posted a few pics from the first half of Jen's session a few weeks ago in the People forum, i like these two from the second half of that session a tad better - (as always, i don't have feelings so don't feel a need to hold back)..
Like you I own and enjoy large aperture lenses. But I've been rethinking my application of those tools on reviewing my work, as I'm seeing an unfavorable trend in my results: The very limited DOF, while prized by us as photographers, doesn't always improve shots like this. Aside form wishing her face was sharper, I'd also have liked greater sense of the environs than your high degree of lens blur offers. So for compositions like #4, I'm advocating more rare use of the 1.2-1.8 lifestyle, and more shots at, say, 2.5 to 4. That way when a series is presented, the really narrow DOF shots "mean more" to me as a viewer because you've shown us greater context with your greater dof shots. I don't mean to offer the 'opinion masquerading as fact' feedback - it's just my thought.
John Caldwell wrote:
Nice series, just like the last you posted.
Like you I own and enjoy large aperture lenses. But I've been rethinking my application of those tools on reviewing my work, as I'm seeing an unfavorable trend in my results: The very limited DOF, while prized by us as photographers, doesn't always improve shots like this. Aside form wishing her face was sharper, I'd also have liked greater sense of the environs than your high degree of lens blur offers. So for compositions like #4, I'm advocating more rare use of the 1.2-1.8 lifestyle, and more shots at, say, 2.5 to 4. That way when a series is presented, the really narrow DOF shots "mean more" to me as a viewer because you've shown us greater context with your greater dof shots. I don't mean to offer the 'opinion masquerading as fact' feedback - it's just my thought.
very good point you make John, thank you for taking the time to put it into words - i often feel the same way, though i still mostly lean towards shooting at f/1.6 with the 50L or at f/2 with the 135L when i do beauty portraits.. however, i definitely think more about showing the environment when i shoot engagement/wedding portraits - i agree that offering a context for each photo allows us to better tell the story of a day/moment.. i'm personally just still very partial to the "watercolour" bokeh effect for beauty portraits, to me it keeps the focus on the model's face, with everything else being secondary.. thanks for your thoughts John!
great shots. very clean. Love the full length also. Were you shooting wide open at 1.2? I was thinking of getting the 50L but read all the tough focus issues and problems finding use wide open.
langdoy wrote:
great shots. very clean. Love the full length also. Were you shooting wide open at 1.2? I was thinking of getting the 50L but read all the tough focus issues and problems finding use wide open.
thank you! just did a quick exif check, the full-length was shot at f/1.8.. which makes sense because I typically try to stay within f/1.6 (my idea of acceptable sharpness + much better contrast) & f/2.2 (only for small group portraits at weddings) with the 50L.. i'd recommend borrowing the lens yourself to see if it's for you. i wouldn't necessarily believe all the negative press about the 50L, because it's definitely one of my $-maker lenses though it definitely does perform less reliably than the 35L or 135L for instance.. while some wedding photographers I know swear by the 50L wide open for its dreaminess, i prefer the balance of sharpness/bokeh/microcontrast at f/1.6.. the rendering of this lens is pretty special though.
also, in my limited portrait studio space, the 50L is one of my go-to lenses for full body shots when the 70-200mkII isn't wide enough.. i find that 50mm is the widest lens that doesn't distort perspective in an altogether ugly way for full-length photos.. (for what it's worth, if i ever had the $ & space to build my dream studio, i'd shoot with the 200f2IS almost exclusively =D)
