151
Lenses / Re: Your Go To Portrait Lens?
« on: November 20, 2011, 04:58:48 AM »
Assuming a FF body, the 24-70 f/2.8L and the 85 f/1.2L II...
May 21, 2013, 12:22:06 PM
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
152
United States / Re: Homecoming pics, tips?
« on: November 03, 2011, 07:55:42 AM »
You're welcome! You learned some very valuable lessons about using that little pop-up flash! #1. If you are close enough to your subject, that little flash can provide just the right amount of light to make your pictures "pop"! #2. If your background is quite a distance behind your subjects, then you won't see any tell-tale shadows behind them that tip off the fact that you used a flash! That's why I asked you if you had possibly used a reflector; I couldn't see a trace of a shadow in your pics! #3. If you want the fill flash to be even more subtle, go into your menu and locate "flash compensation". Drop it down, toward the negative, 1/3 of a stop and it will reduce the flash just a touch. If you want to try a more edgy look, crank it up (toward the positive) 1/3 or 2/3 of a stop. That should purposely underexpose the background and make the subjects even more obviously "flashed". More of a paparazzi look...
153
Lenses / Re: Why is the 50mm f2.5 macro so cheap?
« on: November 03, 2011, 06:35:09 AM »really? 20 years old!!! wow
Hows the AF on it? slow?
LOL! LOUD and SLOW! Years before the USM lenses... I used it for police forensic photography; so the fingerprints and dead bodies didn't seem to mind too much...
154
Lenses / Re: Why is the 50mm f2.5 macro so cheap?
« on: November 02, 2011, 07:03:32 AM »
Well, it's an old design. I bought mine nearly 20 years ago to use on an EOS 10s body. It doesn't have USM so it is a little noisy. That being said, it is still one of the sharpest lenses I own. Stop it down to f/5.6 or smaller and it is tack sharp. On a crop body it's effectively an 80mm so it can do double-duty as a portrait lens. The filter size is 52mm so they're cheap. I have a collapsible lens shade on mine to reduce any possibility of flare. I think it is a bargain; if mine broke today I would order another one to replace it...
155
Canon General / Re: 50mm Focal length for portrait
« on: November 02, 2011, 04:34:18 AM »
If you go to this thread there were some pretty good points bantered about...
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,1978.0.html
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,1978.0.html
156
United States / Re: Upgrading lenses
« on: November 02, 2011, 04:14:21 AM »
Looking at your lineman shot... Only their upper bodies are sharp because there is relatively little motion occuring there... Even their feet are blurry because 1/60th of a second won't freeze much... If you had a f/2.8 lens you could have shot that at 1/250th... An f/2.0 would have allowed 1/500th... I think that's why people are steering you toward faster lenses versus a body that might just give you a single stop of ISO difference... I would also heed the advice to shoot in RAW and try to clean things up in post versus in-camera JPG processing...
157
United States / Re: Homecoming pics, tips?
« on: November 02, 2011, 03:53:26 AM »
I think you did a real fine job! Especially for a first effort! Mind some constructive criticism?
#1: Real nice! I'm usually not a fan of the horizon running downhill, but somehow it works for this pic. You have placed their hands very well; human hands are generally ugly. Nice little sparkle to the eyes, did you use fill flash or a reflector? As the photographer, you're in charge of appearance; have the young man tuck in his shirt (back). Have the young lady run a brush through her hair just before the shot to blend/smooth it. You blurred the background quite nicely and it really makes the couple stand out! I'll bet you were very pleased with this one!
#2: Cute! Love how she kicked up her foot! Try not to photograph the back of a ladies hand; have her rotate it slightly so it presents the edge. He looks stiff; as if he's trying to pull away from her. Have him cock his head slightly toward her. His hand looks awkward; it should be somewhere or doing something. Have him drop it in his trouser pocket, rest it on her hip, grab her sash, just something... Try not to cut part of the body if you don't have to; his left shoe... Nice job on the background and making the couple stand out from it!
