Reading mode: Light Dark

Why are people so obsessed...

Go to last post
Not so well composed and very blurry picture. Sorry, but i even felt dizzy for a second.

What's the point that you're making? That you can take a blurry picture of a person with trees growing out of the head and then call it a portrait because you somehow can make out the face? Ridiculous!
Carskick said:
Gena said:
Waldo,
Your shot is not a portrait.
Click to expand...
Yes it is.

Webster's dictionary:
"picture; especially : a pictorial representation of a person usually
showing the face"

This picture definitely fits this category.
Carskick said:
You just snapped an accidental shot in a dark with a full opened lens.
Click to expand...
That is one of the uses of a fast lens, taking pictures in dark
scenarios, where getting the shot is more important than the subject
being completely sharp.
Carskick said:
The DOF is very narrow and not justified.
Click to expand...
Yes it is, there was a lack of light.
Carskick said:
The shot is not well exposed and the colors are muted.
Click to expand...
Maybe that was the photographer's intention. Additionally, that's
nothing that can't be adjust with PP.
Carskick said:
And the shot is not even sharp where it is supposed to be.
Click to expand...
It's not really that far OOF, and the picture is sharp enough to be
appreciated and printed.
Carskick said:
The thing
is that it was not planned, it just happened this way and now you
are just looking for an excuse and justification :)
Click to expand...
I assume this is a joke because of the smiley face, but his point is
completely valid. Having a razor sharp image is not always priority,
especially in portraiture. I have been experimenting with a Pentax
SMC K mount 50mm F1.4 on my 20D, which is an old, simple, MF lens.
Wide open, CA is high, it's not razor sharp, and the contrast is a
little weak. At F2 and smaller, IQ improves drastically. However, I
rarely shoot this lens stopped down. Why? Because I have a continent
zoom AF lenses that can produce sharp images with excellent IQ at
smaller apertures. The shallow DOF and the optics of the lens give a
really nice bokeh.

Here is an example with the Pentax at F1.4. It's not a great picture,
but it's okay, and it demonstrates what that pentax will do. I am
away from home, and don't have my pictures with me, so I am linking
to Facebook. (Bad for pix)



--
Main Albums: http://picasaweb.google.com/Carskick/
Older Albums: http://www.flickr.com/photos/carskick

Click to expand...
 
Gena said:
Not so well composed and very blurry picture. Sorry, but i even felt
dizzy for a second.

What's the point that you're making? That you can take a blurry
picture of a person with trees growing out of the head and then call
it a portrait because you somehow can make out the face? Ridiculous!
Click to expand...
I have already stated my point.

I do not know why you carry on about "portraiture". Any photo of a person's face is a portrait. Whether it is a good one or not - that is another question.

Sorry for making you dizzy. If you are using Windows, look for the little cross in the top right hand corner of the browser window and click it.

--
Waldo Nell
 
Hey Waldo .............. I like it.

Its not done in a studio, with 100% correct lighting etc etc etc ..... maybe that is why some people flame it, I don't know. However to me it is what a portrait is all about, conveying a sense of emotion and meaning to the family. I for one prefer natural shots like this as opposed to multiple flashes, a neutral background and a stiff looking face!

mark
--

 
It is not a front page shot... But it carries more emotion and feeling than some of the 100% perfectly lit, sharp photos I have taken in my studio of people.

--
Waldo Nell
 
Sorry but I can't agree - sharpness is not easy to fix - it can't be fixed - if it's not sharp nothing will make it so at true size. Ok maybe you can do a sharp 6x4 print from, say, a 5D image that is not quite sharp - but try to print it large or do a 100$% crop and the truth will out.
--
Lizzie
----------------------------------
http://www.lizzieshepherd.com
 
Waldo Nell said:
... with sharpness? In almost every second thread I read on this
site people are complaining that lens X on camera Y does not yield
per pixel perfect sharpness.
Click to expand...
He seems interested in sharpness. : )

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=28102348
Waldo Nell said:
Many subjects benefit from non-sharp images, like this (soft) one I
took with my new 50mm F1.2 @ F1.2, 1/40s, ISO 400 hand held on my
1Ds3:
Click to expand...


Well, it's a personal preference to be sure. While I love shallow DOF, I prefer sharp myself:

Canon 5D + 50 / 1.2L @ f / 1.2, 1/50, ISO 1600

http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/80379021



but I do, occasionally, also like the soft shot:

Canon 5D + 50 / 1.2L @ f / 1.2, 1/200, ISO 200



http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/84577918
Waldo Nell said:
The 50 F1.2 lens is IMO much less sharp than my old 50mm F1.4 I
replaced it with. But I am so happy with the new lens because of the
beautiful bokeh, the wide aperture allowing for much more natural
hand held, natural light shots and the colours it produces...

One happy 50mm F1.2 owner here...
Click to expand...
Whereas mine is significantly sharper:

http://www.pbase.com/joemama/50mm_14_on_a_5d

Make that two happy owners:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=24395821

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/
 
Waldo Nell said:
... with sharpness? In almost every second thread I read on this
site people are complaining that lens X on camera Y does not yield
per pixel perfect sharpness.
Click to expand...
Waldo Nell said:
Waldo Nell
Click to expand...
Waldo, the truth is that is is in our nature to get the "quick fix", to be able to buy a solution to our shortcomings. And some think (whether they realize it or not), that they are trying to create great photos by buying great gear. But the bigger truth is that great photographs are 99% a result of great light and composition, and 1% by the gear used. Now, some better gear allows us to capture images we wouldn't have otherwise, namely faster apertures, faster AF, Is etc... But in the big picture, sharpness plays a fraction on a fraction of a role in creating a great photograph, and generally gets WAY, WAY too much credit on these types of internet forums.

