re: rented lenses results

[Design Man]

--
Just rented the
100 f2.8 Macro
85 f1.2L
50 f1.2L
135 f2
200 f2.8

I am shooting some fashion menswear on forms. I wanted to see which lenses would do well for me to eventually purchase some of them. I am finding that the 100mm Macro is being used the most because of the close up nature of the shots and the ability to get really close with the macro. The 85 f1.2 seems a bit difficult to work with and the 50mm f1.2L is also very good. I am not using the 135L or the 200L all that much, they just don't seem to fit into this shoot. I am realizing that my photos from the 100mm f2.8 Macro seem a bit soft even at f4.0. I think my lighting is good and will post some examples in my next post. Do some of you that have these lenses find the 100mm softer than the other at open apertures? Thanks, Phil.

 

[Design Man]

--Any comments welcome.

 

[Hugowolf]

What is the re, as in "re: rented lenses results" for? To which other post are you referring? Is this a continuation of another thread?

Brian A.

 

[Reciprocal]

--

It's difficult to grasp the intended context for these pictures, so I'll just give you my reaction as a lay person. I would guess that the pictures are successful if they promote sales of the fashion clothing.

1.) It looks like prom ware.

2.) It looks stiff, like a mannequin. Consumer's identify with clothing more when they can identify with the model, i.e. person they want to be like.

On the technical merits, sharpness would not be my worry, the shallow depth of field is. We need to bokeh for a reason. Create a setting, an attractive model fashioned in the apparel, and other beautiful people are in the background blurred, to maintain the focus on your talent. That's bokeh with a purpose.

In the above situation, what are you blurring out with the shallow depth of field? Looks like nothing really, objects without a message.

You should not try and approach fashion ware the way you would portraiture. That's why the 85f1.2 does not apply. All of the apparel needs to be in focus. It's not that the images appear soft, it's the shallow focus. Stop the lens down. Find some other way to blur out the background distractions. You need only look at catalogs, Mervyns, Macys, Neimans, Victoria Secret etc to see how it's done when stimulating sales is the name of the game.

So I feel the lens choice of the 105mm macro that you used is the most appropriate lens.

By critiquing your photography, there is nothing wrong with the photographs on a technical level, it's just that the style seems mismatched to the mission. My $0.02. I wish you the best with your project.

 

[Design Man]

Appreciate the words. The approach of using portraiture photography in fashion just seems to be my style. I have been using shots like these on postcards for about 5 years and now want to create a website that would be like a photographers web site, but promoting high end menswear namely suits, jackets, pants, shoes, shirts and neckwear. No sportswear. I purposely choose not to use models, just like I use forms without heads so people can see themselves wearing the clothing and not think they need to look like some gorgeous thin model to look good. I totally see your point of the bokeh which I was trying to use just for effect, ie the picture of the silk velvet tie with the shirt collar and part of the jacket blurred out. I really did not want the pictures to look like they came from a catalog, but to be more artistic in nature. I don't plan on showing an entire garment in a photo at all on the site leaving more to the imagination, but showing the fabrication and coloration giving glimpses of parts of a garment to entice the online viewer to learn more. I do not plan to sell online. I do the photography as a hobby and the clothing design as a full time job. I will be taking many more pictures this week while I have these lenses and will stop down to see the difference in the shots. I'll post some more tomorrow, thanks.

 

[Bogdan_M]

I have no experience about this type of photos, setting up artigficial lighting and stuff, but I can answer you about the 100 macro. Normally it should be the sharpest of them all, only slightly more sharp then the 135 L and the difference should be bigger with the others. So it's either a problem with your sample, or a flare issue that kills contrast.

By the way, for close up pictures, the 85mm non L has a shorter minimum focusing distance and stopped down a bit for DOF it's as good as the 85mm L.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bogdanmoisuc/

 

[Reciprocal]

I totally see your point of the bokeh which I was trying to
use just for effect, ie the picture of the silk velvet tie with the
shirt collar and part of the jacket blurred out. I really did not
want the pictures to look like they came from a catalog, but to be
more artistic in nature.

--

Then I believe you are successful to that mission statement. There is style evident. Personally I'm not bothered by the concerns about sharpness or contrast. For one thing, who evaluates a lens looking at processed pictures that have undergone size reductions for web publishing? You have to make that judgment yourself based at the native resolution.

I like your portrait style, just haven't seen it used for garments. They definitely are artistic and don't look like they came from a catalog.

 

[maiaibing]

By the way, for close up pictures, the 85mm non L has a shorter
minimum focusing distance and stopped down a bit for DOF it's as good
as the 85mm L.

Yes, but neither are great for close-ups.