#3: Yes, they are too cool for words! The guy on the left is a little too edged; you miss out on his vest and his tie. The guy on the right has a perfect angle for a gentleman. You have the two classic "guy" hands-in-pockets versions; thumbs in and thumbs out. When you pose a gentleman in a suit/tux, pull the sleeve of his dress shirt out past the cuff of the jacket. Then have him put his hand in his pocket. You should see a sliver of shirt cuff and a sliver of skin... If they're friends, try to close that gap between them somewhat. Distance between subjects in a portrait strike the eye as emotional separation/aloofness... Again, great job on background selection and selective focus!
I don't know where you shot these, but that location would definitely go into my book as a great portrait spot. Start developing a personal location guide; note location, time of day, weather, and the size of group a location will support (single, couple, or a family of 10...) Hope this was helpful!
#1: Real nice! I'm usually not a fan of the horizon running downhill, but somehow it works for this pic. You have placed their hands very well; human hands are generally ugly. Nice little sparkle to the eyes, did you use fill flash or a reflector? As the photographer, you're in charge of appearance; have the young man tuck in his shirt (back). Have the young lady run a brush through her hair just before the shot to blend/smooth it. You blurred the background quite nicely and it really makes the couple stand out! I'll bet you were very pleased with this one!
#2: Cute! Love how she kicked up her foot! Try not to photograph the back of a ladies hand; have her rotate it slightly so it presents the edge. He looks stiff; as if he's trying to pull away from her. Have him cock his head slightly toward her. His hand looks awkward; it should be somewhere or doing something. Have him drop it in his trouser pocket, rest it on her hip, grab her sash, just something... Try not to cut part of the body if you don't have to; his left shoe... Nice job on the background and making the couple stand out from it!
#3: Yes, they are too cool for words! The guy on the left is a little too edged; you miss out on his vest and his tie. The guy on the right has a perfect angle for a gentleman. You have the two classic "guy" hands-in-pockets versions; thumbs in and thumbs out. When you pose a gentleman in a suit/tux, pull the sleeve of his dress shirt out past the cuff of the jacket. Then have him put his hand in his pocket. You should see a sliver of shirt cuff and a sliver of skin... If they're friends, try to close that gap between them somewhat. Distance between subjects in a portrait strike the eye as emotional separation/aloofness... Again, great job on background selection and selective focus!
I don't know where you shot these, but that location would definitely go into my book as a great portrait spot. Start developing a personal location guide; note location, time of day, weather, and the size of group a location will support (single, couple, or a family of 10...) Hope this was helpful!
158
United States / Re: Canon 135L or the 100L Macro?
« on: October 25, 2011, 07:10:29 AM »
I noticed that you own a 7D and a 24-70L... That lens should be a 38-112 equivalent with a 1.6x crop... That encompasses most of the classic portraiture focal lengths... Are you unhappy with your IQ or some other aspect? Just curious...
159
Lenses / Re: Want to buy a portrait lens
« on: October 25, 2011, 05:06:34 AM »For a full frame 5D MK II like yours, 85mm and 135mm are classis portrait focal lengths. 100mm is ok as well. As the focal length gets longer, it tends to flatter a face, while wider angles must be used with care to avoid having noses look too large.
Even 200 and 300mm lenses are used by for portraits, you just need to get way back.
My favorite is the 135mm L, but I have room to move back from the subject most of the time. Otherwise, 85mm is a good choice.
Exactly right! Portrait photographers, eons ago (right, Mt. Spokane?), determined that a mild telephoto (80mm-120mm) was just about ideal for photographing the human face. They offer just the right amount of compression to flatter the average face. Have great portraits been taken with a 50mm? Sure! How about a 200mm? Yes again! But you can never forget that you are dealing with human subjects; and they might not all be family and friends... To get a nicely composed head shot with a 50mm, you're really into someone's personal space. You can get a nice, tight shot with a 200mm; but you're so far back you're practically yelling at your subject to get them properly posed... I like the 85mm because it gives you some room to work, but still keeps you close enough to communicate... Don't forget to microadjust the AF if you like the wide-open, limited DoF look... And if you put a UV filter on for protection, don't buy cheap glass... Hope this helps!
160
Lenses / Re: What lens to buy?
« on: October 25, 2011, 04:45:48 AM »I am ...getting into weddings.
Before you buy anything else, read Roger's blog post on the subject. Beyond the humorous approach, the issues are very real.
