85mm 1.2L II on Haute Dogs

[BL]

not sure what's to dislike. i love animals so these brought a smile

for some reason they do look better through the link hosted offsite

thanks for sharing!

 

[jondave]

I would have preferred responses like “Whoa, how did you do that?”, but being this here is a forum, I recognize/respect everyone’s two cents. 8)

So okay, here’s the context of the shooting that afternoon. Focusing an 85mm 1.2 LII mated to a 5D2 at f1.2 on the eye of a person is difficult. If you have tried this set up, you know what I’m talking about. Then imagine taking photos of an excitable pooch in a small crowded park filled with the scent and mugs of 101 other canines, their humans and mini humans. Let me tell you, it’s not going to be a walk in the park. You are literally crawling.

It was one of those days when I was shooting for myself, with no client to please or anything like that. I like to give myself some sort of a challenge on days like this, and sharpen my photographic reflexes, so to speak. The plan was to “work” the event with the gear I was carrying -one body and one lens only, 5D2 and 85mm 1.2 LII. Stick to ISO 100, and no aperture smaller than 2.5.

But why at huge apertures? Simply because it is not easy to do, therefore it’s a challenge. I could have just gone the way of the F8 And Be There Philosophy, but that would have been too easy, too formulaic and boring for me. I mean where’s the challenge? Let’s try something different. Maybe if I were shooting for Petsmart or Iams, I would get everything in focus from the whiskers to the tail.


All images I post in forums are at 75 dpi, and that might help explain the observed softness. Also consider that I don’t ever do any sharpening –that’s just a personal preference. Most of the images were shot with apertures between 1.2 and 1.8. (There were a couple of images wherein the dog owners requested copies of, so I made those at 4.5 or 5.6.) The narrow slivers of depth of field and low resolution contribute to the perceived softness. If you go to the full res gallery, you will see the difference. The minimum I require is that the nearest eye should be in focus, and that’s what you’ll notice. Maybe there’s an image or two that may not be spot on, but I’m more than happy with my keep rate.

Why did you even post your photos if you didn't want to be criticized? The world is cruel my friend, you'll either be praised if you're good or torn apart if you're not.

In your case, I think there's a difference between challenging yourself and what's objectively appropriate for the scenes/subjects you took.

Yes it's difficult to shoot moving subjects at large apertures, but I don't think it was appropriate for this. Bokeh? Yes it is definitely nice, but inappropriate for this scenario.

Post processing is no excuse why your images are soft. That actually says a lot about your skills in post. The images are soft, period.

I also don't understand your preference not to sharpen. What's the point of using good glass then if not to get the sharpest images? Pros know the technical reasons why output sharpening is required. Some level of output sharpening is always required. Your preference not to sharpen comes across to me as you simply don't know why you need to and don't know how to.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[pdirestajr]

Why is "sharpness" such a requirement for photos now? Why can't a photo be "soft"? Or anything less than the optimal sharpness of a lab test? Photography is still considered art last time I checked. Most of the critiques on the poster's photos are subjective. Chill on the pixel peepin.

 

[jondave]

Why is "sharpness" such a requirement for photos now? Why can't a photo be "soft"? Or anything less than the optimal sharpness of a lab test? Photography is still considered art last time I checked. Most of the critiques on the poster's photos are subjective. Chill on the pixel peepin.

No one's is pixel peeping. It's outrightly obvious that the photos are soft.

And you're missing the point. Softness is ok if appropriate for the scene/subject. In this case I don't think it's appropriate.

Yes photography is an art. But it doesn't mean any guy with a camera is an artist.

 

[LightCrafterPhotography]

Why did you even post your photos if you didn't want to be criticized?

I have yet to find somebody who posts online just because he wants to see the criticisms. But any sane person who posts online knows that criticisms come with the territory. I’m not averse to it, and I defended my position by defining the context in which the shoot was made. But it seems that you chose to disregard it.

 

[pdirestajr]

Why is "sharpness" such a requirement for photos now? Why can't a photo be "soft"? Or anything less than the optimal sharpness of a lab test? Photography is still considered art last time I checked. Most of the critiques on the poster's photos are subjective. Chill on the pixel peepin.

No one's is pixel peeping. It's outrightly obvious that the photos are soft.

And you're missing the point. Softness is ok if appropriate for the scene/subject. In this case I don't think it's appropriate.

Yes photography is an art. But it doesn't mean any guy with a camera is an artist.

I wasn't aware there were rules on when/ where a certain technique
Is allowed to be used. Next you are goin to say it's not "appropriate" to take a portrait with a wide angle lens!

 

[LightCrafterPhotography]

Post processing is no excuse why your images are soft. That actually says a lot about your skills in post.

I don't know where you got this. Did you find it in any of my posts mentioning an excuse like that? Come on.

 

[LightCrafterPhotography]

What's the point of using good glass then if not to get the sharpest images?

Exactly my point. Because it's good glass there is no need to sharpen.

 

[LightCrafterPhotography]

Some level of output sharpening is always required. Your preference not to sharpen comes across to me as you simply don't know why you need to and don't know how to.

Always required? Really? By whom? By you? If you are to be believed, then my career in photography is done because I have not sharpened and apparently I don't know why I need to and don't know how to according to you. And yet, I'm still waiting for a single customer asking for a refund because my "images are soft".

 

[LightCrafterPhotography]

Why is "sharpness" such a requirement for photos now? Why can't a photo be "soft"? Or anything less than the optimal sharpness of a lab test? Photography is still considered art last time I checked. Most of the critiques on the poster's photos are subjective. Chill on the pixel peepin.

No one's is pixel peeping. It's outrightly obvious that the photos are soft.

And you're missing the point. Softness is ok if appropriate for the scene/subject. In this case I don't think it's appropriate.

Yes photography is an art. But it doesn't mean any guy with a camera is an artist.

I wasn't aware there were rules on when/ where a certain technique
Is allowed to be used. Next you are goin to say it's not "appropriate" to take a portrait with a wide angle lens!

Cyberopinions are cheap. Like an orifice, everyone has at least one.

 

[LightCrafterPhotography]

In your case, I think there's a difference between challenging yourself and what's objectively appropriate for the scenes/subjects you took.

Yes it's difficult to shoot moving subjects at large apertures, but I don't think it was appropriate for this. Bokeh? Yes it is definitely nice, but inappropriate for this scenario.

If you are a practitioner of photography, or even if just dabbling a little, you should know what creative vision is. Right? It’s how you look at things as a photographer. It’s very important because that is the soul of your photography.

To impose your vision on another photographer’s vision is a huge no-no. That’s a line that you do not ever cross. You can always state that you do not like the images, and that’s ok, that is acceptable. But to insist that the only way to take pictures of dogs is your way and the only way, especially when I had already defined and stressed the context in which the shoot was made at the time that it was executed, then you have crossed that line. Maybe at a different time, I will have shot it a different way, which might jive with the way you were describing. But at the time that it was shot, it was executed the way I had planned it, whether you like it or not.

I can shoot with the lens cap on anytime I want, post it here, and there is nothing you can do about it. But I bet you will have something to post, like “your horizon is not level” or “the image is upside down”. So what if the images are really soft? Is it hurting you?

Photography is supposed to open minds, not close them.

 

[wickidwombat]

Sheesh give the guy a break guys I had no intention of starting a sharpness witch hunt it was merely an observation perhaps some AFMA might help. Cute subjects though