Now to be fair to those sharpness seekers (and I am one of them), there are times when pixel perfect sharpness matters. And those times are when we're making really, really large prints, or producing commercial photography destined for two page spreads, etc... My landscape work in particular is a great example. I make large prints from my 1DsMk3 on my 24" IPF6100 printer. Here sharpness matters, so I shoot with only exotic Zeiss glass, use heavy tripods, mirror lockup etc etc... But I also shoot high end weddings, about 1 or 2 a month. And I could care less about pixel sharpness in my wedding images! The bride does not want to explore the depths of her wrinkles or count her mustache hair anyways! What makes these images work is the old standard formula, mix equal parts beautiful light and composition with a touch of technique, and it will make the album, sharp or not.

So, as is with life, it isn't as simple as many would hope it is...

--

Chris
http://www.imagineimagery.com
 
ChrisDM said:
Waldo, the truth is that is is in our nature to get the "quick fix",
to be able to buy a solution to our shortcomings. And some think
(whether they realize it or not), that they are trying to create
great photos by buying great gear. But the bigger truth is that great
photographs are 99% a result of great light and composition, and 1%
by the gear used. Now, some better gear allows us to capture images
we wouldn't have otherwise, namely faster apertures, faster AF, Is
etc... But in the big picture, sharpness plays a fraction on a
fraction of a role in creating a great photograph, and generally gets
WAY, WAY too much credit on these types of internet forums.

Now to be fair to those sharpness seekers (and I am one of them),
there are times when pixel perfect sharpness matters. And those times
are when we're making really, really large prints, or producing
commercial photography destined for two page spreads, etc... My
landscape work in particular is a great example. I make large prints
from my 1DsMk3 on my 24" IPF6100 printer. Here sharpness matters, so
I shoot with only exotic Zeiss glass, use heavy tripods, mirror
lockup etc etc... But I also shoot high end weddings, about 1 or 2 a
month. And I could care less about pixel sharpness in my wedding
images! The bride does not want to explore the depths of her wrinkles
or count her mustache hair anyways! What makes these images work is
the old standard formula, mix equal parts beautiful light and
composition with a touch of technique, and it will make the album,
sharp or not.

So, as is with life, it isn't as simple as many would hope it is...

--

Chris
http://www.imagineimagery.com
Click to expand...
--
Regards,

Khanh M

http://www.pbase.com/khanh007
http://khanhmai.com
 
I see alot of people getting result like this so they sold their 50 f1.2, most people think that using aperture f1.2 is sharper than a lens with f1.8, big mistake, they all end up with blur images, even I i got a 50mm f1.2 i will stop down the aperture like f5.6 - f8 to have the sharpness i want, but why would I need this big heavy expensive lens? I would rather like to get a cheap 50mm f1.4
 
Waldo Nell said:
Just keep in mind, this is the VERY FIRST photo I took with my new
50mm F1.2 lens, there was only ambient light available (late at
night), and I have done NO adjustments whatsoever - this is RAW
straight from the camera.
Click to expand...
So now your making excuses for a soft picture. I thought your thesis was that soft was OK ;-)
Waldo Nell said:
I have not posted the pic to get feedback on what other people think
(though everyone is welcome to their opinions), however I wanted to
illustrate that there is more to (some) photos than razor sharpness.
This picture illustrated it well for me.
Click to expand...
I cannot get past the lighting and softness and so-so composition. But I agree sharpness isn't everything for some types of shots . Some fields of photgraphy are more demanding of sharpness - like avian photography.

There are factors that are more important than sharpness IMO- that can make or break a photo - and they are lighting and composition in that order. Without good lighting a sharp photos is worthless. Withot good composition, it is not interesting.

My two cents
Gene
Waldo Nell said:
--
Waldo Nell
Click to expand...
--
Gene (aka hawkman) - Walk softly and carry a big lens

Please visit my wildlife galleries at:
http://www.pbase.com/gaocus
http://hawkman.smugmug.com/gallery/1414279

 
wudyi said:
and others (like me) would say that your images are entirely ordinary
and a big "yawn".
Click to expand...
the thing is that your type is just missed focus and some motion blur which is easy to do, I can misfocus birds at too low shutter all day long.
 
bronxbombers said:
Daniella said:
cpondy said:
Well illustrated! What lens was that!
Click to expand...
it was the 400mm F5.6 L, wide open. I use that lens wide open most
of the time. it's tack sharp.
Click to expand...
you really have one of the all time copies of that lens.
your copy seems to rival the f/2.8
Click to expand...
actualy we got another one recently and it is as sharp if not sharper wide open than my own :)

--



http://www.pbase.com/zylen

'Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience'
 
As a child I was spellbound by the truly razorsharp black and white images all around, and of course Ansel Adams landscapes. The relatively inexpensive cameras from the 40's and 50's took great pictures. Sharpness is the wow factor for me, but it's hard for me anway to get similar B&W results with a dslr; My dedicated IR converted XTi is getting there though. The 50 .4 AND .8 are on it a lot.
--
Flickr: Photos from outlawyer81
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top