FYI: This Is The Gear Used To Take Obama’s New Official Portrait

[Robert Welch]

You think they would have taken the phone off the desk!?   

Well, they only allowed him 1/125th of a second to take the photo...no time to move the phone.

[Marsu42]

85L at 7.1. What a waste!!!

I never understood why portrait and extremely shallow dof seem to be synonymous for some - it's certainly nice to have the *option* for subject isolation and extreme background blur esp. if the bg is crappy, but if either the eye *or* the nose is in focus it's not necessarily the most pleasing look to me and probably non-photogs that don't get high when looking at a super-creamy bokeh (if they know the word) :-o

[Hobby Shooter]

I'm just jealous I can't afford the 85L, but can get the exact same shot with my 70-200 L f/4....

Maybe so, probably even with cheaper gear also.

In this case though you would never get that photo because they wouldn't let you in the oval office to take it   

About the phone being there, I would guess nothing is in this picture back accident.

Nice shot and interesting post.
About a couple of months ago I saw a documentary (can't remember if it was Discovery or NatGeo or History channel) about the President's photographer ... apparently the photographer takes photos of the president all day long and he is not permitted to delete even a single photo, even if it is a crappy shot. 

That's interesting facts. Do you think he's allowed to use the rate button so at least he can keep the post production to a minimum?

[RLPhoto]

85L @ 7.1 is stupendous sharp. It's pretty discreet but why when you have two strobes to light him?

[gmrza]

85L at 7.1. What a waste!!!

I never understood why portrait and extremely shallow dof seem to be synonymous for some - it's certainly nice to have the *option* for subject isolation and extreme background blur esp. if the bg is crappy, but if either the eye *or* the nose is in focus it's not necessarily the most pleasing look to me and probably non-photogs that don't get high when looking at a super-creamy bokeh (if they know the word) :-o

I think you mostly use f/1.2 when you first get the lens - because you can, and then you start to get real realise that in order to shoot portraits with both eyes in focus, you do need to stop the lens down.
The real justification for shooting this lens wide open is when you are just desperate for light, or when you have a subject where you want to isolate one small part, but not for normal portraits.

[sanj]

85L at 7.1. What a waste!!!

I never understood why portrait and extremely shallow dof seem to be synonymous for some - it's certainly nice to have the *option* for subject isolation and extreme background blur esp. if the bg is crappy, but if either the eye *or* the nose is in focus it's not necessarily the most pleasing look to me and probably non-photogs that don't get high when looking at a super-creamy bokeh (if they know the word) :-o

I think you mostly use f/1.2 when you first get the lens - because you can, and then you start to get real realise that in order to shoot portraits with both eyes in focus, you do need to stop the lens down.
The real justification for shooting this lens wide open is when you are just desperate for light, or when you have a subject where you want to isolate one small part, but not for normal portraits.

Yes and no.

[Rienzphotoz]

If ever one needs advice about how many actual shutter actuations the 5D MK III can withstand before it gives up, I think Pete Souza (the guy who took this photo of Obama) would be one of the few guys to know ... apparently he shoots 20000 photos a week of the president, so in less than 2 months he goes through 150000 (the official minimum shutter actuations limit by Canon for 5D MK III) ... unless someone in Canonrumors has already crossed that number.

[AJ]

I'm not blown away by bokeh.  Seems slightly nervous.  I see some outlining and doughnuts.

[Jesse]

Well, anyway, as Vincent Laforet says in his blog, there is NO reason to own the 85L if you're not shooting it between 1.2 - 2.0, as you might as well own the 70-200 II for only a few hundred $ more, with the ability to have the versatility of the zoom, much faster auto-focus, IS and pretty much equal sharpness.

If you can afford both, well, I'm jealous of you.

[tortilla]

Well, anyway, as Vincent Laforet says in his blog, there is NO reason to own the 85L if you're not shooting it between 1.2 - 2.0, as you might as well own the 70-200 II for only a few hundred $ more, with the ability to have the versatility of the zoom, much faster auto-focus, IS and pretty much equal sharpness.

If you can afford both, well, I'm jealous of you.

If I'd have to take portraits all day long I would also take a portrait lens, and not a zoom that is slower, heavier, more expensive and has other trade offs. IS is a plus, but obviously Souza uses lighting, so it doesn't matter here.

That said, I'm even jealous of your gear... 

[Rienzphotoz]

Well, anyway, as Vincent Laforet says in his blog, there is NO reason to own the 85L if you're not shooting it between 1.2 - 2.0, as you might as well own the 70-200 II for only a few hundred $ more, with the ability to have the versatility of the zoom, much faster auto-focus, IS and pretty much equal sharpness.

If you can afford both, well, I'm jealous of you.

What I understood from the video (Presidents Photographer) is that he follows the President all day long and takes 20000 photos a week, so carrying a big heavy like 70-200, all day long, would be a bit too much (especially for a 59 year old like Pete Souza) ... also in that video I saw him work mostly with a 35 f/1.4 & 85 f/1.2 lenses ... the only other lens I saw him use in that video was 24-70 (if I am not wrong it was mostly used outdoors).
So don't be jealous ... be happy that you are a strong young person with the muscles and strength to carry a 70-200 all day long

[infared]

85L at 7.1. What a waste!!!

LOL!
That was my 1st thought, too!...but it's America...you could not cream the background too much...we need to see those flags and be able to identify them!...plus f/7.1 is a nice safe aperture to get The Prez good and sharp and save the photographer's butt.
I like the shot. It is a conservative, it has to be. So it is perfect for the intended audience. Nice low angle so we get the feeling of power. (Color balance could be a tad warmer..but that is not a shot killer here). It makes The President look in-charge, but accessible (his expression conveys that). The shot is also somewhat relaxed, i.e. not stiff, so I think it captures Barrack's personality, too.  Job well done in the short, stressful time Mr. Sousa had to shoot it!
The phone isn't a prop....Barrack demanded that the phone be there in case his office went into DEFCON 5 National Emergency Mode! 

[Marsu42]

I'm just jealous I can't afford the 85L, but can get the exact same shot with my 70-200 L f/4....

Actually, you CAN'T get the exact same shot.  There's a reason he has the photography job he does and you, well...

You seem to be very sure of yourself (which is probably a success recipe for a pro photog) but if you write something like this, would you please care to enlighten us why 85L@f7.1 != 70-200/x@f.71 ?

[tortilla]

I'm just jealous I can't afford the 85L, but can get the exact same shot with my 70-200 L f/4....

Actually, you CAN'T get the exact same shot.  There's a reason he has the photography job he does and you, well...

You seem to be very sure of yourself (which is probably a success recipe for a pro photog) but if you write something like this, would you please care to enlighten us why 85L@f7.1 != 70-200/x@f.71 ?

Probably not - DxO Mark measures only f/5.6 and f/8 

[smithy]

It's not often I see people flaming each other like this on CR.  Quite amusing, but unnecessary I'm sure.

The portrait looks good to me.  If someone paid me to take a photo of a president, I'd be wanting to make sure the darned thing was in focus - so I can understand why he'd be wanting to use f/7.1.  Shoot at f/1.2 and you'd probably only get one eye in focus - how embarrassing... "Mr President?  I need to come back to the White House to take your photo again because it's out of focus."

"You're fired."