of the subject overrated (e.g. Annie Leibovitz - an icon due to socially integrating herself into the US celebrity club rather than unique skills). Environmental/contextual portraits are more interesting and difficult, Steve Curry is quite good at those, Also Joey L. 

[Klaus]

Sorry, that's hypocritical on a lens-test site. You're part of that "industry" and this industry makes a living because we users need to fulfill some dreams from time to time - even the ones with the 500 kW cars.

 

 

 

Huuh, I hit a nerve there.    Do whatever you want to.

 

We are all brainwashed in the one or the other sense - otherwise capitalism wouldn't function. 

[JJ_SO]

This is just too true  :mellow: to be true  B)

 

doo-bee-doo-bee-doooo  :lol:

 

Edit:

 

I confess, my last brainwash happened just yesterday, when I watched some videos of the angry, bold and fat photographer (is he actually photographing something from time to time? with all the vlog stuff?). Okay, I skipped already the third video after his second repetition because he gets on nerves at lightning speed, but sometimes he has a point. Like Nikon's managers dancing naked on tables because of Canon's 5D IV.  ^_^

 

So it's all dave's fault who brought him in  sorry for quoting another video of him, I just don't like to be alone in the brainwash center.

 

So, Markus is then right to remain absent form this part of the (testing) industry, when a lens test site makes millions of bucks AU$ clicks just by tests of Fuji, Canon and µ4/3 stuff which are not always the freshest vegetables in town? Is he also fed up with the behavior of the industry lens test industry delivering lens makers? While the lens buying part of the industry still gasps for more test (to debate their head off?)

[Klaus]

Depends on the portrait style. A face close up can be done with any reasonable semi-telephoto lens, however a body portrait in an environmental context is more challenging and personally to me, more interesting. Here greater depth of field control and fast lenses with limited aberrations becomes useful. To be honest I find that highly cropped head shot portrait style presented in the link to be boring and the supposed skill of some of the photographers to portray the character of the subject overrated (e.g. Annie Leibovitz - an icon due to socially integrating herself into the US celebrity club rather than unique skills). Environmental/contextual portraits are more interesting and difficult, Steve Curry is quite good at those, Also Joey L. 

 

I fully agree with you.

 

These head portraits are primarily driven by the subject in conjunction with good lighting (which is an art IMHO). 

 

As you mentioned things are different when the environment is actually included rather than excluded. Even wedding photography, as profane as it may be, is surely more demanding.

 

PS: Don't misinterpret the "profane wedding photography". It is important for the couple but at least some of the professional photographers that I talk to call it the "graveyard of their dreams".

[Ayoh]

I fully agree with you.

 

These head portraits are primarily driven by the subject in conjunction with good lighting (which is an art IMHO). 

 

As you mentioned things are different when the environment is actually included rather than excluded. Even wedding photography, as profane as it may be, it surely more demanding.

 

PS: Don't misinterpret the "profane wedding photography". It is important for the couple but at least some of the professional photographers that I talk to call it the "graveyard of their dreams".

I also agree that good wedding photography is quite challenging (certainly more so than fashion and celebrity portraits) and although I have no interest in it, I acknowledge that some of the creative and technical execution of the top photographers is actually really impressive. Especially given the highly competitive market and time/location/topic/cost constrained genre. I guess whenever you have talented people creatively competing within defined limits you get high quality outcomes (except when market access is not level such as in celebrity portrait photography where established aristocrats can dominate ) 

 

Google "best wedding photography" to see some examples

[Klaus]

 

So, Markus is then right to remain absent form this part of the (testing) industry, when a lens test site makes millions of bucks AU$ clicks just by tests of Fuji, Canon and µ4/3 stuff which are not always the freshest vegetables in town? Is he also fed up with the behavior of the industry lens test industry delivering lens makers? While the lens buying part of the industry still gasps for more test (to debate their head off?)

 

Well, I am not sure in how far I can discuss his situation here in the forum. Besides some private stuff, he was employee representative for a company. The latter just ended along with the company itself. Thus I have hopes that he will be able to join the club after his current vacation - otherwise I will have to do Nikon again.

 

We have always been a part-time gang. Full-time PZ is not an option financially.