VERY good, Neuro! And VERY true! A lot of that comes down to knowing your eqipment; inside and out... Standing at the back of the church, trying to get a time exposure of the bride and groom lighting their unity candle, is NOT a good time to figure out how to lock the mirror up...
161
Lenses / Re: What lens to buy?
« on: October 24, 2011, 04:48:05 AM »
You're off to a great start with your 5DII. That said... Ianhar is right; you'll want to get a second body "just in case"... I used to shoot 25-35 weddings a year with a 28-35 2.8L (Interiors and fun wide-angles), a 28-70 2.8L (was on my camera 90% of the time), a 70-200 2.8L (shots from the back of the church when dealing with anti-camera ministers), and a 50 2.5 Macro (rings, bouquets, invitations, etc)... The 85 1.2L is a beautiful portrait lens and will be added to my collection soon... Buy a good quality strobe, I use Metz 60 CT-4's and a 45 CL-4, you can never have too much light... If you buy "L" glass, don't scrimp on your UV filters, buy top-quality glass...
Looking at what you already own my next purchase would be the 24-70 2.8L (maybe even II here shortly!)
Hope this was useful...
Looking at what you already own my next purchase would be the 24-70 2.8L (maybe even II here shortly!)
Hope this was useful...
162
EOS Bodies / Re: 1D x which new features will be carried to lesser cameras?
« on: October 23, 2011, 01:38:59 AM »
As a wedding/portrait/candid photographer, I am intrigued by the facial recognition feature. Not merely recognizing a generic human face; I had that on a two-year old Canon P&S. But to recognize and lock onto a specific human face...wow! You program the bride's face in there, you're out on that dance floor, and the AF is locked on her face and keeping it in constant focus. Not to mention metering her face for proper exposure; no more trying to compensate for that white dress blowing everything out. And the groom's black tux won't be sucking up all the light and overexposing his face. Being able to maintain a constant, pleasing composition and let the camera worry about keeping their faces in focus - all you have to do is grab the shot at the right moment. Portraits of toddlers/young children - same rationale and benefit. I would LOVE to see this feature, if it works as described, find it's way onto the 5DIII and/or the MP King that's sure to come out...
163
Lenses / Re: Which 50mm Macro lens is a better buy?
« on: October 22, 2011, 08:15:14 AM »
I bought a 50mm 2.5 Macro with my first EOS body; a 10s film camera. That was 20 years ago and I still have the same lens. It is still one of the sharpest lenses I own; especially if you stop it down to f/5.6 or so. Every wedding I ever shot it came out of the bag to get a great shot of the rings; cheesy, but couples expect it... It's effectively an 80mm lens on a crop body, and I have used it for portraits in a pinch. It is almost too sharp; you can see every pore and glitch. You can still get the same lens today at B&H for $284. It will get you to 1:2 out of the box and 1:1 with the extender. The focusing is NOT USM and very noisy for those not used to it; but I don't think the food will mind... 
164
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS Body options for second camera/present
« on: October 22, 2011, 07:27:23 AM »Oh boy! Something I can speak authoritatively on: being in trouble with a woman!
The reason the other gents keep saying 'jewelry' is that if you *EVER* cross the boundary where there was something that she really wanted and you got her something that's more of your thing, it gets dire and dramatic. Even the coolest ladies have a low level of that in the back of their minds, whether they know it or not (you just may never see it if it gets appeased easily). Seriously, but a little room in the budget for something that looks nice, even if it's not that expensive.
LMAO! Very funny and so true! Ever hear of the guy that buys his wife a cordless drill or a table saw for a gift? They normally disappear and are never heard from again! Don't end up under the roses; buy jewelry!
165
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS Body options for second camera/present
« on: October 22, 2011, 07:20:23 AM »Hmmmm... I can see why you would want to get her the camera; it would be fun, practical, and something you could do together. But for a wedding gift? I think you're right, she would probably love some jewelry from you. The camera would be great for Christmas or a birthday... 25 years from now, do you want her to say that you bought her a lovely pair of earrings on your wedding day, or a camera? Just trying to keep you off the couch, buddy!
+1. Learn from the mistakes of a guy who's been married three times. Get her jewelry.
LOL! So damn true!!!