I'm a lazy portraitist. I only shoot beautiful women.
Lawn Lends: Vindication for Canon's super secret earthquake research division.
Not sure about the "tasteful" part. Lots of folks died there you know, think it's ok to joke about Canon being the responisble?
I really hope Fritz tells his models "the freckles will come out with a preponderance they really don't have" because he is running the risk of making a false, damaging reinforcement on the perception these women already have about themselves.
If not adamantly assured of the contrary, they will assume those are accurate representations because their psyches already see themselves like that.
Boy, for a guy offering apologies for sounding patronising and obnoxious, you sure bring the stuff to the next level.But, forgive me, I tire of this pointless exchange. Back to my lazy portraiture and beautiful women.Ta.
Joseph, ah, I got confused :-) sorry.
PhotoKhan, patronising ain't gonna get your point through you know. But, alas, I think everyone has to get through this internet-meme-like phase on their photographic way. Hope you'll get through yours as fast as possible.Cheers.
Hold yer horses partner, I am not projecting anything on you. I am merely stating my point of view on the matter of freckles, and the point or lack thereof of taking "actually looking" photos. Your conclusions seem a tad bit too far fetched. If you feel offended by my stupidity and inability to parse your posts I shall keep my keyboard shut.Ta.
Ah, ok. But then why bother shooting at all? If she wants to see them the way they look in the so called real life, wouldnt it be easier to just show her a mirror? Seems like a waste of memory card.
Perhaps I'm just not reading correctly this sentence "Firstly, by a professional make-up job and, secondly, in PP, by removing the facial mark all together and then, through the use of opacity layers, bringing it back in an "attention seeking" proportion that mimics, to best of our abilities, the real-life relevance of said feature."To me it sounds like "if the gal doesn't like freckles, let's remove them altogether".
Removing freckles in a portrait is a blasphemy on so many levels...
Dareshooter: Good catch Daniel. Yeah DPR missed this and so did mostly everyone else that has responded so far. It's a disgraceful thing to do but being caught and exposed on one of the worlds most popular photographic sites is poetic justice in my book.
Justice will get poetic once it's served. And no sign of it being served by dPreview's Powers That Be for now...
Isn't he the guy stealing ideas from some other dude, Robinson I think?
edit: yeah, I thought sohttp://joelrobison.com/when-imitation-stops-being-flattering/naughty. And not really cool on the dpreview's part to promote this kind of s*it...
BHPhotog: This is a joke, right? This article's featured photograph shows a four-year-old (?) with a DSLR. You really want to turn a camera over to a child who is as likely to use it as a hammer, or trade it to a friend for a candy bar, or drop it in the toilet to see if it floats?
If you really want a child to learn about the visual world and the wonders of photography, show him/her how to build a pinhole camera or camera obscura, Explain, show, share and teach. Spend some time, not some money.
This is nonsense.
yea, right you are mate, cause all them kiddies are silly twats, ain't they? http://imageshack.us/scaled/modthumb/689/7ynx.jpg
marcin wuu: What would be the equivalent maximum aperture (in terms of dof) of this lens for a 35mm camera?(DOH, I just read - 3.2... Not really that great for your average shallow dof portrait then...)
You think so? I guess it depends what do you consider a headshot - if by that you mean just a head filling the entire frame then possibly, yes. If you want your head to rest on something like shoulders and a piece of torso... Wouldn't be so sure. Are there any portrait samples from this lens?
What would be the equivalent maximum aperture (in terms of dof) of this lens for a 35mm camera?(DOH, I just read - 3.2... Not really that great for your average shallow dof portrait then...)
KBarrett: So he's using one of the most hotly sought-after lenses in large format photography, which can project an image to cover a 5x5" area, and acts like a 50mm f/0.7 in terms of depth of field for that format, and he's using it on one of the smallest image sensors that can accept a third-party lens, essentially wasting 98.5% of it's coverage. That's not resurrection, that's condemnation.
He shoots the ground glass, so actually he's using much larger image circle than the meagre u4/3. At the cost of totally ruining image quality of course. I don't see how this is unique however. Perhaps for the folks who never shot film? Perhaps it has some sort of lomo appeal to the hipster generation? This is a very popular lens, not really that expensive or hard to find. Lots of large format photogs are shooting it on a daily basis producing photos quite a lot better than a horribly vignetted shot of a guy holding Michelin mascot... or is it a Ghost Busters character?
Leonard Shepherd: Was the review good?It says VR was not as effective at 300mm as shorter focal lengths, but used a constant focus distance, not allowing for the obvious magnification increase at 300mm. Safe hand held speeds increase with image magnification - with any focal length.Nikon indicate in the 105 VR instructions a subject 8 feet wide or narrower needs 1 shutter speed faster for sharp results. This implies a need for 2 speeds faster by 4 feet wide and so on.Increased magnification at 300mm same focus distance relative to 28mm leaves less VR benefit available for camera shake reduction.The review gives a fair summary of the VR results a relative novice might get. An advanced worker might know about the image magnification issue using VR.Was there a slight tendency to misfocus at 300mm? The example shown used a fine detail subject with which all Nikon DSLR instructions indicate AF may not be particularly accurate. Was the reviewer paying enough attention to the quality of the AF target?
That's an interesting implication you made here. Does this mean that a subject 2' wide would need 4 speeds more? 1' = 8 speeds? Say you want to shoot a one inch object. Simple calculation reveals that you need 2^96 more speeds. This is a mind boggling number of speeds, more than there is stars in the entire universe and by several orders of magnitude. Do you have a camera that fast?