All Forum Comments
Comment by Don posted on Flat looking at 21/11/2012 - 18:22
it's true... here's pamela anderson shots side by side, 100mm and 28mm lenses she is clearly flatter in the 100mm shot.
Comment by Don posted on Flat looking at 21/11/2012 - 08:42
my 85 2.2 soft works too.. often need nd filters..
Comment by Don posted on Portrait lens. at 20/11/2012 - 20:38
now I want to start a new site...
"you're not a pornographer"
am now taking submissions...
lol!
"you're not a pornographer"
am now taking submissions...
lol!
Comment by Don posted on your not a photographer at 20/11/2012 - 19:18
I agree with John. depending on your prefs you might conside rthe 35 2.4 or any 50 mm
also see this debate here:
https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/flat-looking-38195/p-0#comm427402
also see this debate here:
https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/flat-looking-38195/p-0#comm427402
Comment by Don posted on Portrait lens. at 20/11/2012 - 17:05
Algernon wrote:
Nice shot Don
Do all dogs in Canada have a flat face
It's nose looks to be in line with it's eye's
wuz chasin parked cars... nice dog, but not too bright..Nice shot Don
Do all dogs in Canada have a flat face
It's nose looks to be in line with it's eye's
Comment by Don posted on Flat looking at 20/11/2012 - 15:24
also referred to as "Compression of field" where features from fore ground and background are compressed in perspective... ie keeping the subject filling the same area of the frame but shooting the same subject, say a portrait, the subjects nose might appear bigger with a wide angle then a telephoto due to the tel's effect pulling the rest of the face closer to the tip of the nose.... compressing the image..
another example here:
with the cabin in the background being hundreds of yards away, through deep snow, I ised a 400 mm lens to "compress the field ) and pull the cabin in to fill the back ground of my image.....
and no I do not consider 100,, to be too flattening for my portriats.... I use lighting to bring back the 3-d
another example here:
with the cabin in the background being hundreds of yards away, through deep snow, I ised a 400 mm lens to "compress the field ) and pull the cabin in to fill the back ground of my image.....
and no I do not consider 100,, to be too flattening for my portriats.... I use lighting to bring back the 3-d
Comment by Don posted on Flat looking at 20/11/2012 - 14:25
Algernon wrote:
If you do prints from a 100mm lens Don, isn't it very flat
looking.
I used to hate using a 135mm on film anything bigger than
a postcard print looked terrible.
A general rule of thumb with prints from 35mm is that they
should be viewed from the same distance that they were
taken to show the proper perspective.... that's about 6ft
for a 10"x8" print.... It would be more for APS-C
I would use a 50mm/55mm.
-
I love the 100... and no they don't look flat...If you do prints from a 100mm lens Don, isn't it very flat
looking.
I used to hate using a 135mm on film anything bigger than
a postcard print looked terrible.
A general rule of thumb with prints from 35mm is that they
should be viewed from the same distance that they were
taken to show the proper perspective.... that's about 6ft
for a 10"x8" print.... It would be more for APS-C
I would use a 50mm/55mm.
-
Comment by Don posted on Portrait lens. at 20/11/2012 - 00:06
Mannesty wrote:
It'll surely show every pore, skin blemishes, and facial hair.
It may well be a suitable focal length, but I think that too much post-processing would be needed to soften the pin sharp images.
Portrait lenses are normally designed to be somewhat soft wide open, as is the FA 77mm Ltd lens and I believe, the FA* 85mm.
I don't do portraits, so I may be completely wrong.
weather with filters or other techniques, or photoshop it is always easier to make a sharp lens look soft than the other way around..Offertonhatter wrote:
Star, you already have a great portrait lens in your collection, namely the Tamron 90mm Macro.
Isn't this going to be way too sharp for a portrait lens?Star, you already have a great portrait lens in your collection, namely the Tamron 90mm Macro.
It'll surely show every pore, skin blemishes, and facial hair.
It may well be a suitable focal length, but I think that too much post-processing would be needed to soften the pin sharp images.
Portrait lenses are normally designed to be somewhat soft wide open, as is the FA 77mm Ltd lens and I believe, the FA* 85mm.
I don't do portraits, so I may be completely wrong.
may fav lens for digital portraits is the Pentax 100 mm macro..followed by the 50 1.4 then the 16-45
Comment by Don posted on Portrait lens. at 19/11/2012 - 20:59
not yet in Canada either...
Comment by Don posted on Pentax K-01 for $350? at 18/11/2012 - 13:00
this look falt to you?